Deforestation Narratives and Forest Use Realities of the Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor

Home , Ambohibary, Ambohidronono, Ambongamarina, Analamanga, Anjozorobe, Anjozorobe (district)

DEFORESTATION NARRATIVES AND FOREST USE REALITIES

OF THE ANJOZOROBE-ANGAVO FOREST CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA,

CENTRAL MADAGASCAR

KATE WRIGHT

B.A., DePauw University, 2011

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the

University of Colorado Colorado Springs

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of Geography

2017

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by

Kate Wright

has been approved for the

Department of Geography

Cerian Gibbes, Chair

David Havlick

Allison Hopkins

Date: May 8, 2017

Wright, Kate (M.A., Geography)

Deforestation narratives and forest use realities of the Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor

Protected Area, central Madagascar

Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Cerian Gibbes

ABSTRACT

Natural resource management in southern Africa increasingly utilizes community-based conservation (CBC) to engage communities near protected areas in the conservation of critical natural resources. CBC is often touted as a method for devolving control of resources to local levels of government, empowering subsistence resource users to sustainably manage the land, water, and wildlife on which they depend. However, CBC has also been criticized for perpetuating top-down conservation approaches under the guise of local management, for enabling elite takeover of resource management, and for ignoring local institutions and environmental knowledge in the implementation of conservation policies.

This research examines concerns over CBC in the context of the Anjozorobe-Angavo

Forest Corridor (AAFC) in central Madagascar, a newly designated protected area co-managed by local communities and the Malagasy organization Fanamby. My thesis focuses on determining the success of the AAFC in encouraging local participation in conservation efforts to protect forest resources and preserve indigenous livelihoods. To this end, I use a mixed- methodological approach comprised of semi-structured interviews with conservation stakeholders, non-participant observation of resource use in the AAFC, document analysis, and remote sensing analyses of land use and land cover change in the forest corridor between 2001 and 2015.

iii

Results indicate uncertainty among residents about the intent of conservation in the

AAFC due to poor communication at best, and lack of collaboration at worst, with the co- manager Fanamby. Land cover change trajectories within the forest corridor and interviews with community leaders support the conclusion that residents are not sufficiently empowered to safeguard the natural forest from exploitation, do not benefit from CBC as promised by

Fanamby, and disagree over strategies for protecting the AAFC from exploitation. The AAFC thus confirms findings from other protected areas in southern Africa that CBC often fails in its basic promise of including local communities in the management and conservation of natural resources. Broadly, this study contributes to the international dialogue on linking conservation with development by making the case for bottom-up CBC that igs loal ouities eistig resource management structures and resource needs into conservation policy to protect both biodiversity and local livelihoods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest thanks go to Jesy Ramiadamahefa, my translator and guide during my field work in Madagascar, without whom this research would not have been possible. Tena misaotra betsaka, Jesy. I would also like to thank the entire Ramiadamahefa family for their guidance and friendship. Thank you to Sara Santa Cruz for facilitating the translation of my preliminary research results, and to Allain and Finaritra for distributing copies to study participants. I am sincerely appreciative of the people who agreed to participate in this research and share their experiences in the Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor with me. Furthermore, thank you to the families in Anjozorobe who assisted me with directions to field sites, finding transportation, haggling for food in the market, purchasing phone and internet credits, and practicing my

Malagasy. These people are numerous and, like my study participants, prefer to remain anonymous, but I nonetheless would like to express my gratitude for their help.

Many people here in the United States were instrumental to my thesis research and writing. The UCCS Global Intercultural Center and the Women in Geography fund provided financial support for my field research. Professor Suzanne Cook and the UCCS Language Center helped hugely with my language preparation and IRB document translations. Of course, my thesis committee deserves some serious recognition. Thank you to Dr. Allison Hopkins for your helpful feedback via phone, email, and Skype, and to Dr. David Havlick for your kind constructive criticism and willingness to learn Malagasy word pronunciations. And I am extremely grateful to my thesis advisor, Dr. Cerian Gibbes, who made the easy things more challenging and the challenging things easier. Its ee a pleasue okig with you.

Finally, I would like to thank the students and faculty of the Geography Department who supported me in countless ways over the past two years. Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Organization of the Thesis ...... 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 2

Natural Resource Management ...... 2

Community-based Natural Resource Management ...... 3

Conservation ...... 6

Indigenous and Western Conservation ...... 6

Tropical Forest Conservation ...... 8

Conservation and Resource Management in Africa ...... 10

Coseatios Coloial Histo ...... 10

Integrated Conservation and Development (ICD) ...... 11

Community-based Conservation (CBC) ...... 14

Southern Africa ...... 16

Madagascar ...... 18

International Influences on Conservation ...... 19

The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP)...... 21

Local Land Management ...... 23

Community-based Conservation Approaches ...... 24

Emerging Issues in Community-based Conservation...... 27

Purpose of this Study ...... 29

III. EXTERNAL ACTORS, LOCAL IMPACTS: EXAMINING THE CHALLENGES OF COMMUNITY-BASED

RAINFOREST CONSERVATION IN CENTRAL MADAGASCAR ...... 31

Introduction ...... 31

Methods ...... 35

Study Area ...... 35

Interviews ...... 38

Remote Sensing ...... 40

Results ...... 42

Interviews with Local Leaders ...... 42

Land Cover Change ...... 44

Discussion ...... 49

Geographic and Environmental Factors ...... 46

Structural Factors ...... 50

Deforestation Narratives ...... 51

Study Limitations ...... 52

Conclusion ...... 54

IV. THEY TH‘EATEN OUR FO‘E“T: A QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT IN THE ANJOZOROBE-ANGAVO FOREST CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA ...... 54

Introduction ...... 54

vii

Methods ...... 58

Study Area ...... 58

Interviews ...... 61

Interview Analysis ...... 62

Study Limitations ...... 63

Results ...... 63

Fanamby Interviews ...... 63

Local Leader Interviews ...... 65

Involvement in the Planning and Management of the AAFC ...... 65

Attitudes Toward Formalized Conservation ...... 67

Perceptions of Conservation Effectiveness ...... 70

Discussion ...... 76

Resource use in a Category V protected area ...... 76

Defiig the Couit i Couit-based Conservation...... 78

‘esidets Ifluence on the Future of the AAFC ...... 80

Conclusion ...... 81

V. CONCLUSIONS ...... 83

REFERENCES ...... 85

APPENDICES ...... 103

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Communities Impacted by the AAFC ...... 39

2. Threats to Forest Conservation ...... 43

3. Perceptions of Responsibility ...... 43

4. Uses ad Podues Accuracy for Each Cover Class ...... 46

5. Communities Impacted by the AAFC ...... 60

6. Collaboration with Fanamby, by Region and Political Scale ...... 66

7. Expressions of Marginalization and Empowerment ...... 67

8. Expressions of Pride and Ownership ...... 68

9. Threats to Forest Conservation ...... 71

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Study Area ...... 37

2. Proposed Solutions for Addressing Forest Threats ...... 44

3. Photo Documentation of Land Cover Change ...... 45

4. Classification Results ...... 46

5. Change Trajectory Results ...... 48

6. Study Area ...... 59

7. Compensation and Other Benefits of Conservation ...... 69

8. Perceptions of Resource Use ...... 72

9. Perceptions of Responsibility for Forest Damage ...... 73

10. Proposed Solutions to Forest Threats ...... 75

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Organization of the Thesis

This thesis is structured as follows: Chapter II provides a review of the literature.

Chapters III and IV present my original research, and both function as stand-alone research articles that may be submitted for publication. Therefore, content is repeated in chapters II though IV to ehae eades opehesio of these setios as separate articles. My conclusions drawn from my research and review of the literature are provided in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Natural Resource Management

The management of natural resources for conservation and sustainable use purposes looms large in the study of geography. Natural resources like land, water, timber, and plants and animals for food figure prominently in human societies, and often the same resources are in high demand among members of and between communities. Thus, utilization must be managed to ensure access without overexploitation and depletion of critical natural resources.

Throughout its history, natural resource management has centered on conservation, in which protection of a resource is coupled with regulated consumption with the goal of maintaining the resource for future use. This management strategy is also referred to as sustainable resource use, and current literature and discourse in the field of conservation focuses heavily on sustainability as a resource management practice.

Studies of sustainable natural resource governance typically reference the concept of

oual esoues. I , Gaet Hadi aed of the taged of the oos, the extreme ecological degradation that ensues when people have unconstrained access to

oual atual esoues. The elief that uses of oo esoues ill eoe loked ito a poess of oeeploitatio fo self-preservation (Hardin 1968, 162), ultimately depleting those resources, has influenced land management policies that regulate resource use by local

ouities. Hadis assesset asts loal people as ieffetie eioetal steads, requiring institutional interventions to ensure the sustainable management of natural resources.

Defenders of community-level resource management point to traditional land governance systems that utilize generations of ecological knowledge and established community structures to inform sustainable natural resource use. Ostrom (1990) cites case studies of communities worldwide that have maintained collective land governance strategies fo etuies. That these log-eduig oo popet istitutios hae pesisted, ofte alongside private land tenure systems, demonstrates the utility of collective resource management fo a ouities, as the ould hae had a oppotuities to deise different land-teue aageets oe tie if olletie aageet had ot poe universally beneficial (Ostrom 1990, 61).

Community-based Natural Resource Management

The degree to which local residents (versus political institutions) should govern the use of natural resources figures prominently in natural resource management debates. Ostrom et al.

(1999, 281) stress that users of common-pool resources must have some measure of autonomy i the egulatio of esoue use i ode to peeie eefits fo thei o estitios.

Others argue that state governments prove more effective in equitably managing resource use for environmental and social sustainability, and that participatory resource management failitates ta doiat ees of soial goups Cooke ad Kothai .

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) strives to incorporate local livelihoods and resource needs into protected area management as a means of garnering the support of local communities for environmental protection. As defined by Brosius et al. (1998,

158),

Couit-based natural resource management programs are based on the premises that local populations have a greater interest in the sustainable use of resources than does the state or distant corporate managers; that local communities are more cognizant of the intricacies of local ecological processes and practices; and that they are

more able to effectively manage those resoues though loal o taditioal fos of aess.

CBNRM thus valorizes the input of often-marginalized local resource users who lack the political power to implement land management policies yet rely greatly on natural resource use for their livelihoods and have useful contextualized knowledge about their immediate environment.

At the same time, CBNRM runs the risk of homogenizing local communities and oversimplifying indigenous environmental knowledge. Indigenous knowledge is not comprehensive, ut istead uite diffeetiated aoss a ouit Biggs , sie it is co-produced by members of various social groups. Furthermore, indigenous knowledge changes when incorporated into new settings and as communities adapt their practices and

eeds oe tie. Theefoe, the iopoatio of loal ouities esoue eeds ad management systems into conservation practices is not an ideal alternative to institutional conservation approaches when the nuances of local knowledge are overlooked.

Critics of CBNRM also point to the inherent assumptions that CBNRM makes about social structures as well as its potential to create or exacerbate power differences within target communities. Agrawal and Gibson (1999), for instance, question the appropriateness of the

ouit as a deisio-making body in environmental management. Like Briggs (2005),

Agrawal and Gibson (1999) contend that CBNRM favors communities of a small size, with a

hoogeous soial stutue, ad hose ees shae os ad ideologies (Agrawal and

Giso , . Little , alls the od ouit a ool isused te that a ioke a false sese of taditio, hoogeeit, ad osesus. This defiitio of

ouit i CBN‘M igoes the ultiple iteest groups, institutional processes, and formal and informal rules that exist at sub-community levels, effacing differences within externally defined communities and potentially skewing the representation of divergent resource management interests.

Agrawal and Gisos oes aout CBN‘M hae eeged i etai otets.

A comparative study of CBNRM programs in five countries found vastly different applications of

ouit-level resource management and largely attributed the disparities to differing societal structures and governance policies (Kellert et al. 2000). Dressler et al. (2010) evaluated community-centered resource management projects in six regions of the world, determining overall that CBNRM has served elite and external interests more so tha loal susistee

esoue uses. The affi, CBN‘M has eetl doe less to suppot idigeous ights to lad and biodiversity than it has to facilitate interventions which offer livelihood designs that align

ith fee aket piiples…addig laes of goeae that sipl opliate eig poo

(Dressler et al. 2010, 13).

Successful examples of CBNRM often involve collaboration between powerful external entities and local communities. For instance, Dressler et al. (2010) highlight the Bosawas

Reserve in Nicaragua, where implementation of CBNRM began when a local NGO and an international environmental agency approached indigenous leaders to determine their land use needs and desires. When the NGOs discovered that their biodiversity protection goals coincided with local interests in securing land tenure to prevent colonization by non-indigenous groups, the organizations collaborated with locals to develop a natural resource management plan that

eogized esidets lad ights ad epoeed their conservation of critical forests (Hayes

2007, Stocks et al. 2007, Hayes 2008). However, Dressler et al. (2010, 10) caution that the

Niaaguas otiued depedee o eteal assistae a edage futue idigeous conservation efforts.

Backlash to CBNRM and community-centered land management efforts stresses the failure of certain programs to include local communities, sustain natural resources, or both.

CBNRM tends toward a one-size-fits-all appoah that deies the opleit, diesit, ad

5 iteal diffeetiatio of loal ouities Blaikie , . I additio, CBN‘M pogas typically create formal resource management institutions that combine or supplant a variety of local, dynamic, and informal institutions that govern different aspects of community-level resource use, leading to reduced flexibility and the overpowering of established local systems

(Leach et al. 1999). Wilshusen et al. (2002) cite these and other shortcomings of CBNRM in their analysis of demands for a renaissane of potetioist oseatio stategies, oludig that only strict conservation policies that incorporate the social and political contexts of areas targeted for heightened biodiversity conservation will ultimately stand a chance of succeeding.

Conservation

Land governance policies worldwide link natural resource management with conservation, as both processes are critical to sustaining human livelihoods as well as ecological health (Ghai and Vivian 1992, Western and Wright 1994, Berkes 1995). Conservation is defined in varying and often conflicting ways by societies worldwide, and it is inherently linked to issues of political influence, economic gain, social organization and empowerment, and cultural beliefs.

Understanding the historical roots of conservation will help to explain current controversies in environmental protection and natural resource management.

Indigenous and Western Conservation

Conservation literature often contrasts western concepts of land management, sustainability, and biodiversity protection with indigenous environmental knowledge and practices, presenting these as unequal systems due to power differences rooted in colonialism

see fo eaple Bekes , Agaal ad defiitios of iilizatio Malioski ,

Lévi-Strauss 1966; also Horton 1967). Critiques of this dichotomy point to its simplification of

6 indigeneity and over-valorization of empirical science (Smith 1999, Coombes et al. 2012,

Radcliffe 2015). Still, the distinction between western and indigenous environmental practices has profoundly influenced the history and development of global land management strategies.

Indigenous conservation measures may incorporate place-specific knowledge developed through trial-and-error over many generations. Sacred areas, taboos, and folklore function to limit human use of certain animals, plants, and landscapes, and traditional land management regimens control the exploitation of common resources (Ostrom 1990, Gadgil et al. 1993, Pretty and Pimbert 1995). Resource users may adjust these practices over time in response to ecological observations or changes in human needs.

By contrast, conservation in western countries often involves governmental intervention in resource management through the creation of protectionist conservation policies. The

Romantic period of Anglo-American history, which began in the late eighteenth century, marks the egiig of este oeptualizatios of atue as fee fo hua eploitatio ad ifluee. Euopea ad Aeia ideas of ildeess, distit fo iilizatio, geatl informed western policies regarding resource management and environmental conservation

(Nash 1967, Cronon 1995). “peifiall, this oldie has esulted i a poli of settig aside land for preservation purposes, where resources are protected from human use. This term has become conflated with conservation, or the practice of delimiting areas where the use of resources is managed in a sustainable o pope way (see NPS 2017).

Formalized western conservation began with the 1872 creation of Yellowstone National

Park, the first exclusionary protected area, by the United States government to protect this unique landscape from overexploitation by local communities (Meyerson 2001). Initial conservation efforts at Yellowstone primarily aimed to prevent residents and industries from exhausting timber supplies and other environmental resources. United States Army troops

7 cleared out people residing within park boundaries, prosecuted poachers, and strictly enforced regulations within Yellowstone National Park. A few years later, the army stationed troops in the

Yosemite Valley to protect federal lands from similar issues of exploitation by local communities, creating a new standard for conservation and environmental protection in the United States

(Meyerson 2001).

Yellostoe Natioal Pak eae a odel fo foal paks ad esees oldide, plaes hee settleet is pohiited ad oth susistee ad oeial uses of atual

esoues ae aed “tees , . The Yellostoe odel of fotess oseatio

(Brockington 2002) spread to other parts of the world through European and American influence on other countries. Many subsequent protected areas created in South America, Asia, and Africa by western colonizers founded their environmental policies on the exclusionary principles of Yellowstone National Park. Such policies have had a devastating effect on indigenous human societies where livelihoods rely on natural resource use (Neumann 1998).

