Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées National Association for the Management of Protected Areas National Parks and Reserves--Madagascar’s New Model for Biodiversity Conservation: Lessons Learned Through Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) By: Richard A. Swanson Submitted to: United States Agency for International Development, Madagascar Contract No. 623-0110-C-00-1041-00 Submitted by: Tropical Research and Development, Inc. 7001 SW 24th Ave. Gainesville, Florida USA January 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ................................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................v 1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................1-1 2.0 ANGAP INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES ...................2-1 2.1 Major Donor and Government of Madagascar Support ....................2-1 2.2 ANGAP Receives Authority over Investments, Income, Operating Costs, Parks Infrastructure ....................................................2-1 2.3 Various Protected Areas Transferred to ANGAP Management ...............2-2 2.4 Clarification of Roles Between ANGAP and DEF .........................2-3 2.5 System-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation System Established ................2-3 2.6 Long-Term Vision Documented ......................................2-4 2.7 System and Parks Level Technical Assistance Begins ......................2-4 2.8 ANGAP Begins Direct Management of Three Protected Areas (January 1995) ...2-5 2.9 South Africa’s National Parks Board: ANGAP’s first Sister Parks System ......2-5 2.10 Park Entrance Fees ...............................................2-6 3.0 ANGAP’S MISSION STATEMENT .......................................3-1 3.1 New Organizational Structure for ANGAP ..............................3-1 3.2 ANGAP’s Future Institutional Role ....................................3-2 3.3 Sanctions .......................................................3-4 3.4 Transition ......................................................3-4 3.5 Park Signs, Uniforms, Logos, and other Publicity .........................3-5 4.0 LESSONS LEARNED WITH ICDPs IN CONTEXT OF CONSERVING NATIONAL PARKS AND RESERVES ...............................................4-1 4.1 The Clarification of CORE Concepts ..................................4-1 4.1.1 The Park or Protected Areas ..................................4-1 4.1.2 The Protected Area .........................................4-2 4.1.3 The Buffer Zone ............................................4-2 4.1.4. The Service Zone ...........................................4-3 4.1.5 The Peripheral Zone .........................................4-3 4.2 The ICDP Concept ...............................................4-4 4.2.1 Lessons Learned about Type of Development ......................4-5 4.2.2 The General Need for Focusing, Prioritization, and a Sense of Scale .....4-7 4.2.4 Transversality .............................................4-11 4.2.5 The Direct Pressure Agent ...................................4-12 4.2.6 Village Groups ............................................4-12 ANGAP: Lessons Learned Through ICDPs 4.2.7 It Takes Time to Change Human Behavior .......................4-12 4.2.8 Lessons Learned about the Kind of Conservation ..................4-13 5.0 OTHER LESSONS LEARNED ...........................................5-1 5.1 The Not-for-Profit Association as Park System Manager ...................5-1 5.2 Sustainability and the Depreciation Question .............................5-1 5.3 Multiple Donors for One Protected Area ...............................5-2 5.4 Delegation of Authority .............................................5-2 5.5 Loss of Focus ...................................................5-2 5.6 A Tempting Take-Over Target .......................................5-2 5.7 Creating Partnerships ..............................................5-3 5.8 Technical Assistance ..............................................5-3 5.9 ANGAP’s Board of Directors .......................................5-3 5.10 Financial Sustainability of Parks Network ...............................5-4 5.11 Conclusions .....................................................5-4 REFERENCES ........................................................... REF-1 Annex 1 Maps Tropical Research and Development, Inc. iii ANGAP: Lessons Learned Through ICDPs ACRONYMS ANGAP National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées) CARE Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere CI Conservation International, Inc. DEF Department of Water and Forests DIVB Department of Information and Biodiversity Valorization ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Projects M&E monitoring and evaluation NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NGO nongovernmental organization PACT Private Agencies Cooperating Together SAVEM Sustainable Approach for Viable Environment Management TR&D Tropical Research and Development, Inc. UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development VITA Volunteers in Technical Assistance WWF World Wide Fund for Nature iv Tropical Research and Development, Inc. ANGAP: Lessons Learned Through ICDPs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Worldwide, national parks are generally operated by government ministries with a national parks service. Such federally run services are not the only models for national parks management as evidenced by a number of semi-autonomous organizations proudly filling this role. The past 5 years have seen the development of Madagascar’s national parks service which has followed a creative institutional arrangement whereby the state has delegated to the Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées (ANGAP) the management authority of a network of 44 parks and reserves. ANGAP is a not-for-profit association. While much remains to be achieved, this report captures some of the lessons learned through the integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs) whose coordination led to ANGAP’s current mission statement and mandate. Emphasis is given to the need to involve both local communities adjacent to protected areas and the private sector. Policy implications are drawn out. Tropical Research and Development, Inc. v ANGAP: Lessons Learned Through ICDPs 1.0 INTRODUCTION Madagascar has never had a federally run national parks service and does not have one today. Five years ago, when the government of Madagascar and donors were preparing for the first National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), it was decided that Madagascar needed an institution which could efficiently manage a protected area network of national parks and reserves. The area to be protected within this network of parks and reserves represented the apex of the best and most unique of Madagascar biodiversity. Its economic and biodiversity importance far exceeded its size (less than 2% of Madagascar) relative to the rest of Madagascar’s remaining patches of forest and wilderness areas. Worldwide, national parks are generally operated by government ministries with a national parks service. Problems with state management of such resources have become increasingly evident, particularly in the developing countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. It is generally true worldwide that “lack of financial resources has been one of the principal impediments to promoting sustainable development and environmental protection. National funding has failed to provide the needed financial resources for establishing and maintaining protected areas...” (Barzetti, 1993, p.159). Problems include disassociation of park revenues from operating costs - with revenue returning to the national treasury; the inability of federal bureaucracies to compete efficiently with the private sector, leading to increased operation costs and sometimes lack of professionalism; and the inability of park management officials to limit tourist access to a predetermined carrying capacity for specific areas visited. The conservation objective in these cases has frequently become secondary to the commercial and political interests of powerful lobby groups. The United States Parks Service, created in 1916 and the oldest of its kind, is under increasing pressure to sustain the national parks in their natural state. In some cases it is losing the battle (Mitchell, 1994). The list of ills immediately reminds one of the problems faced by developing nations around the world. For example, Yellowstone, the world’s first federally operated national park created in 1872, is in a critical state. One reads of “Yellowstone’s dilapidated road system,” whose deteriorating sewage system several years ago “contaminated a portion of the celebrated Yellowstone River." Its rangers spend “frigid winters in trailers and uninsulated temporary housing located in an area accessible only by snowmobile” (Forstenzer, 1995, pp.38, 43, 48). It is currently also threatened by a newly proposed mining concession which could create an environmental disaster within park boundaries. Significant populations of Yellowstone’s elk and bison are threatened with extermination because of their threat to peripheral zone cattle (brucellosis). The Parks Service is in the midst of a financial crisis and it is difficult to exaggerate the vast problems that now affect the parks. Many irreplaceable national treasures - spectacular natural areas and historic and cultural sites sheltering some