F1/Il;J;F-,3 (, 90 ~~ T
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
0 f1/Il;J;f-,3 (, 90 ~~ t, ;;;; :J - ~ ~ - . The Broken Forest: Applying the Integrated Conservation and Deve~opment Paradigm to Madagascar's ~ Protected Areas ..., ") Volume One: Synthesis Report - Russell Barbcur, team leader Rene Rabezandria, agronomist Ray Daviesson, forester Willia.'I1 Guyton, agricultural economist Nivo Rakotobe, physician Pepe Andrianomanana, economist Lala Ranajanhery, anthropologi~t Paula Williams, social forester June 1992 - DAT r 7250 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 200, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 - . -• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was funded by the U.S.A.I.D. Mission in Madagascar through the Grants Management Unit of the Sustainable and Viable Environmental Management Project (SAVEM/GMU). This project is implemented by PACT - Private Agencies Collaborating Together with technical support through a subcontract with Development Alternatives, Inc. - DAI. This synthesis was written by Russell Barbour, the team leader and Professor Rene Rabezandria, the team agronomist using information gathered by the Assessments Team, as well as the Project Paper and other sources. The other SAVEM Assessments Team members included: Ray Daviesson, forester; William Guyton, agricultural economist, Dr. Nivo Rakotobe, physician; Pepe Andrianomanana, economist; Lala Ranajanhery, anthropologist; and Paula Williams, social forester. The individual consultants' reports are in the appendices to this document. Additional material was provided by the SAVEM/GMU staff, SAVEM/ANGAP staff, Chris Seubert of DAI, and the U.S.A.I.D. Mission in Madagascar. The authors wish to express their appreciation to all who helped sUl'port this effort, and especially to the farmers and rural dwellers that we met. -- -" TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -~- INTRODUcnON 1 - .::: Land Under Pressure 1 The Integrated Conservation and Development Concept 2 ICDP Strategies 3 - The Assessment Team's Objectives 3 The Team's Methodology 4 - = GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR GRANTS 5 Geographical Criteria 5 CRITE~FORPARTIC~ATIONINSAVEM 6 Main Criteria for &sessing CAG and PADG Grant Proposals 6 .. Participating Organizations 7 -;=-i Qualifications for Primary Gran~ees 7 _:! , Local Implementing Organizations 8 .., Individual As Grantees 9 -.. Grants to Private Enterprises 10 --: .Inappropriate Groups to Receive Grants iii 10 GUIDEUNES AND CRITERIA FOR THE CAG PROGRAM 11 CAG's Response to Basic Needs 11 --~- Summary of Criteria for CAG Grants 11 Types of CAG Grants 12 -- !!!!! Small Grant PlOgr3ID 12 -"• MatcbiDggrants 12 '=.I Mid~ize grant programs 13 --" Uni~,ersity I NGO Internship program 14 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR PADG FINANCING 14 i:: Linking the PADO Grants to Conservation 14 Key Features of PADG Phase n Grant Proposal IS Activities and Priorities for PADO Projects IS POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE PERIPHERAL ZONES IS - Recommended Activities in the Agricultural Sector IS OOO Prj'ontyetavltle5A 1ft0 trehF~festryectorS 11 Small Scale Business Opportunities 18 Health Sector Priorities J:O Social Factors Related to Natural Resource Use 21 = BIODIVERSITY FAcrORS FOR PADG GRANT CRITERIA 22 BASELINE DATA AND KEY ELEMENTS FOR BASELINE STUDIES 22 BmLlOGRAPHY 23 A'ITACIIMENT 1: ~ONSERVATION ACfION GRANT CRITERIA 2S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report synthesizes and expands on the work of a multi-disciplinary team - the SAVEM Assessments Team - that visited protected areas in Madagascar to see how Integrated Conservation and Development Projects could b~ best promoted by the Grants Management Unit of the SAVEM project. The objectives of the assessment team mission were to review the integrated conservation find development concept and develop criteria and guidelines for funding small grants - Communit3' Action Grants (CAOs) and large projects - Protected Area Development Grants (PADGs). The team visited a wide variety ofsites in northern Madagascar where most SAVEM activity will take place. We looked at projects outside of the USAID funding framework and even went to forested sites where no project was ongoing or planned to provide a comparative analysis. This report summarizes the major findings of the SAVEM Assessments Team and cover the following topics in seven sections: 1) understanding the protected areas peripheral zones, 2) developing guidelines for integrated conservation and development projects, 3) identifying sustainable development activities in peripheral zones, 4) developing criteria for CAG proposals and Phase 0 PADG proposals, S) identifying implementing organizations for PADGs and CAGs, 6) establishing baseline data, and 7) sector priorities. Main Findings While the team does not agree with all elements