Tropical Forest Conservation

Over the last few decades, global conservation has increasingly focused on tropical ecosystems. Myers (1988) and Myers et al. (2000) identified areas of the world with relatively high biodiversity and endemism that are under threat of imminent extinction due to human atiities. Teed hotspots, these tet-five habitats have become a huge focus of global

oseatio. Te of the elee hottest hotspots, o ost theateed egios, ae i the tropics (Myers et al. 2000, Brooks et al. 2002). These areas therefore attract substantial international attention and financial support for the protection and preservation of biodiversity.

Deforestation and land degradation trends have been widely studied in tropical areas, yet continually changing environmental, social, and economic conditions in the region

8 necessitate sustained study of forest and land use. Furthermore, resource use is not uniform across all tropical regions. For instance, forest loss in African countries accounts for only 5.4% of all topial foest leaig, ail eause agiultual leaig does ot ou o a idustial scale as in other world regions (Hansen et al. 2008). However, simulations of rural population growth and the concurrent expansion of shifting agriculture suggest that annual deforestation rates will increase in parts of Africa (Zhang et al. 2002). At the household level, changing socioeconomic conditions can shift livelihoods toward more resource-exploitative pursuits.

Increased agricultural expansion (Van Soesbergen et al. 2016) and timber production (Duveiller et al. 2008, Kleinschroth et al. 2016) in an area, for example, are often linked with deforestation or forest degradation. Even small-scale agriculture and household-level natural resource use exert significant pressure on forest resources (Ryan et al. 2015).

Tropical forest conservation strategies often rely on the implementation of protected areas to slow or stop forest loss (Putz et al. 2001, Gibbes et al. 2009), though the success of protected areas as a conservation strategy remains contested (Wilshusen et al. 2002). Some regional-scale evidence supports the contention that protected areas that include local

ouities iput epeiee geate suess at ealizig oseatio goals (Naeem et al.

2016). However, global-scale land cover studies indicate higher population growth rates near protected areas (Wittemyer et al. 2008) and high loss of forest habitat in protected area buffer zones (DeFries et al. 2005), particularly in developing countries. Such findings may lead to the promotion of more stringent enforcement of exclusionary protected area policies. Still other regional-scale research indicates that tropical protected areas most effectively curb destructive human practices and preserve biodiversity when they combine enforcement and boundary demarcation with direct conservation benefits to local communities (Bruner et al. 2001). Clearly,

9 protected area success depends highly on the definition of conservation, the scale of measurement, and the desired outcomes of conservation efforts.

Conservation and Resource Management in Africa

The vast and varied African landscape appeals to the international community in many ways: as a tourism destination, as a source of natural resources, as a home to unique and fascinating wildlife, and as a place of transitioning livelihoods due to rapid economic deelopet i etai egios. ‘eogitio of the otiets high iodiesit peipitated international efforts to control human activities believed to menace African nature. Natural resource management throughout Africa has had a significant impact on human populations, leading to the promotion of various strategies for incorporating human needs into environmental protection.

Conservatio’s Colonial History

The colonial era of African history marks the beginning of formalized (western) conservation on the continent. Historical evidence shows that prior to settlement by European colonists, numerous African societies followed well-established and respected natural resource management regimes. Yet during the colonial era, African landscapes appealed to European

ostalgia fo pistie atue, iflueig oloizes egulatio of atual esoue use loal people. Such conceptualizations of ild Afia pesist toda. Igoe , -14) contends that, in Euro-Aeia ultue, Afia people ad Afia ildlife ae potaed as eoti ad ihaitig a uspoiled old that o loge eists i the West, poleatiall iflueig westees attitudes toad the osuptio ad peseatio of Afia ultues ad landscapes.

In the early 1900s, conservation strategies hinged on the establishment of game

esees, hih aied to osee aial populatios liitig hutes atiities in defined aeas, ofte offeig pefeetial aess to oloial toph hutes athe tha loal subsistence hunters (Beinart and Coates 1995). Conservation then expanded to include locations supposedly valued only for their high biodiversity and unique natural beauty. Colonial powers established strict protected areas in such locales, which often necessitated the expulsion of local communities (Dowie 2009) and the prohibition of resource extraction from these areas (Chatty and Colchester 2002, Brockington 2004). In some cases, areas slated for conservation contained valuable natural resources of which colonial governments claimed sole extractive rights (Dowie

2009). Post-World War II, colonial administrators ramped up exclusionary conservation programs in Africa as a means of redirecting indigenous workers from traditional lifestyles to

ode lao as a eas of pootig eooi deelopet Neumann 2002). Policies of strict environmental protection continued throughout the colonial era, which for most African nations lasted through the 1960s.

Integrated Conservation and Development (ICD)

Shifting approaches to conservation in Africa coincided with the release of colonial landholdings in the mid- to late 1900s and the advent of neoliberalism in the 1970s (Duffy

2006a, Dressler et al. 2010). As African states began to find footing as countries independent of diet oloial oesight, ipotat shifts oued i gloal thikig aout huaits ole i environmental protection. In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED) issued Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, which emphasized the economic benefits that conservation could provide to impoverished populations (WCED

1987). Some scholars began advocating for matching resource conservation with rural

11 development (Western 1984) and structuring protected area policies to better serve local populations (McNeely and Miller 1984). These developments allude to the realization on a gloal sale that the fate of ost of the eaths iodiesit la i the hads of poo people i the Thid Wold Weste ad Wight , .

In Africa, where newly independent nations initially attracted foreign aid for establishing democracies, neoliberalist beliefs of state goveets as ieffiiet ad potetiall oupt and of private companies as promoters of economic growth had a strong influence on global policy. African nations needed to encourage foreign economic investment in order to receive development assistance and loans from institutions such as the World Bank and International

Monetary Fund (Igoe 2004, 105). Thus, African states entered into dependent relationships with foreign, primarily western, governments, organizations, and companies, arguably lessening natioal goeets fous o ouit-level needs in the interest of attracting financial aid to support their regimes.

International pressure on African governments to conserve natural resources and landscapes coincided with the liberalization of markets and politics across Africa. Poorly funded state wildlife agencies could not effectively manage national park systems (Gibson and Marks

1995). Furthermore, rural communities near protected areas, often poor and disenfranchised, had little incentive to obey conservation regulations when their livelihoods depended on the use of natural resources (Brandon and Wells 1992). Private conservation donors advocated for the decentralization of land management to local communities through a form of CBNRM called

Integrated Conservation and Development Programs (ICDPs).

ICDPs strive to reduce local reliance on environmental resources by providing economic benefits in exchange for resource conservation. These initiatives, typically funded by foreign iestos, lik the conservation of biological diversity within a protected area to social and

12 eooi deelopet outside that poteted aea though eploet oppotuities, revenue-sharing, construction of community facilities such as schools and roads, and involvement in conservation decision-making for local communities (Newmark and Hough 2000,

585; see also Alpert 1996). Thus, residents benefit tangibly from their participation in the protection of biodiversity.

The Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) in Nepal provides an often-cited example of successful implementation of an ICDP. Stevens (1997a) reports that, though external agents originally identified conservation priorities, their intentional collaboration with local residents has led to a slow process of ICDP implementation that appreciably engages with community needs. However, the ACA may not enable participation by marginal groups within local

ouities Dahal et al. , heakeig to Agaal ad Gisos oes aout defiitios of ouit. Additionally, while (certain) community members participate actively in the ACA, it is possible that the link between conservation and development is not well understood or implemented. The Annapurna case arguably demonstrates the need for the conservation aspet of ICDPs to e itealized loall. I othe ods, the otio of a conservation problem may be identified externally, but afterward, close work with the community is necessary to incorporate their concerns and communicate the problem in meaningful loal tes Little , .

Though promising in its dual objectives of reducing environmental degradation and sustaining local livelihoods, integrated conservation and development (ICD) does not always achieve either of its two stated goals (Brandon and Wells 1992, Alpert 1996, Newmark and

Hough 2000). At the Annapurna Conservation Area, for instance, Baral et al. (2007, 2915) found that oseatio atiities ol ega to outpae deelopet atiities afte aout a deade ito the pojets. Thei fidig suggests that the ueual appliatio of ICDs dual adate led

13 to a favoring of community development over environmental conservation, with potential negative effects for the protection of local biodiversity. A common criticism of ICDPs is that conservation and development may not always be equally matched in scope and timing, or indeed cannot achieved simultaneously, thereby jeopardizing ICD goals.

Community-based Conservation (CBC)

In response to demands for the unlinking of conservation and development, a new paradigm of environmental protection has emerged that emphasizes local empowerment through formalized involvement in conservation planning and practice. Community-based

oseatio CBC ostesil eeses top-down, center-driven conservation by focusing on the people ho ea the osts of oseatio: i othe ods, liited aess to eessa

atual esoues Weste ad Wight , . The CBC appoah ais to itegate atual resources or biodiversity protection by, for, ad ith the loal ouit ito poteted aeas management (Western and Wright 1994, 7).

CBC efforts in Africa have been criticized for attempting to impose Western ideas about governance, land ownership, and resource management on local communities, thereby ignoring historical social and ecological contexts that determine how residents can engage in conservation efforts (Goldman 2003, Scales 2012, Cullman 2015). Inconsistent application of conservation policies and distribution of benefits can also jeopardize CBC efforts, as seen during

)iaes CAMPFI‘E poga Balit ad Mashia ad i Ugada Naughto-Treves et al. . Golda , oludes that CBC aages ust eshape thei o institutions and agendas to really fit communities – with their diverse needs, knowledge, and complex social and ecological structures – ito oseatio.

The presence or absence of local support for and participation in conservation can alter the success of protected areas (West and Brechin 1991, Western and Wright 1994, Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003, Berkes 2004, Hayes 2006), though the imperativeness of local support for conservation has been contested (Brosius et al. 1998, Brockington 2004). In many instances,

CBC efforts heighten distrust of protected area staff (Newmark et al. 1993, Davis 2011) and foreign NGO workers (Allendorf et al. 2007). They can also widen power differences among local residents along gender, economic, and ethnic lines (Schroeder 1995, West et al. 2006, Dowie

2009) and negatiel ipat loal lielihoods estitig esidets use of itiall ipotat

atual esoues Dais , Wallae et al. . Issues ith the defiitio of ouit and the processes of determining who can participate in CBC can lead to inadequate representation of the natural resource needs and conservation concerns of all residents

(Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Little 1994).

Complicating matters further, CBC programs typically receive external financial support, which raises questions about whose resource management interests are incorporated into these programs. The majority of conservation programs in Africa receive part or all of their funding from large, western-based conservation organizations (Brockington and Scholfield 2010). These donors hold considerable sway in protected areas management in Africa and can set terms and conditions for the receipt of funding, creating the potential for ideological conflict between community-level park managers and western financiers. CBC stakeholders may disagree over the itet, fous, ad patie of this tpe of eioetal potetio. The deepe ageda, fo most conservationists, is to make nature and natural products meaningful to rural

ouities, ite Weste ad Wight , . The otiue, As fa as loal ouities are concerned, the agenda is to regain control over natural resource and, through conservation practices, improve their economic well-eig ephasis added. I this a, doos ad

15 recipients differ in their conceptions of whether and how natural resources hold meaning for local communities.

Africa, as with other regions of the world, has experienced a shift in conservation appoahes toads a ephasis o i-i oseatio ad deelopet shees Gies and Keys 2010). In particular, southern Africa provides a variety of examples of successful and unsuccessful CBC initiatives that endeavor to empower local communities, encourage sustainable development, and conserve unique landscapes and wildlife. An analysis of some of these initiatives will serve to highlight the pros and cons of CBC in African nations.

Southern Africa

The southern Africa region exemplifies the wide variation in CBC initiatives. CBC programs have been implemented throughout the region over several decades in response to changing views of local communities, evolution in resource management strategies, and shifts in perceptions of resource scarcity and threats to biodiversity. The countries of southern Africa have a rich history of conservation efforts that attempt to include local perspectives both within and across national boundaries.

)iaes CAMPFI‘E poga is oth a highlight ad a lo poit fo CBC i southe

Africa. Implemented in 1989, CAMPFIRE, or the Communal Areas Management Program for

Indigenous Resources, aimed to incentivize conservation in remote areas by granting rural authoities the ights to aage, use, dispose of, ad eefit fo atual esoues Talo

2009, 2564), like by selling wildlife access rights to big game hunters and safaris. During the

1990s, CAMPFIRE spread in various forms to other southern African nations, including

Botswana, Zambia, and Namibia (Balint 2006). Though initially considered a model for CBC, the

Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE program has since expeieed issues ith idetifig the ouit of

16 resource owners, integrating into existing structures of resource ownership (Logan and Moseley

2002), and the breaking down of participatory decision-making processes, leading to control of resource management and profits by elites (Balint and Mashinya 2006). CAMPFIRE has fallen prey to many of the same issues experienced by other CBC programs in Africa.

More recently, transfrontier conservation areas (TCAs) have risen to the forefront of southern African CBC initiatives. As the name suggests, TCAs are protected areas that span the boundaries of two or more nations, necessitating collaboration between adjacent countries on conservation initiatives. These paks deostate the iteoetios ad etoks involved i the politis of oseatio, as the iole atos at ueous sales of goeets i diffeet outies, ofte geeatig e fos of oflit oe aess to ad otol oe

esoues aog these atos Duff , . More optimistically, however, Ali (2007) poides eaples of tasouda peae paks ad eploes the potetial use of TCAs i mitigating cross-border conflicts.

Conservation politics at the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park spanning South Africa and

Botswana were found to prolong historical inter- and intracommunity conflicts over land and resource access (Thondhlana et al. 2010) and obstruct participation in conservation by adjacent

ouities Mosete et al. . Thodhlaa et al. all fo po-poo onservation at

Kgalagadi that preferentially enables resource access for community groups most dependent on, and typically most marginalized from, natural resource use. In their ideal form, TCAs hold the potential for CBC that includes and adapts to a diverse array of resource needs and political structures across community scales. In many countries of southern Africa, where international, national, and local resource management strategies converge, adaptive and inclusive approaches are likely the only way to ensure the longevity of CBC.

Madagascar

CBC continues to thrive as a management option throughout southern Africa, though debate continues over its effectiveness as both a livelihood strategy and a biodiversity preservation tool. One country where the conservation dialogue dominates across scales is the

African island nation of Madagascar, which presents a unique example of the complexities of navigating divergent, culturally imbued conceptualizations of environment, conservation, and sustainable resource management.

Madagascar is an ecological gem. Five percent of all species on Earth reside in

Madagasa, of hih eight peet ae edei to the islad WWF . Madagasas unique biodiversity developed in isolation over a long period; the island separated from the

African continent approximately 165 million years ago, leading to the evolution of thousands of plant and animal species found nowhere else in the world. The island also boasts a diversity of landscapes, including coastal mangroves, tropical rainforests, highland savannas, and dry spiny forests.

Originally settled between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago by migrants from Indonesia, India, the Middle East, and southern Africa, Madagascar was colonized by the French in the late 1890s

(Dewar 2014). The colonial government declared its ownership of all forests on the island and proceeded to establish a thriving timber industry, encouraging the Malagasy to turn to agriculture for their livelihoods (Scales 2014). France granted independence to the Malagasy

Republic in 1960, but since publications by French botanists and biologists (e.g. Humbert 1955) had alead eealed Madagasas eologial ihess to the iteatioal ouit, the country remained under the influence of France and other foreign governments, especially concerning land and resource management. International aid for biodiversity protection in

Madagascar escalated in tandem with foreign-funded conservation efforts in mainland Africa during the 1970s and 1980s.

The increase in conservation aid to Madagascar reflects growing concerns in the iteatioal ouit oe athopogei theats to the outs uiue iodiesit. Mes et al. delaed Madagasa a iodiesit hotspot, idiatig that the outs endemic plant and animal species, seen as a global common good, are seriously threatened by human activities. I Madagasas topial foests, defoestatio ad foest degadatio hae been identified as the primary anthropogenic activities that threaten the islands uiue biodiversity (Blanc-Pamard 2009, Klein 2002, Zinner et al. 2014). These findings have been broadcast to the global community and provide the rationale for the involvement of foreign governments and organizations in biodiversity conservation in Madagascar.

International Influences on Conservation

International stakeholders in Malagasy conservation typically cite deforestation rates as their primary motivation for involvement. However, the reality of deforestation in Madagascar is widely debated. While some foreign companies have been implicated in the degradation of

Malagasy environments due to their support of large-scale mining operations (Duffy 2005,

Watson et al. 2010) and illegal logging enterprises (Randriamalala and Liu 2010), the dominant discourse attributes severe ecological losses to unsustainable local resource use, particularly by poor farmers (Ganzhorn et al. 2001, Harper at al. 2007). Efforts to counter this narrative cite a lack of information about the original extent of native rainforest, the role of French settlers in diig defoestatio, ad the lial atue of slash-and-u ultiatio i Madagasa

(Jarosz 1993, Kull 2004, McConnell et al. 2004, McConnell et al. 2015).

MCoell ad Kull , poit out that the peet lai eaig that ol te peet of Madagasas oigial foest oe eais has pesisted despite ide aiae in analyses of historic forest cover. Furthermore, they explicitly link the promulgation of the 90 percent claim with interatioal oseatio ogaizatios opeatig i Madagasa fo ho this fat fos pat of a otiatig raiso d’tre, and as such becomes an unquestioned paadig peadig the disouse MCoell ad Kull , . While Madagasa does indeed boast an unparalleled biodiversity of global importance and value, the dominant deforestation discourse has engendered conservation policy that politically marginalizes and economically penalizes rural Malagasy farmers (McConnell and Kull 2014). Previous studies elsewhere in Africa have noted similar instances of misrepresentation of deforestation (e.g.

Fairhead and Leach 1995).

I stak otast to its iologial ihess, Madagasas itizes ae aog the pooest in the world. According to the World Bank (2016), 75.3% of the population is below the national poverty line. International donors often point to the national poverty rate as rationale for expanding environmental protection efforts on the island (Schwitzer et al. 2014). Portrayals of rural populatios as a hidae to oseatio ad sustaiale deelopet see to attat foreign aid for conservation (Horning 2012, 117; Corson 2012).

Foreign influence in Madagascar, however, is not restricted to conservation NGOs.

Private companies have strong footholds in Malagasy economic and political systems due to the

atios depedee o foeig iestet datig ak to the eolieal oeet of the

1980s. Evers et al. (2011) report on two proposed, foreign-run biofuel projects, one by the South

Korean company Daewoo and the other by the Indian company Varun, that catalyzed the political overthrow of President Marc Ravalomanana in 2009 by opponents who criticized his adiistatios sale of lad ad esoues to these to foeig opaies. Othe international

20 influences on resource exploitation are less apparent but still highly environmentally destructive. Illegally harvested rosewood and ebony makes its way into Chinese markets

(Randriamalala and Liu 2010), and sapphire mines form part of a global network spanning across

Africa and into Europe (Duffy 2005).

On the subject of international aid for developing nations, Horning (2008, 406) states that giig aid is aout opetig fo the poe to ifluee goeet poliies; ultiatel, this competitive game locks both the state and foreign donors in a situation of mutual dependence in which actual performance receives lower priority than furthering respective iteest. “uh is the ase i Madagasa. The politis of oseatio effots i Madagascar involve many actors at varying scales. According to Duffy (2006a), NGO investments in Malagasy conservation have created a system where the state government partners with global actors, all of ho eoe stakeholdes i a oo good: the Malagas environment. Thus, environmental decision-making in Madagascar occurs at the local, national, international, and transnational or global levels, complicating the creation and enforcement of conservation policy.

Duffy (2006a) adds that the Malagasy government has entered into these partnerships with foreign stakeholders expressly to gain financial support in exchange for nature conservation. Further complicating this scenario are the inherent power differences between wealthy international organizations and community-level resource management institutions.

Foeig NGOs a push thei o ideologies i the poli aea, sileig loal stakeholdes

oies ad oepoeig taditioal eas of lad ad esoue oseatio Duff a.

The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP)

International aid groups such as the World Bank and conservation organizations like the

Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) collaborated with the Malagasy governmet to daft the epulis fist eioetal legislation, the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) in 1990. While the NEAP prioritized environmental protection, it also touted numerous benefits for local communities, including sustainable development and improved natural resource management (Kull 2014). According to

Kull , , Oe $ illio as oitted fo the iitial eas of the NEAP foeig doos i suppot of its to-part objective of ameliorating local livelihoods and defending biodiversity.

The first of three phases of the NEAP began in 1991 with the establishment of an operational framework and the completion of urgent conservation goals. To this end, the

Malagasy government created the National Protected Areas Management Association (ANGAP, now Madagascar National Parks or MNP). ANGAP quickly undertook the establishment of ICDPs, which primarily involved establishing sustainable use buffer zones around certain colonial-era national parks, to reduce population pressures on key conservation areas while appeasing international demands for strict biodiversity protection (Hufty and Muttenzer 2002).

The NEAP, drafted for implementation over a fifteen- to twenty-year period, faded from

Malagasy politics in 2009 following the ousting of President Ravalomanana (Kull 2014). The subsequent loss of international financial aid devastated conservation efforts nationwide. Prior to this point, however, the NEAP greatly influenced the current conservation landscape in

Madagascar, which includes a mosaic of national parks, special wildlife reserves, strict nature reserves, and community conservation areas. Recent shifts in global approaches to conservation hae led to the epasio of Madagasas poteted aeas etok; ael, peiousl marginalized voices are beginning to find their way into dialogues about biodiversity protection, sustainable development, and community well-being.

Local Land Management

Madagascar began implementing CBC programs in the 1990s. By 1996, the government had passed Act 96-025 initiating Gestion locale sécurisée GELO“E, o seue loal

aageet, a poga of lad aageet deetalizatio, as the seod phase of the

NEAP (Antona et al. 2004). The GELOSE transfers of land governance from state to local agencies aied at likig CBC ith ual deelopet ea seeal of the islads poteted aeas. The poga gats aageet ights oe speifi atual esoues to ouit assoiatios

(Dressler et al. 2010, 8). A second, simpler program called Gestion contractualisée des forêts

(GCF) premiered in 2001 and allows for local management within state-owned forests.

GELOSE and GCF have not proven universally successful in preventing deforestation or empowering local communities to manage resources sustainably. A study of forests transferred to community management between 2000 and 2005 found no significant reduction in deforestation when commercial use of the forests was still permitted, and only a small reduction in deforestation when no commercial exploitation was allowed (Rasolofoson et al. 2015).

Research in the Masoala peninsula by Kremen et al. (2000) revealed community forest management to be the least lucrative management option for residents, who would be required to relinquish nearly all opportunities to benefit economically from the forest. The Masoala

National Park ICDP was determined to be slightly more financially favorable, as it provided tourism revenue while allowing for sustainable non-timber forest product use, but communities would derive the greatest economic benefit from selling logging concessions to large companies

(Kremen et al. 2000).

In their study of eight GELOSE sites nationwide, Pollini and Lassoie (2011) discovered that foreign donors tend to fund the creation of new GELOSE management institutions and selet ouit leades ho epess suppot fo the doos oseatio agedas. As a

23 result, the GELOSE managers come to oppose existing land management institutions within the community and hold considerable power in making land use decisions due to their affiliation with wealthy western conservation NGOs (Pollini and Lassoie 2011). Instances of confusion and conflict over ownership of land and natural resources have been documented elsewhere in

Madagascar, particularly when new land zoning procedures contradict traditional tenure systems (Blanc-Pamard and Rakoto Ramiarantsoa 2007).

Rakotomanana et al. (2013) indicate a pressing need for clear natural resource management rights for local communities, direct links between resource maintenance and economic benefits of CBC, and equitable sharing of payments among community members to curb exploitative activities in Madagascar. Initiatives from the 1990s have been criticized for failing to adequately incentivize resource conservation or incorporate community leadership in

esoue aageet plaig, patiall due to foeig ifluees o Madagasas CBC programs (Duffy 2006a, Pollini and Lassoie 2011).

Community-based Conservation Approaches

At the 2003 World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, President Ravalomanana delaed his itetio of epadig Madagasas poteted aeas etok fo . to si

illio hetaes ithi fie eas. ‘aaloaaas Dua Visio aliged ith the IUCNs goal of conserving ten percent of the land area of every country. It also coincided with the third and final stage of the Madagascar NEAP, which called for the large-scale devolution of responsibility for environmental management to local communities between 2003 and 2008 (Hufty &

Muttenzer 2002). Despite two successive regime changes, the Malagasy government has succeeded in establishing a new network of protected areas that explicitly incorporate local

24 lielihoods, thaks i lage pat to the iteatioal attetio ad fuds da by

‘aaloaaas delaatio Coso , .

The oseatio aeas eated ad poposed sie ust ofo to the IUCNs system of protected area categorization (Virah-Sawmy et al. 2014). This system utilizes a spectrum of designations that indicate the level of human activity allowed within protected area boundaries. Currently, IUCN categories range from Category I (strict protection) to Category VI

(sustainable resource management). In Madagascar, the new protected areas that fall to the

sustaiale use ed of this spetu hae gaeed sigifiat atioal ad iteatioal attention, as they allow for community involvement in park management and traditional resource use within park borders, thereby complying with widespread calls for incorporating local users into environmental conservation (Gardner 2011).

Most of the New Protected Areas established in Madagascar since 2003 are classified as

Category V parks. The IUCN defines its Category V designation as:

A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values. IUCN 2016)

These parks are co-managed by local communities and another conservation stakeholder: either the Malagasy government, a local NGO, a foreign NGO, or some combination of the three. The new and proposed Category V protected areas in Madagascar encompass a wide variety of socioecological landscapes across the country, and have generated debate over the proper management of sensitive ecological areas while still incorporating local resource use (Gardner

2011).

Category V classification has been touted as an adaptable and community-oriented strategy for increasing the amount of land under conservation in Madagascar. However, the

25 approach has sparked controversy and opposition (Gardner 2011, Shafer 2015), falling broadly into two camps. Some argue that the proposed Category V parks would protect unsustainable human-environment interactions (Locke and Dearden 2005). Gardner (2011) illustrates how Lac

Alaotra, a proposed Category V protected area in north-central Madagascar, has been damaged by agricultural activities; nearby land clearing caused increased acidity and a twenty percent

edutio i the lakes size sie , ad oefishig ad itodued speies theate auati ecology. Similarly, Gardner (2011, 342) found that at the nearby Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest

Corridor, people-atue iteatios ee histoiall peset ut []ostl egatie ith

espet to desied iodiesit. Gade oludes that CBC is uial fo suessful esource management, but that Category V guidelines should be modified to allow for sites where

hua-nature interactions must be transformed rather than maintained to meet protected aea aageet ojeties Gade , .

In some cases, Category V protected area planning focuses almost exclusively on biodiversity conservation, and very little on local stakeholder interests (e.g. Alvarado et al.

2015). In others, park policies reportedly do not adequately protect local livelihoods and connections to the landscape (Cullman 2015, Wallace et al. 2015). For instance, Wallace et al.

, all the La Alaota poposed poteted aea a pape pak that fails to eet its conservation goals because local people had not been informed of or asked to contribute to conservation planning. Instead, local fishers experience high short-term costs due to restrictions on fishing location and allowable fishing gear, without realizing any benefits of conservation, which will likely only materialize in the long term. As a result, the park has seen widespread non- compliance among Lac Alaotra fishers (Wallace et al. 2015).

In other cases, the intent of Category V protection is not made clear to local communities and conservation stakeholders, resulting in inequalities in the participatory power

26 of park co-managers. At the Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor, for instance, Rabevohitra et al.

foud that loal people do ot osistetl ad osiousl patiipate i the management of protected area, likely due to poo ouiatio etee the paks othe o- managers and community leadership. Similarly, at a soon-to-be Category V park in Menabe, a region of western Madagascar, Marie et al. (2009) discovered that non-local protected area managers did not adequately collaborate with community members about development needs, local institutional dynamics, and indigenous knowledge for conservation purposes, thereby limiting community understandings of and participation in park management. Marie et al.

(2009) attributed this lak of ouiatio aout Catego V ojeties to the eege

otet i hih the Madagasa poteted aeas etok as epaded folloig

‘aaloaaas pledge.

The question remains as to how to define a sustainable relationship between people and the environment. At Lac Alaotra, Wallace et al. (2015) do not explicitly state that local fishers represent ideal, sustainable human-nature interactions (c.f. Gardner 2011). Instead, they

all fo futhe eseah o fishes ehaio ad esponses to management interventions in order to inform effective conservation strategies. Other proposed Category V parks in

Madagascar may also warrant context-specific research concerning CBC planning to ensure the dual promotion of local economic well-being and biodiversity conservation (Shafer 2015).

Emerging Issues in Community-based Conservation

Examinations of community-park relationships reveal a disconnect between western

NGOs ad loal ouities oepts of oseatio. Coepts suh as sustainable resource use, traditional livelihoods, land ownership, environmental protection, and even park boundaries hold different meanings for different people, muddying communication between

27 stakeholders. Furthermore, communities and cultures change and adapt over time, while policies typically remain fixed; this essential difference between conservation rules and cultural norms can impede local empowerment in resource management and cause confusion over conservation strategies.

A study of resident perceptions of Masoala National Park in northeastern Madagascar found that decades of land management changes in the area, from state governance to various

NGOs to ouit aageet, idued esidets disissal of e poteted aea regulations (Ormsby and Kaplin 2005). In addition, the authors learned that local people near

Masoala believed park boundaries to be fluid and moveable, consistent with their own, culturally specific conceptions of land ownership and boundary demarcation. Divergence between conservationist and resident perceptions of park borders has also been observed elsewhere in the global south (Sletto 2009).

Ideologial diffeees a lead to allegedl usustaiale paties ea poteted areas (Gardner 2011). Scales (2012, 68) investigated the alues, peeptios ad pioities of both conservation experts and rural residents in the central Menabe region. Scales (2012) found that conservationists perceive local land management practices, including the clearing of forests for agriculture, as iatioal sie suh paties desto the esoues that loal people eed for their livelihoods. However, he also found that rural residents hold nuanced beliefs about forests, based strongly in spirituality, ancestral land practices, and the consequences of breaking taoos; the lad aageet paties efied oe geeatios ae theefoe uite atioal to rural communities. Scales (2012) contends that CBC efforts in central Menabe have tried to impose western ideas about sustainable resource aageet o loal paties, igoig ofte adiall diffeet oldies “ales , . “uh poliies ae ulikel to sueed because they are not situated within the communities they intend to include.

The economic and political power differences between conservation stakeholders in

Madagascar can lead to conflict over the implementation of management strategies and the failure of conservation policies when stakeholders cannot achieve consensus. Both Cullman

(2015) and Rives et al. (2013) show that protected area policies that attempt to map western conservation ideals onto Malagasy communities with different conservation ideals ultimately fail to achieve intended conservation goals. In both cases, conservation laws did not take into consideration local systems of land ownership and management, instead imposing new structures for the sustainable use of natural resources and resulting in clashes between management institutions at different power scales.

Cullman (2015) documented evidence of conseatio as itualis, i hih communities must fit a standardized model of community-based resource management, at

Makira Natural Park in northeastern Madagascar. She argues that requiring dynamic human communities to fit a rigid conservation model can disrupt established land management practices and turn local residents against protected areas (Cullman 2015). Instead, conservation efforts contextualized within the changing social, political, economic, and ecological realities of place stand a better chance of empowering local communities to take part in conservation.

Purpose of this Study

The dominant resource management narrative in Madagascar attributes deforestation and biodiversity loss to the unsustainable practices of Malagasy residents, yet alternative understandings of local resource use lead to misrepresentations of conservation policies and practices across political scales. When local residents are portrayed as poor stewards, state officials as corrupt, and international conservationists as gee-gaes Faihead et al.

, ollaoatie oseatio aog these fatios eoes diffiult to ahiee.

The issues raised by Scales (2012), Cullman (2015), Ormsby and Kaplin (2005), and Rives et al. (2013), among others, concerning dispaities etee idigeous ad este conservation ideologies require further consideration if community-inclusive conservation is to be achieved in Madagascar. Particularly, research is needed that identifies the multiple scales of influence and power operating within the politics of Malagasy conservation, not simply

este ad idigeous oes, as ell as ho the oseatio goals ad stategies of stakeholder groups overlap, diverge, and fail to communicate effectively. Research that builds

onstructive discourses around colonial-settle poe ad the podutio of idigeeit

(Radcliffe 2015, 1) will help to discern how and why certain narratives of resource management in Madagascar come to dominate over others, and contribute to encouraging more inclusive conversations about conservation.

My research focuses on the context-specific values, definitions, and perceptions related to environmental conservation and natural resource management at one protected area in

Madagascar. This case study aims to elucidate specific points of divergence between varying understandings of conservation policies at these new protected areas. For instance, while considerable work has been done to explain and correct the failings of GELOSE law, only a handful of studies have examined the interactions between conservation stakeholders at different political scales which produce controversial Category V regulations in Madagascar. By identifying problems of translation between political scales, particularly regarding definitions of natural resources and resource management, my research can contribute to the development of

otetualized poliies that potet Madagasas uiue iodiesit as ell as the geuie well-being of its citizens.

CHAPTER III

EXTERNAL ACTORS, LOCAL IMPACTS: EXAMINING THE CHALLENGES OF COMMUNITY-BASED

RAINFOREST CONSERVATION IN CENTRAL MADAGASCAR

Introduction

Forests in the tropics have incredible biodiversity, offer valuable ecosystem services, and are subject to rapid deterioration due to human activities (Myers et al. 2000). Deforestation and land degradation trends have been widely studied in sub-Saharan Africa, yet continually changing environmental, social, and economic conditions in the region necessitate the sustained study of forest and land use. Forest loss in African countries accounts for only 5.4% of all tropical foest leaig, ail eause agiultual leaig does ot ou o a idustial sale as i other world regions (Hansen et al. 2008). However, simulations of rural population growth and concurrent expansion of shifting agriculture suggest that annual deforestation rates will increase in parts of Africa (Zhang et al. 2002). At a household level, changing socio-economic conditions can shift livelihoods toward resource-exploitative pursuits; increased agricultural expansion (Van

Soesbergen et al. 2016) and timber production (Duveiller et al. 2008, Kleinschroth et al. 2016), for instance, are often linked with deforestation or forest degradation in an area. Even small- scale agriculture and household-level natural resource use exert significant pressure on forest resources (Ryan et al. 2015).