of the SAVEM project design, we found the ICDP concept to be basically sound. The ICDP framework is a useful conceptual model that helps to focus the long-term goals ofSAVEM projects towards conservation; yet it provides enough flexibility to allow the project to address the near-term needs ofpeople living near Madagascar's protected areas. Although the dramatic loss of biodiversity continues in Madagascar, even preliminary efforts at ICDP's seem to be holding off further destruction in some places. Nonetheless, the macro-economic situation in Madagascar, calls into question the possibility of sustained economic development in the peripheral areas at the present time. The team members, most of whom are very familiar with rural Madagascar, were shocked at the exceptionally low standard ofliving in these isolated areas. The present ::... bleak macro-economic picture in Madagascar make it unlikely that SAVEM, or any other project, will be able to make rapid and large improvements in the economic conditions ofthose living in the protected areas periphery. Implementing current ICDP projects has been complicated. Attempting to respond to the many needs in the communities near the reserves runs the risk ofrecreating the largely unsuccessful integrated rural development projects ofthe late seventies and early eighties. To avoid this, the team recommends USiDI small uants to respond to needs in the areas of health, edu~atioA, and odler aGti'lities only indirectly linked to conservation. The larger grant program, the phase two Protected Area Development Grants (pADG), should focus on income generation. The suggestions in the SAVEM project document and the comments in the 1991 evaluation of World Wildlife Fund activities that strict protection of core areas be abandoned, are not consis:~nt with scientific evidence concerning Madagascar's ecology. There are many unique features of Madagascar which malee the ecosystems less resilient than those found elsewhere in Africa and other parts of the ii world. The team recommends that exploitation of the protected areas, except for carefully controlled ecotourism, be restricted. Major Recommendations 'Ibis paper oudines how we believe the CAG and PADG grant programs can operate effectively. By simplifying the activities as we recommend, we believe that the SAVEM project can indeed protect biodiversity and improve the lives of people in the peripheral areas. To accomplish the goals of the SAVEM project, the team recommends certain action and policy changes for the GMU. The recommendations, which are discussed in detail in the sections that follow, are: • Divide participants into primary grantees and local implementing organizations with strict criteria in terms of experience, administration and field work for the first category and a more liberal approach for the local implementing organizations. • Instead of complete sustainability, consider activities that will delay loss of biodiversity and increase incomes for fixed periods oftime. • Use the CAG grants to address basic needs and allow the PADG grants to concentrate = on preservation of biodiversity and income generating activities that will compete with activities that threaten biodiversity. • Abandon the policy of building new rice irrigation schemes as an alternative to tavy. • Focus agricultural programs on activities that improve labor efficiency and make food production more sustainable by maintaining soil fertility and preventing erosion. • Promote commercial forestry to improve income. • Empower villagers so that they have clear land use rights. • Assist villagers to eliminate exploitative marketing practices. • Focus health activities more narrowly than called for in the project paper. • Establish a new and more realistic system ofsocial and biological monitoring. Major Criteria for Assessing Grant Proposals ____,...........------.,-Bo---.,..-th_C_A_G_an_d_P_AD_G------"p'-ro-=po'--sal_s_s_u_b_DU_·tt_ed_to_th_e_G_MU__s_h_ou_ld_b_e--"'-j_ud--"'g'-ed----'-p_rim_ar_i1-"-y_o_n_th_e - fOllowing factors: • PADG grants should demonstrate that an alternative to a current or potential destructive practice is being offered to the population. No PADG grants should be considered that do not do this. • CAG grants should address some element of basic community needs or involve the community in the conservation effort. iii jj ..; • The alternative activity should reduce labor, reduce inputs or significantly increase income. .. • Individual benefits for participants in both types of grants must be demonstrated. • The field experience of the proposing organization s!'lould be a major selection factor. • Evidence that there will be a lo~ cash contribution to the activity should be part ofthe selection criteria. The team found that this a common practice for village projects and --.. that SAVEM should continue this. • Social analysis in the PADG proposal should demonstrate that groups