Land cover change associated with deforestation or forest degradation often occurs rapidly (Mayaux et al. 2005), and in response, forest conservation strategies in many countries rely on the implementation of protected areas to slow or stop forest loss (Putz et al. 2001,

Gibbes et al. 2009). Global-scale land cover studies indicate higher population growth rates near

31 protected areas (Wittemyer et al. 2008) and high loss of forest habitat in protected area buffer zones (DeFries et al. 2005), particularly in developing countries. Such findings may promote the more stringent enforcement of exclusionary protected area policies. However, the success of protected areas as a conservation strategy remains contested (Wilshusen et al., 2002). Some evidence supports the contention that protected areas that are inclusive of local communities are more successful, and recent work underlines the importance of the link between biodiversity and people to sustainable planning (Naeem et al. 2016).

Evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation strategies, including protected areas, has increased as conservation strategies evolve to address issues of limited conservation success and growing demand for coupling conservation with development. Global-scale assessments of protected area effectiveness commonly evaluate protected area extent, large-scale outcomes

(e.g. extensive forest loss), management strategies, and indicator monitoring (e.g. reporting on specific animal populations) (Leverinton et al. 2010). These approaches tend to focus on parks with clearly delineated boundaries, limiting analyses to parks most likely to be well-protected

(Joppa et al. 2008). Furthermore, global-scale analyses of protected area effectiveness necessarily simplify or over-generalize smaller-scale land use and land cover change. Since drivers of these processes differ across scales (Hansen et al. 2008, Townsend et al. 2009), assessments of the effectiveness and impact of conservation strategies designed to limit land changes are needed at multiple scales. In particular, there is a need for increased monitoring at national and regional levels to complement global-scale assessments and address localized changes.

Africa, as with other regions of the world, has experienced a shift in conservation approaches towards an emphasis on i-i conservation and development schemes (Gibbes and Keys 2010). The complex history of conservation in Africa has been shaped by the release of

32 colonial landholdings in the mid- to late 1900s, the advent of neoliberalism in the 1970s, and the formation of dependent relationships between African states and foreign, primarily western, governments, organizations, and companies (Duffy 2006a, Dressler et al. 2010). International pressure on African governments to conserve natural resources and landscapes coincided with the liberalization of markets and politics across Africa. Poorly funded state wildlife agencies could not effectively manage national park systems during this time (Gibson and Marks 1995).

Furthermore, rural communities near protected areas, often poor and disenfranchised, had little incentive to obey conservation regulations when their livelihoods depended on the use of natural resources (Brandon and Wells 1992). Private conservation donors advocated for the devolution of land management to local communities through a form of community-based conservation called Integrated Conservation and Development Programs (ICDPs). These iitiaties, fuded foeig iestos, lik the oseatio of iologial diesit ithi a poteted aea to soial ad eooi deelopet outside that poteted aea though employment opportunities, revenue-sharing, construction of community facilities such as schools and roads, and involvement in conservation decision-making for local communities

(Newmark and Hough 2000, 585; see also Alpert 1996). ICDPs were particularly promoted in areas of high biodiversity and therefore high conservation priority.

The African nation of Madagascar presents one case where the historical shaping of

oseatio distitiel iteties ith iteatioal aluatio of the outs iedil high species diversity. Madagascar is considered a iodiesit hotspot where unique species are directly threatened by human activity (Myers 1988, 2000). I Madagasas topial foests, deforestation and forest degradation have been identified as the primary anthropogenic activities that theate the islads uiue iodiesit Klei , Bla-Pamard 2009, Zinner et al. 2014). As a result, conservation efforts focus on protecting these threatened landscapes

33 and species. The current conservation landscape in Madagascar includes a mosaic of national parks, special wildlife reserves, strict nature reserves, and community-based conservation areas, all of which differ in their management of landscapes and natural resources.

In 2003, Malagasy president Marc Ravalomanana adopted a new formal conservation approach to dramatically increase the extent and number of protected areas, pledging to triple the amount of land under protection in Madagascar to a total of 6 million hectares in compliance with an international initiative to conserve 10 peet of the olds sufae Duff

2006a). Some of the Nouvelle Aires Protégées (NAPs), or New Protected Areas, created during this period aim to form conservation partnerships between conservation organizations and local communities, as previous conservation strategies often failed due to the lack of such relationships (Virah-“a et al. . Fo istae, Os ad Kaplis iteies with residents near Masoala National Park and determined that decades of land management changes in the area, from state governance to various NGOs to community management, idued esidets disissal of ad oopliae ith e poteted aea egulatios. ‘eet research examining NAPs in Madagascar has used qualitative data to assess the factors that influence community-based conservation project effectiveness (Corson 2012, Cullman 2015).

Other research in Madagascar has determined that when the ecological values and land management strategies of residents and protected area managers diverge, conservation policies ae less ilusie of loal ouities atual esoue eeds, and residents are less likely to comply with park regulations (Scales 2012, Rives et al. 2013, Cullman 2015). Such studies provide critical insight into the attitudes and actions of local community members that influence protected area effectiveness.

This stud otiutes to the dialogue o the effetieess of Madagasas e protected areas. We use a local-level case study approach to examine changes in and around

Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor (AAFC) in central Madagascar. The study relies on mixed methods, combining remote sensing and key informant interview data analyses. We ask the following questions: 1) what is the nature of community conservation management concerns for the AAFC, and 2) what land cover changes have occurred since the initiation of conservation policy?

Methods

Study Area

Madagascar is representative of many spaces in eastern and southern Africa where varied conceptualizations of sustainable forest use create complexities for conservation.

Madagascar was originally settled between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago by migrants from

Indonesia, India, the Middle East, and southern Africa, and was colonized by the French in the late 1890s (Dewar 2014). The colonial government declared its ownership of all forests on the island and proceeded to establish a thriving timber industry, encouraging the Malagasy to turn to agriculture for their livelihoods (Scales 2014). France granted independence to the Malagasy

Republic in 1960, but publications by French botanists and biologists (e.g. Humbert 1955) had

eealed Madagasas eologial ihess to the iteatioal ouit. Foreign-funded conservation efforts in Madagascar, as with mainland Africa, escalated during the 1960s to protect this rare biodiversity. Recent assessments indicate that five percent of all species on

Earth are found in Madagascar, and 80% are endemic (WWF 2016). Rainforest environments in

Madagascar have particularly been targeted for protection due to their relatively high species diversity.

The AAFC is a 90-kilometer strip of highland rainforest in central Madagascar, north of the capital city of Antananarivo (Figure 1). National Route 3, a paved road and major

35 transportation artery, follows the western edge of the forest corridor from Antananarivo north to Anjozorobe; other roads in the study area are unpaved and thus tend to be less frequently used. Local livelihoods are largely supported by charcoal production and agriculture, especially rice cultivation (Wright 2009). Other land uses include hunting and gathering; logging, primarily within eucalyptus plantations; and timber extraction for construction materials (Rabevohitra et al. 2014). The western side of the corridor is dominated by the cultivation and harvest of non- native eucalyptus trees, whereas eastern residents rely largely on agricultural production.

Documented evidence of deforestation on the western border of the forest corridor may be linked to these land and resource use practices (Harper et al. 2007). Conservation efforts in the

AAFC endeavor to curb deforestation by developing alternative livelihood strategies for local residents (Fanamby 2015).

Folloig ‘aaloaaas pledge to tiple Madagasas poteted aeas etok, the Malagasy NGO Fanamby applied for and was granted managerial status at the proposed

AAFC New Protected Area. Between 2004 and 2006, Fanamby representatives organized open meetings in local communities in the forest corridor region to explain the concept of the proposed protected area and secure community approval of the park (Fanamby, personal communication). At the conclusion of the consultation process in December 2005 the park received an arrt de protectio teporaire (temporary protection order) from the Malagasy goeet Faa , , ad i the AAFC as desigated as a poteted aea i

eatio Wight . I , the pak ahieed status as a Nouvelle Aire Protegée (NAP)

(Fanamby 2015).

Figure 1: Study Area

Interviews

Multi-scalar interviews provide insight into the complex nature of environmental governance, anthropogenic drivers of environmental change, and the social impacts of resource management policies (Lemos et al. 2006, Ball et al. 2014). This research focused on land use and cover change near villages identified by Fanamby (2015) that hae ee ipated by the implementation of the NAP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with local residents in

17 villages within and near the AAFC.

The AAFC impacts several administrative units (Table 1). The smallest is the fokontany, or a collection of villages, and is managed by a chef de fokontany. A commune encompasses multiple fokontany and is led by a maire, and a district holds several communes and is administered by a chef du district. Study villages representing each level of governance were chosen based on accessibility, proximity to the forest corridor, and recommendations from study participants. Interviewees were selected using a snowball sampling method in which local government officials were first approached for research permission and interviews, and then asked to recommend additional study participants. This approach is considered culturally appropriate (see Rabevohitra et al. 2014) and increased our efficiency in locating respondents willing to participate in the research.

Table 1: Communities impacted by the AAFC

REGION DISTRICT COMMUNE FOKONTANY Antanifotsy Anosimanarivo AMBONGAMARINA Ambohimiaramanana Ampamoha Ambohibary ALAKAMISY Ankazondrano Morarano Anjozorobe Antanetibe TSARASAOTRA Ampatsikahitra Vodivato Antsahabe ANJOZOROBE Amboasarinala Andranomay Antsahafina

ANALAMANGA ANALAMANGA MANGAMILA Isaonjo Avaratra Beorana ANKAZONDANDY Andranolava Andasimiaramila Soavinandriana Manjakandriana SOAVINANDRIANA Ambohimanatrika Ambohimananarivo Ambohilava Ambatomasina ANTSAHALALINA Ankadinandriana ANTANIDITRA Ambilombe Ambohimandroso Ambongabe Ambongatsimo MANDIALAZA Fiherenana Antseva Mandialaza Moramanga Miadana AMPASIMPOTSY Ambohibato Ampasipotsy

ALAOTRA MANGORO MANGORO ALAOTRA Ambohimanjaka Mangabe Borisatroka AMBOHIDRONONO Ambohimarina II AmodiaoAiloa AMBOASARY Marotsopohy

A total of 48 interviews were conducted in June and July 2016 with local officials at the fokontany, commune, and district levels of government (see Figure 1), community members in less formal leadership positions, and Fanamby representatives. These individuals are most familiar with conservation policies and their impacts on communities. Interviews were conducted in Malagasy and translated into French by a local translator (Ramiadamahefa). The interviews lasted an hour on average and covered topics of involvement in the planning and ipleetatio of oseatio poli, oseed eioetal hages sie the paks creation, and perceived threats to forest health and community well-being. Additionally,

Fanamby epesetaties ee iteieed aout Faas ole i poliakig ad collaboration with local communities.

To preserve participant anonymity, interviews were not digitally recorded, but instead recorded by hand primarily in French with some Malagasy terminology included. After each interview, the responses were transcribed into English. Analysis of interview responses used thematic coding to identify emerging and co-occurring themes.

Remote Sensing

The use of remote sensing to measure environmental change has increased significantly over the past two decades (Turner et al. 2003). Remote sensing offers standardized repeat observations of land cover, and when used in concert with in situ data collection, such as interviews, can aid with the identification or verification of specific drivers of land cover change

(Munyati and Kabanda 2009, Southworth and Gibbes 2010, Gebrehiwot et al. 2014). We used remote sensing to determine the presence and spatial distribution of land cover prior to and following formalization of the AAFC.

We acquired Landsat ETM+ and OLI dry season imagery for September 2001 and 2015.

The 2001 image captures the landscape prior to the initiation of conservation planning in the study area, and the 2015 measures that landscape after the AAFCs foal desigatio as a NAP.

Image preprocessing included geometric correction and mosaicking. To measure land cover presence and spatial distribution, a supervised Gaussian maximum likelihood land cover classification was derived independently for each observation time (2001 and 2015). The land cover classification included five classes: natural forest (primarily dense rainforest), mixed forest

(eucalyptus and oak scrub), savanna, rice paddies (riziculture), and water. Land cover class selection was based on in situ observations and interviewee insight into land cover change.

Training polygons for the classification were selected using a combined method of field observations and referencing high-resolution Google Earth imagery. We tested the classification accuracy using the methodology presented in Clark and Aide (2011), which leverages the availability and archiving of data by Google Earth. Change trajectories for the land cover classifications were calculated using an additive model in order to determine the extent and nature of landscape change.

We used Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) differences between 2001 and

2015 to verify measured change trajectories. ANOVA and Tukeys test were used to assess the significance of the differences in mean NDVI change values for each of the land cover change trajectories. NDVI is highly correlated with vegetation characteristics such as primary production that have been used to evaluate ecological health and resilience (e.g. Pettoerelli et al. 2005).

Examining the differences in NDVI change values for each trajectory provides an indication of how change in land cover may affect the biophysical nature of the forest corridor.

Results

Interviews with Local Leaders

Interview responses from community leaders highlight that observed land cover changes vary by geographic location, but clearing natural forest for household and commercial land use is of particular concern to local leaders. Interviewees were most concerned about shifts from natural forest to eucalyptus plantations and agriculture, both dryland and rice cultivation, as the result of processes of agricultural clearing and brushfires. Interview data suggest that drivers of land cover change in the AAFC region are complex and therefore difficult to curtail.

Interviewees noted that conversion of natural forest to commercial production often does not occur directly, but rather involves intermediate transitions to other land uses. For instance, one interviewee described land change in his community as a progression from logging forest trees, to burning the cleared land for agricultural production, to planting eucalyptus once the soil could no longer support crops.

Iteie esposes shoed a aked diide etee easte ad este esidets perceptions of land change drivers (Table 2). When asked who is responsible for forest degradation and deforestation (Table 3), most eastern residents said that communities on the western side of the forest are to blame for forest impacts (28.6%), whereas western residents

ee oe likel to lae outsides, o people liig outside the Anjozorobe-Angavo region

(37.0%). Eastern residents were more likely to accuse communities located within the protected area of forest destruction (28.6%) than were western residents (14.8%). Western residents acknowledged forest degradation occurring within their communities (18.5%) or nearby communities (22.2%) more frequently than did eastern residents.

Table 2: Threats to Forest Conservation

Threat # responses brushfires 13 agricultural clearing 12 timber 12 charcoal 6 none 4 exploitation (general) 3 people in forest 2 drought 1 precious stone extraction 1 climate change 1 destruction of water sources 1

Table 3: Perceptions of Responsibility

Percentage of respondents West East Communities This Nearby side of side of "Outsiders" in forest community communities forest forest West 3.7% 7.4% 14.8% 18.5% 22.2% 37.0% residents East

Respondent location location Respondent 28.6% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% residents

Iteieees peeptios of lad hage dies ad oseatio theats ae also reflected in their responses concerning possible solutions for forest loss within the protected area. Proposed solutions tended to differ by interviewee level of government (Figure 2). Forty percent of interviewees at the commune level advocated enforcement of current conservation laws, as did 33.3% of district-level interviewees, while only 12.0% of interviewees at the fokontany level of government provided this response. Instead, fokontany-level interviewees proposed increased employment for corridor residents (16.0%) and devolving forest management to local communities (20.0%) as preferred approaches to addressing forest

43 threats. Interviewees at the district (16.7%), commune (30.0%), and fokontany (24.0%) levels all showed an interest in seeking outside aid, such as from private companies or foreign nongovernmental organizations, to fund conservation initiatives and incentives for sustainable land management activities.

Figure 2: Proposed Solutions for Addressing Forest Threats

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO FOREST THREATS, BY POLITICAL SCALE

DISTRICT COMMUNE FOKONTANY

50.0%

40.0%

33.3%

30.0%

24.0%

20.0%

16.7%

16.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTOF

4.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0%

SOLUTIONS

Land Cover Change

Figure 3 shows photo documentation of the land use present in the study area and the land cover changes identified by interviewees. Figure 4 shows the results of the land cover classification derived from the supervised classifications for 2001 and 2015. Results indicate that in 2001 the savanna and mixed forest classes cover the greatest extent within the study area, approximately 1736 km2 and 1031 km2 respectively. In 2015, these two classes remain the most

44 prevalent land cover class in the study area; however, the rice class emerges as the third most prevalent class in the landscape surpassing natural forest. The accuracy assessment yielded an oeall aua of % ad a kappa alue of .. The assessets of uses ad podues accuracy indicate that the rice class was hardest to identify in the supervised classification (Table

4). This is expected, as the rice class includes both wet and dry rice paddies which can be difficult to spectrally differentiate from savanna during the winter months when most rice paddies are dry and unplanted. Given these potential errors, cautious interpretation of changes in the extent of the rice class are necessary. The spatial pattern of land cover in 2001 shows relative continuity of natural forest throughout the study area (Figure 4), while in 2015 natural forest had declined along the north-south gradient of the AAFC.

Figure 3: Photo Documentation of Land Cover Change

Figure 4: Classification Results

Table 4: User's and Producer's Accuracy for Each Cover Class

CLASS USER'S ACCURACY PRODUCER'S ACCURACY Water 0.00% 0.00% Rice 35.71% 43.75% Savanna 21.50% 14.29% Mixed forest 8.61% 14.29% Natural forest 11.11% 0.00% Overall accuracy: 85.33% Overall Kappa: 0.757

Cross-tabulation of the classifications revealed several trends in land cover change between study years. Over half of the area classified as natural forest in 2001 shifted to the

46 mixed forest class in 2015 (53.06%), while 25.16% of the savanna class shifted to the mixed forest class. The high change percentage of dry rice paddy cover to savanna cover (43.51%) may be due to spectral similarities between these two classes. Similarly, though it is likely that areas classified as water in 2001 have converted to wet rice paddies, the spectral similarities between these classes may account for some of the calculated change from water to riziculture (29.44%).

Figure 5 shows the dominant change trajectories of each 2001 land cover class. Results indicate spatial clustering of the natural forest to mixed forest change trajectory at the southern extreme of the AAFC within the protected area boundary, at the northern end of the corridor outside the protected area boundary, and in two central regions inside the protected area on its eastern and western edges. Additionally, savanna regions on both sides of the forest corridor appear to have been converted to mixed forest.

Figure 5: Change Trajectory Results

The results from the ANOVA and Tukeys test indicate a significant difference (p =0.000) in the mean NDVI change values for all land cover change trajectories, except for those that measure shifts from water to rice and rice to savanna. This is expected, as imagery was captured during the dry season for each study year, a time when rice paddies transition from dry (with a spectral signature resembling savanna) to wet (with a spectral signature similar to water) The changes from mixed forest to savanna and vice versa are associated with the greatest changes in mean NDVI, while change from natural forest to mixed forest results in moderate mean NDVI change. Change trajectories and the associated changes in NDVI suggest that the changes in land use have different impacts on vegetation cover, which in turn may influence the ecology of the forest corridor. For example, the loss of natural forest and gain of mixed forest, some of which likely includes eucalyptus plantations, does not result in large change in NDVI and vegetation cover. However, the worrisome ecological impact of this change resides in the loss of diversity of plants and potential modifications to hydrological functioning.

Discussion

Geographic and Environmental Factors

Diffeees etee easte ad este esidets ies o esposiilit fo foest loss can be attributed to realities of accessibility. The explanation frequently given by eastern residents for their perceptions of western forest destruction was that National Route 3 along the western side of the forest corridor enables easy transport of charcoal, timber, and other forest products, thereby encouraging residents to engage in forest exploitation. Indeed, other studies have shown that timber exploitation is often linked to forest degradation and deforestation (Duveiller et al. 2008, Kleinschroth et al. 2016). Western residents mentioned the routes ifluee o foest eploitatio as well, but most insisted that people living outside of

49 their communities used National Route 3 to access timber harvesting sites, often illegally, and transport felled trees and charcoal to Antananarivo or other parts of the country.

Similarly, climatic differences between the two sides of the forest corridor influence the resource use activities of eastern and western communities. Interviewees living on the eastern side of the corridor often compared the fertile soil and warm temperatures of their region to the less favorable agricultural conditions of the western side of the corridor. Western residents unable to rely on farming for their livelihoods must seek other sources of income, such as the planting and harvesting of fast-growing eucalyptus for charcoal production. Eastern interviewees who blamed deforestation and forest degradation on western residents rarely mentioned specific locations where these processes occurred, but referred to widespread forest loss along the western edge of the corridor. The change trajectory results, however, indicate that natural forest transitions to mixed forest occur in distinct areas of the forest corridor, including sections within the eastern Alaotra-Mangoro region, suggesting that officials in the east may be either exaggerating the extent of forest loss in the west or not well informed about deforestation realities throughout the forest corridor.

Structural Factors

The change trajectory shown in Figure 4 indicates spatial clustering of the natural forest to mixed forest transition at the northern and southern extremes of the forest corridor, regions where commercial charcoal and construction timber production are high. Governmental interviewees from these two regions explained that charcoal and construction timber are largely produced from privately owned eucalyptus plantations outside of the protected rainforest, but that harvesting regulations, permit fees, and availability issues have induced some

ogdoes to illegall harvest trees within the protected area, where direct oversight is much

50 lower than on private lands (c.f. Ormsby and Kaplin 2006). Some interviewees mentioned corrupt dealings between illegal timber harvesters and government officials, such as bribes for allowing exploitation within the protected area. Interviewees were unwilling to provide specific information about these deals for reasons of personal safety.

Deforestation Narratives

Two deforestation narratives emerged from interviewee responses: 1) exploiters from outside local communities are in part responsible for forest loss within the protected area (see

Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Berkes 2004), and 2) communities inside the protected area threaten conservation efforts. No interviewees provided possible solutios fo issues of outside exploitation of the Anjozorobe-Angavo forest. Those who mentioned enforcement of existing conservation policy acknowledged that these policies only apply to local residents. Some interviewees mentioned asking for federal government assistance, but were not optimistic that the government would step in to stop illegal exploitation, and even feared reprisal from state offiials. Oe iteieee said, I aot tell the state aout illegal tee haestig eause I ill be blaed fo it. Ma iteieees opel akoledged that ouptio ithi the fedeal government contributes to illegal exploitation of forest resources within the protected area.

Interviewees who attributed declining forest health to the activities of communities within protected area boundaries were highly likely to recommend the eviction of inhabitants from the park. When questioned about this proposed solution, one interviewee responded,

Wh eoe people fo the foest? Beause the ae the piipal cause of forest destutio! Hoee, the lassifiatio hage tajeto esults sho elatiel little foest loss or change near communities within the protected area (Figure 5). It is possible that officials from communities outside the park have skewed perceptions of communities within the forest.

Small forest communities far from major towns may be considered less politically important, and therefore excluded from consideration in conservation policies (Agrawal and Gibson 1999,

Kellert et al. 2000, West et al. 2006). Another possible explanation for this discrepancy is that changes caused by smaller-scale activities like hunting, selective logging, and exotic plant harvesting inside the park, though possibly damaging to forest resources (Ryan et al. 2015), cannot be captured with satellite imagery. Furthermore, the realities and impacts of these activities may only be evident to those officials who monitor ground-level conditions within the

AAFC.

Study Limitations

Due to the limited availability of comparable cloud-free Landsat imagery from immediately before the creation of AAFC Protected Area and within one year of field research, the satellite images used in this study were taken during the winter season in Madagascar, when vegetation cover is at its lowest, making spectral separation of some land covers difficult.

Distinguishing between unplanted agricultural fields and savanna was especially challenging. To account for this shortcoming, Google Earth images from each study year were referenced when selecting classification training areas, as were observations and photographs taken during the field visit. Additionally, the land cover change analysis relies on two observations in time. This does not accommodate the identification of a progression of change in land use. For example, interviewees indicated land may transition from forest to cleared land, to crops, and ultimately to eucalyptus. In the two-date change analysis we can measure the amount of land present in any one stage of this transition, and the changes from one stage to another, but not across all stages of transition.

Interviews were conducted with the aid of a local, male Malagasy tourist guide who acted as interpreter and helped significantly with introductions to community leaders and locating study villages. However, the interviews touched on sensitive subjects, like illegal natural resource use and community relations with protected area managers. Interviewees who appeared intimidated by certain questions were not pressed, and so data on resident opinions of land use and land management were not consistently gathered at all study villages. Our taslatos status as a eigho, as a fied of foeig eseahes, ad as soeoe of relatively high economic means may have influenced study participants, perhaps causing them to restrict their responses out of concerns about anonymity. Many respondents were also likely wary of engaging in sensitive conversations with a foreign researcher, the epitome of an

outside, ad otiuting to research sponsored by a western rather than a Malagasy institution.

The processes of interview translation and transcription present another point of concern. The researchers calibrated before and after each interview to ensure the most appropriate taslatio of iteieees esposes ad eaigs. “till, eause iteie responses were translated from Malagasy into French and then transcribed into English, it is highly likely that despite intentional collaboration between researchers during qualitative data collection, some information was lost or misinterpreted. Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insight into the dynamics of local land use, resident perceptions of conservation policy, and potential implications for the future effectiveness of the AAFC at protecting Malagasy biodiversity and safeguarding resident livelihoods.

Conclusion

The AAFC has been identified as a critical conservation area due to the impacts of human activity on rainforest biodiversity (Fanamby 2015). However, this statement presents an oversimplified picture of land cover change within and around the forest corridor. By incorporating both local leader interview data and remotely sensed land use and land cover change data into analyses of the protected area, this study emphasizes the wide range of factors that may influence land cover change and conservation policy effectiveness, challenging common assumptions about forest loss in the corridor. Specifically, this research reveals that conservation policy targeting local communities may not be effective in curbing deforestation, as interviewees have indicated that forest exploitation is often carried out by non-residents, and that local leaders lack the political will to confront this issue due to corrupt relationships between outside exploiters and government officials.

Future research in the AAFC should analyze more closely the impacts of non-residents on forest degradation and deforestation within and near the protected area. Special attention should be paid to the role of charcoal and construction timber producers from outside the

Anjozorobe-Angavo region who move between harvesting locations within the forest corridor; these actors likely have a significant impact on forest health but are not subject to conservation policies, which primarily impact local residents. Further analyses of the role of non-residents in driving forest change could help to inform future conservation policies that effectively protect the Anjozorobe-Angavo rainforest while not unduly restricting the activities of local community members.

CHAPTER IV

THEY THREATEN OUR FORE“T: A QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT IN THE

ANJOZOROBE-ANGAVO FOREST CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA

Introduction

Conservation strategies in developing countries have historically aimed to protect biodiversity from a range of anthropogenic threats. Human activities such as agriculture, hunting, and timber harvesting are often essential household-level activities in developing countries (Duveiller et al. 2008, Ryan et al. 2015, Kleinschroth et al. 2016, Van Soesbergen et al.

2016), yet because these activities utilize natural resources, conservationists view them as threats to native wildlife (Peluso 1993). Conflict between conservation interests and local community interests figures prominently in natural resource management debates in tropical countries, which are home to both extraordinary biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000) and to human populations directly dependent on resource use for their livelihoods. Protected areas in the developing countries of the global south are therefore a focal point for the study of sustainable environmental conservation.

Formalized, state-run conservation originated in Europe and the United States and spread to colonial holdings in the global south, forming the basis for environmental protection in developing countries (Neumann 2002). Protected areas created by national governments or conservation organizations in response to environmental threats typically restrict or prohibit natural resource extraction within their boundaries, often with negative impacts to nearby residents who utilize natural resources (Brandon and Wells 1992, Peluso 1993, Ferraro 2002,

West et al. 2006). Developing countries began adopting more inclusive and decentralized approaches to environmental conservation in the 1970s in order to build local support for protected areas and thereby ensure their success (Western et al. 1994, Stevens 1997, Brosius et al. 1998). Commonly referred to as community-based conservation (CBC), such initiatives recognize the importance of involving local residents in protected area management for social as well as ecological well-being (West and Brechin 1991, Western et al. 1994, Stevens 1997,

Adams & Hulme 2001, Brown 2003, Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003, Berkes 2004, Hayes

2006).

Ideally, CBC equally incorporates the resource use needs and priorities of local stakeholders into environmental conservation and management practices through participation.

Many successful CBC programs have been documented in developing countries (Brooks et al.

. Hoee, i othe istaes, issues ith the defiitio of ouit Pett ,

Agrawal & Gibson 1999, Berkes 2004, Peet and Watts 2004) and power dynamics within local stakeholder groups (Kellert et al. 2000, West et al. 2006) can result in unequal representation of resource management priorities and distribution of conservation benefits among members of target communities. CBC can also serve as a front to traditional top-down conservation, in which loal ouities pupotedl patiipate i oseatio effots ut hae o poe o

patiipate eig told hat has ee deided o has alead happeed Pett , .

Furthermore, claims about the imperativeness of local support for conservation have been contested (Brockington 2004).

Community-based conservation in Africa has been touted as a solution to traditional, restrictive conservation schemas that cause people-park conflicts (Brandon and Wells 1992) and often lack sufficient funding for proper management (Gibson and Marks 1995). CBC efforts in

Africa have been criticized for attempting to impose Western ideas about governance, land

56 ownership, and resource management on local communities, thereby ignoring historical, social, and ecological contexts that determine how residents can engage in conservation efforts

(Goldman 2003, Scales 2012, Cullman 2015). Inconsistent application of conservation policies and distribution of benefits can also jeopadize CBC effots, as see duig )iaes

CAMPFIRE program (Balint and Mashinya 2006) and in Uganda (Naughton-Treves et al. 2011).

Golda , oludes that CBC aages ust eshape thei o istitutios ad agendas to really fit communities – with their diverse needs, knowledge, and complex social and ecological structures – ito oseatio.

The African nation of Madagascar presents a pertinent case for the study of community-

ased oseatio. A iodiesit hotspot hee uiue speies are threatened by human activity (Myers 1988, Myers et al. 2000), Madagascar attracts considerable international attention, pressure, and funding for the conservation of nature (Duffy 2006a, Corson 2016). The traditional state-run conservation program that began under French rule from 1900-1960 has since expanded to include a mosaic of national parks, special wildlife reserves, strict nature reserves, and community-based conservation areas. A turning point for conservation in

Madagascar occurred in 2003, when then-president Marc Ravalomanana pledged to triple his

outs poteted aeas etok, thee oseig peet of Madagasas lad aea.

Many protected areas proposed after this declaration have been designated as Category

V under the Inteatioal Uio fo the Coseatio of Natues IUCN lassifiatio sste. A

Category V Protected Landscape/Seascape is:

A poteted aea hee the iteatio of people ad atue oe tie has podued an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaiig the aea ad its assoiated atue oseatio ad othe alues. IUCN 2016)

A Category V protected area ais to aitai the assoiated atue oseatio ad othe

alues eated iteatios ith huas though taditioal aageet paties IUCN

2016).

This case study considers local involvement in one of these new Category V protected areas, the Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor (AAFC) in central Madagascar. We utilize interview data to examine the extent to which local government officials near the AAFC participate in community-based conservation strategies. Specifically, we ask 1) who was and is involved in the planning and management of the protected area, 2) how does participation in

CBC ifluee loal ouities attitudes toad foalized oseatio, ad hat ae

esidets peeptios of oseatio effetieess? This aalsis will help conservation planners ensure that the perspectives and needs of all stakeholders in the AAFC are represented in protected area management, thereby ensuring the success of the park.

Methods

Study Area

The AAFC is a 90-kilometer strip of highland rainforest in central Madagascar, north of the capital city of Antananarivo (Figure 6). Route Nationale 3, a paved road and a major transportation route, follows the western edge of the forest corridor from Antananarivo north to Anjozorobe; other roads in the study area are unpaved, less frequently used, and provide somewhat limited access. The AAFC impacts several administrative units (Table 1). The smallest is the fokontany, or a collection of villages, and is managed by a chef de fokontany. A commune encompasses multiple fokontany and is led by a maire, and a district holds several communes and is administered by a chef du district.

Figure 6: Study Area

Table 5: Communities Impacted by the AAFC

ALAOTRA MANGORO MANGORO ALAOTRA Ambohimanjaka Mangabe Borisatroka AMBOHIDRONONO Ambohimarina II AodiaoAiloa AMBOASARY Marotsopohy

The AAFC spans two regions, Analamanga to the west and Alaotra Mangoro to the east

(Table 1). Alaotra Mangoro residents are primarily agriculturalists; the region is known for its fetile soil ad is efeed to as Madagasas ie ol Copse et al. . B otast,

Analamanga residents engage in a variety of occupations, chiefly agriculture, charcoal production, logging, and woodworking (Wright 2009, Rabevohitra 2014). Route Nationale 3 on the western side of the Anjozorobe-Angavo corridor facilitates the transport of goods produced here, and the Analamanga region provides much of the charcoal consumed in the capital,

Antananarivo (Wright 2009, Gardner 2011, Rabevohitra et al. 2014). Documented evidence of deforestation on the western border of the forest corridor may be linked to these land and resource use practices (Harper et al. 2007).

Interviews

In June and July 2016, we conducted semi-structured interviews with local officials and conservation representatives operating in the Anjozorobe-Angavo region. We selected towns on both sides of the corridor and within the AAFC in which to conduct interviews based on ease of access, proximity to the forest corridor, and likelihood of knowledge about the conservation area. Interviewees were then selected using a snowball sampling method, in which the highest- ranking officials in each town were approached first to request permission to conduct research in their town and to participate in the study. These officials were then asked to recommend other community leaders who were knowledgeable about conservation and resource use issues in the area, and who would be inclined to participate in our research.

The semi-structured key informant interviews covered topics including the history of the protected area; past and current collaborations with Fanamby; resource use, both household and commercial; illegal exploitation of the rainforest; perceived problems with conservation

61 policies; and ideas for solutions to these problems (Appendix 1). Given the sensitivity of conservation and resource use issues, not all topics were covered if interviewees expressed discomfort discussing certain subjects. Interviewees primarily dictated the course of the discussion in each interview.

Interviews were also conducted with Fanamby personnel involved in the AAFC. These iteies touhed o the topis etioed aoe, ut also iluded disussios of Faas methodologies during the consultation period from 2004-2006. Additionally, a copy of

Faas Maageet Pla fo the AAFC, alled the Pla d’Aeageet et Gestio or PAG, was provided by Fanamby interviewees and analyzed as part of this study.

Interview Analysis

Analysis of interview results utilized QDA MinerLite to organize and thematically code interview transcripts for answers to the three study questions listed above. Interviews with

Fanamby personnel as well as their planning guide for the AAFC indicate that consultation was conducted with members of the 40 fokontany listed in Table 5. Ioleet as assessed asking interviewees about their level of contact with Fanamby, past and present, and interview transcripts were coded for expressions of empowerment or marginalization related to

espodets patiipatio i the AAFC. Attitudes toad oseatio ee idetified as iteieees feeligs aout thei ilusio i o elusio fo AAFC aageet. “peifiall, interviewees were asked whether they benefitted from the park, and if so, what benefits they received. Transcripts were coded for expressions of ownership or pride in the forest, which convey positive attitudes toward local management of the forest corridor. We assessed residents peeptios of oseatio effetieess ia uestios aout esoue use i the

AAFC, anthropogenic threats to the forest, perceptions of responsibility for forest loss and degradation, and ideas for solutions to current management problems.

Study Limitations

Limited time in the field and poor road conditions due to rain resulted in a relatively small sample of interviewees (n=48). However, the richness of interview data gathered compensates for this small sample size, as the local officials with whom we spoke provided extensive and valuable information about relationships between the AAFC and their

ouities aoss ultiple sales, fo idiidual households to etie distits.

Furthermore, the local officials interviewed represent populations who have been historically marginalized during conservation planning, yet are often directly impacted by environmental policies. The communities accessed during this study were reportedly included in the AAFC planning process (Fanamby 2015). A major component of our research was to determine who was consulted and how their input informed conservation policy, as the inclusion of local perspectives on resource use and environmental conservation is crucial to ensure the long-term success of the Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor protected area.

Results

Fanamby Interviews

Interviews with Fanamby personnel operating in the AAFC provided insight into the poess of ipleetig oseatio poli i the AAFC. Folloig ‘aaloaaas pledge to triple Madagasas poteted aeas etok, the Malagas o-governmental organization (NGO) Fanamby applied for and was granted managerial status at the proposed

AAFC Ne Poteted Aea. Aodig to Faas PAG, the AAFC ipats fokontany, 13

63 communes, 3 districts, and 2 regions of central Madagascar (Table 5) (Fanamby 2015).

Throughout the planning and implementation of conservation policy in the AAFC, Fanamby personnel have consulted with local leaders at each level of government of the communities noted in Table 5.

Fanamby also included nongovernmental community members in park planning during a consultation process. Between 2004 and 2006, Fanamby representatives organized open meetings in local communities in the forest corridor region to explain the concept of the proposed protected area and secure community approval of the park. When the consultation process concluded in December 2005, the park received an arrt de protectio teporaire

(temporary protection order) from the Malagasy federal government (Fanamby 2015, 8), and in

the state desigated the AAFC as a poteted aea i eatio Wight . I , the park achieved status as a Nouvelle Aire Protegée (New Protected Area), or NAP (Fanamby 2015).

The NGO sought Category V protection for the park due to the presence of communities within the AAFC; stricter conservation designations would necessitate the eviction of these communities from protected area lands.

As part of its plan for the conservation of the AAFC, Fanamby implemented programs desiged to edue loal ouities depedee o foest esoues. These alteatie livelihood programs center on providing aid to sustainable agriculture associations in select communities. A Fanamby-sponsored organization called Sahanala purchases the products from these associations and sells them overseas. Once the programs begin generating profit, the initial communities will share seeds and other agricultural supplies with nearby towns to encourage the spread of sustainable agriculture as an alternative to using natural resources from the protected area for livelihood purposes.

Fanamby interviewees noted that the 2009 political crisis caused a significant decrease in the funding the NGO receives from international organizations, which has impacted their work in the AAFC. Several employees were laid off as funding dwindled; Fanamby formerly maintained offices in both Anjozorobe and Mandialaza, but since 2009 the western office has closed. Fanamby manages several other conservation sites across Madagascar that were all established well before 2009 and, according to interviewees, are currently doing very well financially. One Fanamby interviewee stated that the AAFC is a low priority for their organization.

Local Leader Interviews

Interviews were conducted with members of local leadership from both regions of the

AAFC and at three scales of government. Analysis of interview results showed variation between regions and political scales in their involvement in the planning and management of the protected area, their attitudes toward conservation policies, and their perceptions of conservation effectiveness at the AAFC.

Involvement in the Planning and Management of the AAFC

Collaboration with Fanamby

Interviewees were asked if they were familiar with the organization Fanamby, and to what extent their communities collaborated with Fanamby in the planning and management of the AAFC. All respondents knew of Fanamby. When asked to elaborate on their relationship with the NGO, interviewees either said they had worked with Fanamby in the past but no longer, that they currently communicated with Fanamby, or that they had never collaborated with Fanamby

(Table 6). Regionally, interviewees showed similar levels of past and current collaboration,

65 although only residents of the west had never had contact with the NGO. Political-level analysis showed that the commune level of government had the highest levels of past and current contact with Fanamby, while only respondents at the district and fokontany levels had never worked with Fanamby.

Table 6: Collaboration with Fanamby, by Region and Political Scale

Involvement West East District Commune Fokontany past 44.4% 35.7% 33.3% 50.0% 40.0% current 63.0% 50.0% 50.0% 90.0% 48.0% never 18.5% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 16.0%

Involvement in planning and management of protected area

Previous research has found that political power dynamics within local communities can ifluee esidets patiipatio i ouit-based conservation (Kellert et al. 2000, West et al. 2006. Ou iteie tasipts ee oded fo epessios of epoeet ad

agializatio to haateize espodets feeligs aout ilusio i the plaig ad management of the protected area. Examples of each sentiment include:

Faa is desigated as the aage of the foest, ut the aot aage it a oe … We had a eetig ad deided that we will protect our foest. (empowerment) We teah othes to ot ut tees i the foest, ad e supeise ho goes i ad out of the forest ... If someone cuts down trees illegally, we tell the community and send ulpit to the Miisteie des Eau et Foets. (empowerment) Faa ust pa people to potet the foest. Istead, the pessue us to potet it without paying us. (marginalization) What is alloed? Ho a etes a oe lea etee thei ie field ad the foest? (marginalization)

‘espodets patiipatio i oseatio aied egioall Tale 7). Residents of the eastern, Alaotra Mangoro region overwhelmingly reported feeling empowered to participate in

66 forest conservation (71.4%), while western residents were more divided between empowerment (25.9%) and marginalization (44.4%). Respondents at the district level were the most likely government officials to feel marginalized from conservation work (66.7%), although many also reported empowerment in conservation-related activities (50.0%).

Table 7: Expressions of marginalization and empowerment

Sentiment West East District Commune Fokontany empowered 25.9% 71.4% 50.0% 40.0% 32.0% marginalized 44.4% 0.0% 66.7% 20.0% 24.0%

Attitudes Toward Formalized Conservation

Pride and ownership

Participation in community-based conservation can be exhibited in a variety of ways

(Pretty 1995, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Rabevohitra 2014). In this study, interview results showed marked regional differences in the degree to which community leaders participate in the management of the AAFC. Interview transcripts were coded for expression of sentiments of

oeship ad pide to haateize espodets age i the aageet of the protected area. Examples include:

Local communities ae guadias [of the foest]. ownership) People here are proud of the fallaise Anjozorobe-Angavo. We have species here that ae foud ohee else. pride)

While certain interviewees mentioned feeling excluded from ownership of the forest, suh setiets oelated oe stogl ith the espodets politial leel than region of residents (Table 8). Interviewees at the commune level of government expressed high levels of ownership (60.0%) and pride (70.0%) when speaking about the forest and forest conservation.

Fokontany-level interviewees reported some ownership (28.0%) and pride (8.0%) of the forest, while no district-level interviewees expressed either attitude toward the forest corridor.

Table 8: Expressions of Pride and Ownership

Sentiment West East District Commune Fokontany ownership 29.6% 42.9% 0.0% 60.0% 28.0% pride 18.5% 35.7% 0.0% 70.0% 8.0%

Benefits of conservation

Respondents noted inequalities in the distribution of benefits among communities participating in the NAP. Eight respondents in total mentioned the fokontany of Antsahabe and

Sokafana by name as communities that directly benefit from the park – Antsahabe from the construction of Saha Forest Camp, and Sokafana from agricultural aid. One commune-level offiial said that he did ot ko h ol these to fokontany eefit fo oseatio.

Local leaders across the study site provided specific examples of ways in which their communities do or do not benefit from the protected area (Figure 7). Respondents from both regions of the AAFC mentioned compensation like agricultural aid, such as semences (seeds) for crops like rice and ginger, and infrastructure, most notably roads and schools, as key conservation benefits in their communities. Respondents at both the fokontany (16.0%) and commune (30.0%) levels noted the environmental benefits of protecting the forest, including increased rainfall and cleaner air.

Figure 7: Compensation and Other Benefits of Conservation

Several interviewees mentioned negative experiences with conservation benefits; 16.0% of fokontany-level respondents said they received no benefits in exchange for protecting the forest, while officials across government levels said their communities needed, had asked for, or had been promised benefits by Fanamby that had not yet been realized.

Perceptions of Conservation Effectiveness

Perceptions of resource use

Respondents exhibited varying attitudes toward natural resource use in their communities. They most commonly cited agriculture, charcoal production, and timber extraction as the main resource use activities in the AAFC (Table 9). Often, when speaking about these activities, interviewees portrayed them as either illegal or subsistence-based uses of natural resources. Variation in interviewee responses was more pronounced when analyzed by political scale than by region of the respondent (Figure 8). At the district level of government, agriculture was mentioned equally as an illegal and a subsistence activity (16.7%) taking place within the forest corridor, while charcoal (33.3%) and timber (50%) were only mentioned as illegal activities. Commune officials tended to speak of agriculture (60.0%) and charcoal production (30.0%) as illegal uses of the forest, whereas timber was regarded as both an illegal

(10.0%) and a subsistence activity (20.0%). Fokontany-level interviewees were the most likely to regard all resource use as subsistence-related.

Table 9: Threats to Forest Conservation

Figure 8: Perceptions of Resource Use

Perceptions of responsibility for environmental damage

Interviewees often mentioned specific groups of people causing forest loss and degadatio i the AAFC. Those osideed esposile fo egatie foest ipats fall ito five categories: residents of the western side of the corridor, residents of the eastern side of the corridor, residents of both sides of the corridor, communities within the forest itself, and

outsides, o people ho do ot lie ea the foest oido. Figue 9 shows the regional and

72 political-sale diffeees i esidets peeptios of responsibility for forest degradation and deforestation in the AAFC.

Figure 9: Perceptions of Responsibility for Forest Damage

Residents of the eastern Alaotra Mangoro region were most likely to blame forest impacts on western residents (28.6%) or on communities within the forest (28.6%). Residents of the western Analamanga region varied more in the responses; the majority (37.0%) blamed

outsides, though the also akoledged foest loss ad degadatio aused thei own communities (18.5%) and those nearby (22.2%). At the district level of government, respondents typically blamed communities within the AAFC for causing forest damage (33.3%). Commune officials were most likely to point to forest residents (30.0%) or nearby communities (50.0%), but not their own (10.0%). Fokontany-level leaders most often said that outsiders were the most responsible for forest impacts (32.0%).

Proposed solutions to protected area threats

Interviewees provided a range of possible tactics for mitigating perceived forest threats

(Figure 10). Western residents favored a very wide range of solutions, whereas eastern residents tended to favor solutions like increasing employment for corridor residents (50.0%), enforcing existing conservation policies (64.3%), and seeking external aid (71.4%). At the district level, officials proposed educating local people about conservation (50.0%) and conservation policy enforcement (33.3%) with the highest frequency. Commune-level interviewees promoted increased policy enforcement as well (40.0%), but also suggested programs of reforestation

(30.0%) as a strategy for mitigating forest exploitation. Fokontany officials were most likely to promote seeking external aid, primarily from foreign NGOs and corporations, to help reduce

esidets depedee o foest esoues .%. Offiials at the distit .% ad commune (24.0%) levels also supported attracting outside aid. Only officials at the fokontany scale mentioned decentralized, local management of the forest as a means of slowing deforestation (20.0%).

Figure 10: Proposed Solutions to Forest Threats

Discussion

Resource Use in a Category V Protected Area

According to the IUCN (2016), a Category V protected area safeguards the iteatio of people ad atue [hih] oe tie has podued a aea…ith sigifiat eologial,

iologial, ultual ad sei alue. Catego V paks seek to potet this iteatio alloig the otiuatio of taditioal esoue use practices within park boundaries.

However, the IUCN notes a potential issue with this management style:

The ephasis o iteatios of people ad atue oe tie aises the oeptual question for any individual category V protected area: at what point on the temporal continuum should management focus? And, in an area established to protect values based on traditional management systems, what happens when traditions change or are lost? IUCN

Interviewee responses during this study reflect the IUCNs uestios aout defiig

taditioal esoue use ad aoodatig hage ad deelopet i loal ouities.

Couities i Madagasas etal highlads hae histoiall used fie as a eas of leaig land for agriculture and cattle pasturage (Kull 2000), yet agricultural clearing was a top environmental threat listed by our interviewees (Table 9). Kull (2000) notes that fires can also serve as means of expressing political dissatisfaction and of establishing land ownership. Indeed,

Analamanga residents at all levels of government primarily spoke of fires that occurred during times of political crisis, during which the park managers did not protect the AAFC well. Several

esidets spoke of fies ad foest lootig duig the politial crisis. Others provided histoial eaples. Oe iteieee etioed a goeet poga i the late s to transform the forest into agricultural land. This led to illicit cutting in the forest and many fires.

About 1,000 hectares of trees were cut do ad left to ot. “oe esidets of the AAFC a

o oside this patie to e a a of laiig oeship oe uused lad i the foest

76 corridor. Furthermore, interview results show that most community leaders across political scales believe that agricultural activities constitute an illegal use of natural resources (Figure 8).

The managers of the AAFC appear to differ in their attitudes toward human- environment interactions within the park. Fanamby interviewees reported that they had sought a Category V designation for the AAFC to avoid the necessity of removing communities already estalished ithi the poposed poteted aeas oudaies. Hoee, a loal leades oppose the use of natural resources by communities located within the AAFC (Figure 9). Said oe Alaota Magoo esidet, If soeoe uilds a rizière [rice paddy] in the forest, they must cut down trees to do so. Then they will clear around it. They will continually enlarge their agiultual lads. Interviewees even hinted at futue foas ito the foest to eit people liig thee illegall. Ou iteie esposes thus aise ipotat uestios aout hat resource use activities to allow within the AAFC, and who determines the legality of these activities (see Peluso 1993).

The beliefs and tactics described above contradict the spirit of Category V protected areas, as ouities ithi the pak otiute to the iteatio of people ad atue that a Category V park claims to protect (IUCN 2016). The interview responses gathered in this study suggest that residents of the AAFC are not familiar with the tenets of Category V protection.

When the interviewer mentioned how the park was created to protect the interdependence of people and environment, an interviewee respoded, These people do ot eed the foest.

The look fo lad ithi the foest to hae a easie life. “uh esposes also idiate that

susistee o taditioal esoue use is ot stati, ut athe hages oe tie, ad a eole ito usustaiale o otaditioal esoue use to soe stakeholdes. Both resource use practices and perceptions of those practices are dynamic and difficult to codify in conservation policy.

Defiig the Couity i Couity-based Conservation

Community-based conservation efforts can engender inequalities among local stakeholdes ased o ho ouities ae defied ad gated patiipatio i poteted area management (Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Interview results indicate disparities in the inclusion of communities across the forest corridor in the management of the AAFC. Regional perceptions of responsibility for destructive activities in the natural forest have some influence o loal leades aageet of the poteted aea. Fo istae, easte ommunity leaders primarily blamed Analamanga residents for deforestation (28.6%), whereas western iteieees ofte ited outsides .% as those ausig the ost daage to the natural forest (Figure 9). This discrepancy is most easily explained as the result of poor communication between local leaders of the two regions; eastern officials may simply not know that non- residents cause most forest degradation on the western side. Still, this discrepancy can lead to problems in the management of the AAFC. For one, eastern officials may call for increased

estitios o estees use of the foest i the iteests of safeguadig eioetal integrity in the Analamanga region of the park. Such restrictions would not only unduly restrict resource use by western residents, but would also fail to curb deforestation in the west.

Leaders on both sides of the corridor advocated for the removal of communities within the park. Interviewees consider forest residents personally responsible for forest degradation as

ell as uale to peet foest eploitatio othes. As oe iteieee put it, If the at potet the foest, hat good ae the doig thee? Yet, pe the AAFC Maageet Pla, the fokontany within the forest corridor are co-managers of the park and therefore should have equal status with fokontany outside the forest in management decisions (Fanamby 2015).

Although all 40 fokontany named in the AAFC Management Plan ought to have equal say in the

78 management of the park, clearly differences exist in their conservation priorities and decision-

akig poe. The AAFC Maageet Pla thus hoogeizes the ouities ithi the

AAFC that contribute to community-based conservation (Agrawal and Gibson 1999) when in reality the communities and individuals within them have distinct needs, goals, and resource management capabilities.

Western and eastern residents alike advocate for separate management of the two

egios of the AAFC. As oe Alaota Magoo esidet stated, The gendarmeries of the East work together on protection, but the West does not take the same measures to stop the destutio. Weste iteieees ageed. The est appoah ould e to deliit setios of the poteted aea, said oe Aalaaga offiial. Let the est side e anaged by West

ouities, ad let East ouities e esposile fo the easte side. Ma espodets already consider the forest corridor as regionally divided. Speaking about people from the East who extract gold from within the forest, one western espodet said, The theate our foest. I this a, a ouit leades appeaed to suppot the delieatio of management responsibilities between eastern and western regions, contrary to the management plan implemented by Fanamby.

Trends regardig ouities ilusio i o elusio fo the aageet of the protected area did not follow either regional or political-level patterns. In fact, several respondents expressed sentiments of both marginalization and empowerment during their interviews. Ma ouities estalished oseatio goups alled KA“TI Koiti Ala s ny Tontolo Iainana), or Forest and Environment Committees, long before the designation of the

AAFC. One local leader described the KASTI in his community as masoivoho, o eyes of the foest, eause the oito ad egulate atiities ithi the oido. This iteieee late complained that the KASTI receive neither recognition nor compensation for their protection of

79 the forest. Another said he had expected to collaborate with Fanamby on conservation policy efoeet. We hae ot head fo Faa ho to hadle ifatios i the foest, he said. “o e do ou o oitoig, ad e sed tasgessos to the tiual. Loal leades thus conflicted over their roles in the protection of the natural forest cannot effectively contribute to the management of the AAFC. In a similar vein, leaders marginalized from protected area management may feel resentful toward their peers in other communities who are empowered to participate, as demonstrated in other cases (Kellert et al. 2000, Balint and

Mashinya 2006, Naughton-Treves et al. 2011). Disparities in the inclusiveness of conservation efforts in the AAFC only serve to undermine the protection of the forest corridor.

Residets’ Ifluece o the Future of the AAFC

Loal leades poposals fo outeig defoestatio i the AAFC poide futhe isight into their perceptions of resource use within the protected area (Figure 10). Fokontany-level officials supported grassroots strategies like devolving management of the park to local

ouities .%, poidig eploet .% ad ieasig esidets opesatio for conservation participation (8.0%), and seeking outside aid to support their constituents

(24.0%). Respodets ideas fo utilizig outside aid eteed piail o poidig employment and alternative livelihood benefits to residents. Interviewees on both sides of the forest corridor suggested establishing partnerships with foreign corporations to build factories in their fokontany, thereby providing stable employment for residents tired of the unpredictability of agricultural work.

Despite concerns over unequal enforcement of park policies and compensation for conservation efforts, communities throughout the AAFC conveyed pride in their management of the natural forest (Table 8). Eastern leaders pointed out the integrity of the forest on their side

80 of the oido; oe ee laied, We hae the real atual foest hee. I the est, leades familiar with the Saha Forest Camp ecolodge in Antsahabe pointed to this establishment and its popularity with foreign tourists as evidence of the quality and health of the natural forest on the western side of the corridor. However, poor forest management in other parts of the corridor

ould ifluee espodets feeligs of pide. Aodig to oe easte espodet, People who destroy the forest elsewhere also destroy the morale of the people who live here, suggesting that reports of forest destruction in other areas could discourage local residents from continuing to manage the forest sustainably. Therefore, consistent management of the entire forest corridor will be necessary to ensure the local communities feel positively about their contributions to the management of the AAFC.

Conclusion

The Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor presents a pertinent example of the contradictions and potential conflicts inherent in the Category V protected area management scheme. Results from this study suggest that conservation implementation in the AAFC influences esidets pespeties o local use of natural resources. Local leaders point to

destutie esoue use paties ouig throughout the forest corridor, practices that arguably contributed to the production of a aea of distit haate ith sigifiat

iologial, ultual ad sei alue IUCN . At the sae tie, oeial eploitatio

outsides eaeates poles of esoue eploitatio ithi the AAFC. Loal leades lak the political power to stop commercial exploitation but feel empowered to restrict household- level resource use in the corridor, thereby contradicting the aims of Category V protection.

Community leaders across the forest corridor disagree over definitions of illegal and subsistence natural resource use, over the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and

81 oe stategies fo oattig foest loss. This stud foud ieualities i loal esidets inclusion in the management of the protected area across regional and political scales; certain communities and governmental officials feel empowered to participate in the conservation of the forest corridor while others are marginalized from this process. While respondents across the study area expressed pride in the natural forest, many also expressed concerns over the loss of resource use due to the implementation of conservation policy and inadequate compensation for their protection of the forest.

The problems encountered by residents of the AAFC suggest that community-based conservation does not correspond to local resource needs and management priorities. Our study suggests that the Category V park was imposed upon local communities without adequate consultation of local leadership, particularly with regard to the objectives of Category V potetio, o eual iopoatio of stakeholdes iput. “oe loal leades hae espoded developing their own conservation programs, while others worry that protection of the forest corridor can never be fully achieved. Conservation managers in the AAFC must include a broader array of local resource use needs into protected area management and clarify the intent of

Catego V oseatio effots hee to loal leades to esue the potetio of the interaction of people ad atue i the Ajozooe-Angavo corridor.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The overarching objective of this research was to determine the extent to which CBC efforts in a newly created Category V protected area enables participation by local communities in park management, and the effect of CBC on the conservation of the Anjozorobe-Angavo

Forest Corridor and protection of local livelihoods. The results of this study indicate that

Category V protection as defined by the IUCN has not been successfully implemented in the

AAFC: human-environment interactions are under threat, and local leaders do not feel that

oseatio poliies epeset thei ostituets esoue use eeds o potet the pak fo exploitative activities.

Throughout the African continent and the southern Africa region, CBC efforts have been criticized for failing to include local communities in protected areas planning and management.

The IUCNs Catego V desigatio, hih ais to safeguad itial elatioships etee people and their environment, has similarly faced issues with implementation. The AAFC clearly illustrates the problems inherent with such top-down CBC programs. The state government responded to international pressure to conserve Malagasy biodiversity by rapidly creating a series of new protected areas; Fanamby, in turn, pursued an agenda in its implementation of conservation policy at the AAFC that did not encompass participation, collaboration, or consultation to the satisfaction of local community leaders. Thus, while CBC and Category V parks ideally empower local communities to conserve biodiversity without losing their livelihoods, in reality their implementation is more heavily weighted toward the imposition of conservation policy without reference to community input about local resource needs and existing management structures.

The resource management needs and institutions of the communities affected by the

AAFC ust e iopoated ito the poteted aeas aageet pla if this pak is to eoe a successful example of CBC. Community-level protection groups like the KASTI should be recognized and compensated for their role in protecting forest resources. Local leaders should

e suffiietl epoeed to a outsides fo eploitig tie esoues ad to encourage sustainable use of the forest by their constituents. Conservation benefits like agricultural aid and other development projects should be distributed fairly among the communities of the AAFC. Furthermore, greater communication is desperately needed between

Fanamby and local leadership concerning the intent of Category V protection. Fanamby should make every effort to ensure that resource-dependent livelihoods are not threatened by conservation policies, and local leaders should recognize that the communities dependent on forest resources are not enemies of conservation, but rather crucial to the long-term viability of the AAFC.

Co-management of the AAFC at this point is lopsided. Local leaders do not see themselves as equal partners in the protection of the forest corridor, even as Fanamby becomes increasingly removed from park management due to funding difficulties. Future policy in the

AAFC should clearly empower local leaders throughout the corridor and across political scales to participate in the administration of the protected area and incorporate their resource use needs and management institutions into conservation practices. If this is accomplished, the AAFC could become an example of effective CBC that ensures both the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainability of local livelihoods.

REFERENCES

Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001). If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the

question? Oryx 35(3), 193-200.

Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific

knowledge. Development and change 26(3), 413-439.

Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C.C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in

natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4), 629-649.

Ali, S.H. (Ed). (2007). Peace parks: Conservation and conflict resolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Alledof, T.D., “ith, J.L.D., & Adeso, D.H. . ‘esidets peeptios of ‘oal Badia

National Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning 82, 33-40.

Alpert, P. (1996). Integrated conservation and development projects: Examples from Africa.

BioScience 46(11), 845-855.

Alvarado, S.T., Buisson, E., Carrière, S.M., Rabarison, H., Rajeriarison, C., Andrianjafy, M.,

Randriatsivery, F.M., Rasoafaranaivo, M.H., Raharimampionona, J., Lowry II, P.P., &

Birkinshaw, C. (2015). Achieving sustainable conservation in Madagascar: The case of

the newly established Ibity Mountain Protected Area. Tropical Conservation Science

8(2), 367-395.

Antona, M., Biénabe, E.M., Salles, J.M., Péchard, G., Aubert, S., & Ratsimbarison, R. (2004).

Rights transfers in Madagascar biodiversity policies: Achievements and significance.

Environment and Development Economics 9, 825-847.

Balint, P.J. (2006). Improving community-based conservation near protected areas: The

importance of development variables. Environmental Management 38(1), 137-148.

Balint, P.J. & Mashinya, J. (2006). The decline of a model community-based conservation

project: Governance, capacity, and devolution in Mahenye, Zimbabwe. Geoforum 37,

804-815.

Ball, A.A., Gouzerh, A., & Brancalion, P.H.S. (2014). Multi-scalar governance for restoring the

Brazilian Atlantic Forest: A case study on small landholdings in protected areas of

sustainable development. Forests 5(4), 599-619.

Baral, N., Stern, M.J., & Heinen, J.T. (2007). Integrated conservation and development project

life cycles in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal: Is development overpowering

conservation? Biodiversity Conservation 16, 2903-2917.

Beinart, W. & Coates, P. (1995). Environment and history: The taming of nature in the USA and

South Africa. London: Routledge.

Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In J.T. Inglis (ed.), Traditional

ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases, p. 1-10. Ottawa: International Program on

Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre.

Berkes, F. (1995). Community-based management and co-management as tools for

empowerment. In N. Singh & V. Titi (eds.), Empowerment: Towards sustainable

development, p. 138-146. London: Zed Books.

Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3), 621-

630.

Blaikie, P. (2006). Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in

Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11), 1942-1957.

Blanc-Pamard, C. (2009). The Mikea Forest under threat (southwest Madagascar): How public

policy leads to conflicting territories. Field Action Science Reports 3, 1-12.

Blanc-Pamard, C. & Rakoto Ramiarantsoa, H. (2007). Normes environnementales, transferts de

gestion et recompositions territoriales en pays betsileo (Madagascar) : La gestion

contractualisée des forêts. Natures sciences sociétés 3(15), 253-268.

Brandon, K.E. & Wells, M. (1992). Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World

Development 20(4), 557-570.

Briggs, J. (2005). The use of indigenous knowledge in development: Problems and challenges.

Progress in Development Studies 5(2), 99–114.

Brockington, D. (2002). Fortress conservation: The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve,

Tanzania. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 35(2/3), 594-596.

Brockington, D. (2004). Community conservation, inequality and injustice: Myths of power in

protected area management. Conservation and Society 2(2), 411-432.

Brockington, D. & Scholfield, K. (2010). Expenditure by conservation nongovernmental

organizations in sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation Letters 3, 106-113.

Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Rylands, A.B., Konstant,

W.R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, A., Magin, G., & Hilton-Taylor, C. (2002). Habitat loss

and extinction in the hostpots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16(4), 909-923.

Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.A., & Mulder, M.B. (2012). How national context, project design, and

local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation

projects. PNAS 109(52), 21265-21270.

Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L., & Zerner, C. (1998). Representing communities: Histories and politics of

community-based natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 11(2),

157-168.

Brown, K. (2003). Integrating conservation and development: A case of institutional misfit.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(9), 479-487.

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., & Da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in

protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125-129.

Campbell, L.M. & Vainio-Mattila, A. (2003). Participatory development and community-based

conservation: Opportunities missed or lessons learned? Human Ecology 31(3), 417-437.

Chatty, D. & Colchester, M. (2002). Introduction: Conservation and mobile indigenous peoples.

In D. Chatty & M. Colchester (eds.), Conservation and mobile indigenous peoples:

Displacement, forced settlement and sustainable development, p. 77-96. New York, NY:

Berghahn.

Clark, M.L. & Aide, T.M. (2011). Virtual Interpretation of Earth Web-Interface Tool (VIEW-IT) for

collecting land-use/land-cover reference data. Remote Sensing 3, 601-620.

Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? New York, NY: Zed Books.

Coombes, B., Johnson, J.T., & Howitt, R. (2012). Indigenous geographies I: Mere resource

conflicts? The complexities in Indigenous and environmental claims. Progress in Human

Geography 36(6), 810-821.

Copsey, J.A., Rajaonarison, L.H., Randriamihamina, R., & Rakotoniaina, L.J. (2009). Voices from

the marsh: Livelihood concerns of fishers and rice cultivators in the Alaotra wetland.

Madagascar Conservation and Development 4(1), 25-30.

Corson, C. (2012). From rhetoric to practice: How high-profile politics impeded community

osultatio i Madagasas e poteted aeas. Society & Natural Resources 24(4),

336-351.

Corson, C. (2014). Conservation politics in Madagascar: The expansion of protected areas. In I.R.

Scales (ed.), Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar, p. 193-215.

London: Routledge.

Corson, C. (2016). Corridors of power: The politics of environmental aid to Madagascar. New

Haven. CT: Yale University Press.

Cronon, W. (1995). Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature. New York, NY:

W.W. Norton & Company.

Cullman, G. (2015). Community forest management as virtualism in northeastern Madagascar.

Human Ecology 43(1), 29-41.

Dahal, S., Nepal, S.K., & Schuett, M.A. (2014). Examining marginalized communities and local

oseatio istitutios: The ase of Nepals Aapua Coseatio Aea.

Environmental Management 53, 219-230.

Dais, A. . Ha! What is the eefit of liig et to the pak? Fatos liitig i-

migration next to Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. Conservation and Society 9(1), 25-

34.

DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A.C., & Hansen, M.C. (2005). Increasing isolation of protected

areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications 15(1), 19-26.

Dea, ‘.E. . Eal hua settles ad thei ipat o Madagasas ladsapes. I I.‘.

Scales (ed.), Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar, p. 44-64.

London: Routledge.

Dowie, M. (2009). Conservation Refugees: The hundred-year conflict between global

conservation and native peoples. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dressler, W., Buscher, B., School, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C.A., McCarthy, J., &

Shrestha, K. (2010). From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global

CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation 37(1), 5-15.

Duffy, R. (2005). Global environmental governance and the challenge of shadow states: The

impact of illicit sapphire mining in Madagascar. Development & Change 36(5), 825-843.

Duffy, R. (2006a). Non-governmental organisations and governance states: The impact of

transnational environmental networks in Madagascar. Environmental Politics 15(5), 731-

749.

Duffy, R. (2006b). The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: The politics of

transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa. Political Geography 25, 89-112.

Duveiller, G., Defourny, P., Desclée, B., & Mayaux, P. (2008). Deforestation in central Africa:

Estimates at regional, national and landscape levels by advanced processing of

systematically distributed Landsat extracts. Remote Sensing of Environment 112, 1969-

1981.

Evers, S., Burnod, P., Ratsialonana, R.A., & Teyssier, A. (2011). Foreign land acquisitions in

Madagascar: Competing jurisdictions of access claims. In T. Dietz, K. Havnevik, M. Kaag,

& T. Oestigaard (eds.), African engagements: Africa negotiating in an emerging

multipolar world, p. 110-132. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Fairhead, J. & Leach, M. (1995). False forest history, complicit social analysis: Rethinking some

West African environmental narratives. World Development 23(6), 1023-1035.

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature?

Journal of Peasant Studies 39(2), 237-261.

Faa. . Pla daeageet et de gestio de la ouelle aie potegée Ajozooe-

Angavo pour cinq ans.

Ferraro, P.J. (2002). The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations:

Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 43, 261-275.

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.

Ambio 22 (2-3), 151-156.

Ganzhorn, J.U., Lowry, P.P., Schatz, G.E. & Sommer, S. (2001). The biodiversity of Madagascar:

Oe of the olds hottest hotspots o its a out. Oryx 35(4), 1-3.

Gardner, C.J. (2011). IUCN management categories fail to represent new, multiple-use protected

areas in Madagascar. Oryx 45(3), 336-346.

Gebrehiwot, S.G., Bewket, W., Gärdenäs, A.I., & Bishop, K. (2014). Forest cover change over four

decades in the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia: Comparison of three watersheds. Regional

Environmental Change 14, 253-266.

Ghai, D. & Vivian, J.M. (eds.) (1992). Grassroots environmental actio: People’s participatio i

sustainable development. London: Routledge.

Gibbes, C., Southworth, J., & Keys, E. (2009). Wetland conservation: change and fragmentation

i Tiidads poteted aeas. Geoforum, 40(1), 91-104.

Gibbes, C. & Keys, E. (2010). The illusion of equity: An examination of community based natural

resource management and inequality in Africa. Geography Compass 4(9), 1324-1338.

Gibson, C.C. & Marks, S.A. (1995). Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An

assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa. World

Development 23(6), 941-957.

Goldman, M. (2003). Partitioned nature, privileged knowledge: Community-based conservation

in Tanzania. Development and Change 34(5), 833-862.

Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Popatov, P.V., Loveland, T.R., Townshend, J.R.G., DeFries, R.S.,

Pittman, K.W., Arunarwati, B., Stolle, F., Steininger, M.K., Carroll, M., & DiMiceli, C.

(2008). Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified by using

multitemporal and multiresolution remotely sensed data. PNAS 105(27), 9439-9444.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Harper, G.J., Steininger, M.K., Tucker, C.J., Juhn, D., & Hawkins, F. (2007). Fifty years of

deforestation and forest fragmentation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation

34(4), 325-333.

Hayes, T. (2006). Parks, people, and forest protection: An institutional assessment of the

effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34(12), 2064-2075.

Hayes, T.M. (2007). Does tenure matter? A comparative analysis of agricultural expansion in the

Moquitia forest corridor. Human Ecology 35, 733-747.

Hayes, T.M. (2008). The robustness of indigenous common-property systems to frontier

expansion: Institutional interplay in the Mosquitia. Conservation and Society 6, 117-129.

Horning, N.R. (2008). Strong support for weak performance: Donor competition in Madagascar.

African Affairs 107(428), 405-431.

Hoig, N.‘. . Deukig thee ths aout Madagasas defoestatio. Madagascar

Conservation & Development 7(3), 116-119.

Horton, R. (1967). African traditional thought and Western science. Africa: Journal of the

International African Institute, 37(2), 155-187.

Hufty, M. & Muttenzer, F. (2002). Devoted friends: The implementation of the Convention on

Biological Diversity in Madagascar. In P. Le Prestre (ed.), Governing Global Biodiversity,

p. 279-309. London: Ashgate.

Humbert, H. (1955). Les territoires phytogéographiques de Madagascar : Leur cartographie.

Année biologique 31(5-6), 439-448.

Igoe, J. (2004). Conservation and globalization: A study of national parks and indigenous

communities from East Africa to South Dakota. Toronto: Wadsworth.

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). (2016). Protected area Category V.

Accessed 1 May 2016. Available <

https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/

gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_category5/>.

Jarosz, L. (1993). Defining and explaining tropical deforestation: Shifting cultivation and

population growth in colonial Madagascar (1896-1940). Economic Geography 69(4),

366-379.

Joppa, L.N., Loarie, S.R., & Pimm, S.L. (2008). O the potetio of poteted aeas. PNAS

105(18), 6673-6678.

Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A., & Lichtenfeld, L.L. (2000). Community natural resource

management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources 13(8), 705-

715.

Klein, J. (2002). Defoestatio i the Madagasa Highlads: Estalished tuth ad sietifi

uncertainty. GeoJournal 56, 191-199.

Kleinschroth, F., Healey, J.R., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Mortier, F., & Stoica, R. (2016). Effects of logging

on roadless space in intact forest landscapes of the Congo Basin. Conservation Biology,

in press. Published online 27 August 2016.

Kremen, C., Niles, J.O., Dalton, M.G., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Fay, J.P., Grewal, D. & Guillery,

R.P. (2000). Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales. Science

288(5472), 1828-1833.

Kull, C. (2000). Deforestation, erosion, and fire: Degradation myths in the environmental history

of Madagascar. Environment and History 6, 423-450.

Kull, C.A. (2004). Isle of fire: The political ecology of landscape burning in Madagascar. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kull, C.A. (2014). The roots, persistence, ad haate of Madagasas oseatio oo. In

I.R. Scales (ed.), Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar, p. 146-

171. London: Routledge.

Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and

institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development

27(2), 225-247.

Lemos, M.C. & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environmental

Resources 31(1), 297.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Little, P.D. (1994). The link between local participation and improved conservation: A review of

issues and experiences. In D. Western & R.M. Wright (eds.), Natural connections:

Perspectives in community-based conservation, p. 347-372. Washington. D.C.: Island

Press.

Locke, H. & Dearden, P. (2005). Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm.

Environmental Conservation 32(1), 1-10.

Logan, B.I. & Moseley, W.G. (2002). The political ecology of poverty alleviation in )iaes

Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE).

Geoforum 33, 1-14.

Malinowski, B. (1929). Practical anthropology. Africa: Journal of the International African

Institute, 2(1), 22-38.

Marie, C.N., Sibelet, N., Dulcire, M., Rafalimaro, M., Danthu, P., & Carrière, S.M. (2009). Taking

into account local practices and indigenous knowledge in an emergency conservation

context in Madagascar. Biodiversity Conservation 18, 2759-2777.

Mayaux, P., Holmgren, P., Achard, F., Eva, H., Stibig, H.J., & Branthomme, A. (2005). Tropical

forest cover change in the 1990s and options for future monitoring. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B 360, 373-384.

McConnell, W.J. & Kull, C.A. (2014). Deforestation in Madagascar: Debates oe the islads

forest cover and challenges of measuring forest change. In I.R. Scales (ed.), Conservation

and Environmental Management in Madagascar, p. 67-104. London: Routledge.

McConnell, W.J., Sweeney, S.P., & Mulley, B. (2004). Physical and social access to land: Spatio-

temporal patterns of agricultural expansion in Madagascar. Agriculture, Ecosystems and

Environment 101, 171-184.

MCoell, W.J., Viña, A., Kull, C., & Batko, C. . Foest tasitio i Madagasas

highlands: Initial evidence and implications. Land 4, 1155-1181.

McNeely, J.A. & Miller, K.R. (Eds.). (1984). Proceedings from Third World Congress on National

Parks: National parks, conservation, and development: The role of protected areas in

sustaining society. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Meyerson, H. (2001). Nature's army: When soldiers fought for Yellowstone. Lawrence, KS:

University Press of Kansas.

Moswete, N.N., Thapa, B., & Child, B. (2012). Attitudes and opinions of local and national public

sector stakeholders toward Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Botswana.

Munyati, C. & Kabanda, T.A. (2009). Using multitemporal Landsat TM imagery to establish land

use pressure induced trends in forest and woodland cover in sections of the

Soutpansberg Mountains of Venda region, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Regional

Environmental Change 9, 41-56.

Mes, N. . Theateed iotas: Hot spots i topial foests. Environmentalist 8(3), 187-

208.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., & Kent, J. (2000).

Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853-858.

Naeem, S., Chazdon, R., Duffy, J.E., Prager, C., & Worm, B. (2016). Biodiversity and human well-

being: an essential link for sustainable development. Proceedings of the Royal Society B

283(1844), 1-10.

Nash, R. (1967). Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Naughton-Treves, L., Alix-Garcia, J., & Chapman, C.A. (2011). Lessons about parks and poverty

from a decade of forest loss and economic growth around Kibale National Park, Uganda.

PNAS 108(34), 13919-13924.

Neumann, R. (1998). Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in

Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Neumann, R. (2002). The postwar conservation boom in British Colonial Africa. Environmental

History 7(1), 22-47.

Newmark, W.D. & Hough, J.L. (2000). Conserving wildlife in Africa: Integrated conservation and

development projects and beyond. BioScience 50(7), 585-592.

Newmark, W.D., Leonard, N.L., Sariko, H.I., & Gamassa, D.G.M. (1993). Conservation attitudes of

local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation

63, 177-183.

NPS (National Park Service). (2017). Conservation vs preservation and the National Park Service.

Accessed 1 May 2017. Available

preservation.htm>.

Ormsby, A. & Kaplin, B.A. (2005). A framework for understanding community resident

perceptions of Masoala National Park, Madagascar. Environmental Conservation 32(2),

156-164.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the

commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science 284(5412), 278-282.

Peet, M. & Watts, M. (Eds.). (2004). Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social

movements. London, UK: Routledge.

Peluso, N.L. (1993). Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global

Environmental Change 3(2), 199-217.

Pollini, J. & Lassoie, J.P. (2011). Trapping farmer communities within global environmental

regimes: The case of the GELOSE legislation in Madagascar. Society & Natural Resources

24(8), 814-830.

Pretty, J.N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23(8),

1247-1263.

Pretty, J.N. & Pimbert, M.P. (1995). Beyond conservation ideology and the wilderness. Natural

Resources Forum 19(1), 5-14.

Putz, F. E., Blate, G. M., Redford, K. H., Fimbel, R., & Robinson, J. (2001). Tropical forest

management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview. Conservation Biology, 15(1),

7-20.

Rabevohitra, M.V.R., Klaey, A., Ramananarivo, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2014). Analysis of

participatory approach applied in creating a new protected area Anjozorobe Angavo.

Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering B 3, 61-69.

Radcliffe, S. (2015). Geography and indigeneity I: Indigeneity, coloniality and knowledge.

Progress in Human Geography, 1-10.

Rakotomanana, H., Jenkins, R.K.B., & Ratsimbazafy, J. (2013). Conservation challenges for

Madagascar in the next decade. In N.S. Sodhi, L. Gibson, & P.H. Raven (eds.),

Conservation biology: Voices from the tropics, p. 33-39. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley &

Sons.

Randriamalala, H. & Liu, Z. (2010). Rosewood of MadagascarL Between democracy and

conservation. Madagascar Conservation & Development 5(1), 11-22.

Rasolofoson, R.A., Ferraro, P.J., Jenkins, C.N., & Jones, J.P.G. (2015). Effectiveness of community

forest management at reducing deforestation in Madagascar. Biological Conservation

184, 271-277.

Rives, F., Carrière, S.M., Montagne, P., Aubert, S., & Sibelet, N. (2013). Forest management

devolutio: Gap etee tehiias desig ad illages paties i Madagasa.

Environmental Management 52, 877-893.

Ryan, S., Southworth, J., Hartter, J., Dowhaniuk, N., Fuda, R.K., & Diem, J.E. (2015). Household

level influences on fragmentation in an African park landscape. Applied Geography 58,

18-31.

Scales, I.R. (2012). Lost in translation: Conflicting views of deforestation, land use and identity in

western Madagascar. The Geographical Journal 178(1), 67-79.

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, p. 105-

125. London: Routledge.

Schroeder, R.A. (1995). Contradictions along the commodity road to environmental stabilization:

Foresting Gambian gardens. Antipode 27(4), 325-342.

Schwitzer, C., Mittermeier, R.A., Johnson, S.E., Donati, G., Irwin, M., Peacock, H., Ratsimbazafy,

J., Razafindramanana, J., Louis Jr., E.E., Chikhi, L., Colquhoun, I.C., Tinsman, J., Dolch, R.,

LaFleur, M., Nash, S., Patel, E., Randrianambinina, B., Rasolofoharivelo, T., & Wright, P.C.

. Aetig leu etitios aid Madagasas politial isis. Science 343, 842-

843.

Shafer, C.L. (2015). Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V-VI.

Global Ecology and Conservation 3, 331-348.

“letto, B. . Idigeous people dot hae oudaies: ‘eodeigs, fie aageet,

and productions of authenticities in indigenous landscapes. Cultural Geographies 16,

253-277.

Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed

Books.

Southworth, J. & Gibbes, C. (2010). Digital remote sensing within the field of land change

science: Past, present and future directions. Geographical Compass 4(12), 1695-1712.

Stevens, S. (1997a). Annapurna Conservation Area: Empowerment, conservation, and

development in Nepal. In S. Stevens (ed.), Conservation through cultural survival:

Indigenous peoples and protected areas, p. 237-261. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Stevens, S. (1997b). The legacy of Yellowstone. In S. Stevens (ed.), Conservation through cultural

survival: Indigenous peoples and protected areas, p. 13-32. Washington, DC: Island

Press.

Stocks, A., McMahan, B., & Taber, P. (2007). Indigenous, colonist and government impacts on

Niaaguas Bosaas ‘esee. Conservation Biology 21, 1495-1505.

Taylor, R. (2009). Community based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: The experience

of CAMPFIRE. Biodiversity Conservation 18, 2563-2583.

Thondhlana, G., Shackleton, S., & Muchapondwa, E. (2011). Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and its

land claimants: A pre- and post-land claim conservation and development history.

Environmental Research Letters 6, 1-12.

Thondhlana, G., Vedeld, P., & Shackleton, S. (2012). Natural resource use, income and

dependence among San and Mier communities bordering Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park,

southern Kalahari, South Africa. International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology 19(5), 460-470.

Townsend, P.A., Lookingbill, T.R., Kingdon, C.C., & Gardner, R.H. (2009). Spatial pattern analysis

for monitoring protected areas. Remote Sensing of Environment 113, 1410–1420.

Turner, W., Spector, S., Gardiner, N., Fladeland, M., Sterling, E., & Steininger, M. (2003). Remote

sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18,

306-314.

Van Soesbergen, A., Arnell, A.P., Sassen, M., Stuch, B., Schaldach, R., Göpel, J., Vervoot, J.,

Mason-D'Croz, D., Islam, S., & Palazzo, A. (2016). Exploring future agricultural

development and biodiversity in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi: A spatially explicit

scenario-based assessment. Regional Environmental Change, in press. Published online

21 May 2016.

Virah-Sawmy, M., Gardner, C.J., & Ratsifandrihamanana, A.N. (2014). The Durban Vision in

patie: Epeiees i the patiipato goeae of Madagasas e poteted

areas. In I.R. Scales (ed.), Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar,

p. 216-251. London: Routledge.

Wallace, A.P.C., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Jones, J.P.G., Bunnefeld, N., Young, R., & Nicholson, E.

(2015). Quantifying the short-term costs of conservation interventions for fishers at

Lake Alaotra, Madagascar. PLoS ONE 10(6), 1-15.

100

Watson, J.E.M., Joseph, L.N., & Fuller, R.A. (2010). Mining and conservation: Implications for

Madagasas littoal foests. Conservation Letters 3(4), 286-287.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

West, P.C. & Brechin, S.R. (1991). Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas and

strategies in international conservation. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected

areas. Annual review of Anthropology 35, 251-277.

Western, D. (1984). Conservation-based rural development. In F.R. Thibodeau & H.H. Field

(eds.), Sustaining tomorrow: A strategy for world conservation and development, p. 94-

110. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Western, D., & Wright, R.M. (Eds.). (1994). Natural connections: Perspectives in community-

based conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Western, D. & Wright, R.M. (1994). The background to community-based conservation. In D.

Western & R.M. Wright (eds.), Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based

conservation, p. 1-12. Washington. D.C.: Island Press.

Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L., & West, P.C. (2002). Reinventing a square

wheel: Critique of a resuget potetio paadig i iteatioal iodiesit

conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15(1), 17-40.

Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W.T., Burton, A., Coleman, O., & Brashares, J.A. (2008).

Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science 321 (2008):

123-126.

World Bank. (2016). Data – Madagascar. Accessed 1 May 2016. Available

101

Wright, K. (2009). Creating a Category V: Conservation perceptions and cultural changes in the

Anjozorobe-Angavo forest corridor. SIT Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection, paper

741. Available .

WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature). (2016). Foests: Cosee the olds ost ipotat

forests to sustai atues diesit, eefit ou liate ad suppot hua ell-being.

Accessed 26 April 2016. .

WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature). (2016). Madagascar. Accessed 26 April 2016. Available

Zhang, Q., Justice, C.O., & Desanker, P.V. (2002). Impacts of simulated shifting cultivation on

deforestation and the carbon stocks of the forests of central Africa. Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment 90, 203-209.

Zinner, D., Wygoda, C., Razafimanantsoa, L., Rasoloarison, R., Andrianandrasana, H.T., Ganzhorn,

J.U., & Torkler, F. (2014). Analysis of deforestation patterns in the central Menabe,

Madagascar, between 1973 and 2010. Regional Environmental Change 14, 157-166.

102

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Interview guide

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

1. How long have you lived in this region?

2. How long have you worked for [Fanamby, the state government, local government]?

a. How did you obtain this position? Were you elected, or who approved your

appointment?

3. How would you describe the communities here?

a. With whom do you interact most in the community, and for what reasons?

4. How would you describe the natural environment here?

a. How would you describe the health of the rainforest here?

b. Have you noticed any environmental changes since you have lived here?

c. In your opinion, what has caused these changes?

5. How do people in your community use the forest?

6. Have residents changed their use of forest products because of conservation efforts

here?

7. What formal conservation measures or policies are currently in place in Anjozorobe?

a. How are these conservation policies different from previous ones?

b. Are you familiar with conservation efforts in this area?

8. How would you describe the relationship between community members and the

managers of the Anjozorobe-Angavo Forest Corridor? [Who are the managers of the

corridor?]

9. Have you heard of Fanamby, and if so, what does Fanamby do?

103

a. Do you collaborate with Fanamby?

b. Have you worked with Fanamby in the past?

10. What role does your organization have in conservation work here?

a. How do you collaborate with other managers of the forest corridor?

11. Did communities have other ways of protecting or conserving natural resources before

the implementation of formal conservation policies in the forest corridor?

a. What community-level resource management practices are used today?

12. How were local communities consulted in the drafting and implementation of

conservation regulations in the forest corridor?

a. Who was consulted at the community level?

b. How was their input incorporated into conservation policy?

c. Do you think this input was representative of the entire community?

13. What is the biggest threat to the health of the forest?

14. Are there any changes would you like to see regarding natural resource conservation

and management?

104