Usaid Madagascar Conservation and Communities (Ccp) Project Baseline Household Survey Final Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USAID MADAGASCAR CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITIES (CCP) PROJECT BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT Measuring Impact II March 9, 2020 This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Environmental Incentives, Foundations of Success, and ICF for the Measuring Impact II (MI2) Contract. CONTRACT INFORMATION This program is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of its requisition number REQ- EGEE-18-000127 (Measuring Impact II) implemented by prime recipient Environmental Incentives, LLC in partnership with Foundations of Success, and ICF Macro, Inc. Measuring Impact II has been issued under contract number GS-00F-193DA Order No. 7200AA18M00013 and supports the same program objectives as described in RFQ number 7200AA18Q00020. Measuring Impact II is funded and managed by the USAID Office of Forestry and Biodiversity in the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment. PREPARED BY Kathleen Flower, Environmental Incentives, LLC Nathan Chesterman, Environmental Incentives, LLC Robynne Locke, ICF Olivia Saucier, ICF Ronaldo Iachan, ICF SUBMITTED BY Elizabeth Lauck, Environmental Incentives, LLC SUBMITTED TO Sara Carlson, Contracting Officer’s Representative USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment Office of Forestry and Biodiversity FOR MORE INFORMATION Environmental Incentives, LLC 725 15th Street NW, Floor 10 Washington, D.C. 20005 www.enviroincentives.com DISCLAIMER This publication is made possible by the support of the American people through USAID. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Environmental Incentives, LLC and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to express gratitude to the Salohy Soloarivelo of the USAID/Madagascar SEED Office, Ramy Razafindralambo of the USAID/Madagascar Program Office for their invaluable direction and feedback throughout this process. Additionally, the authors are thankful for the excellent work of CAETIC Developpement in data collection and analysis. Lastly, the authors would like to thank the community members of Menabe and MaMaBay who participated in the survey and gave insight to their lives and livelihoods. With their insight, we hope this survey will enable USAID and partners to better serve them. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 7 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 16 1.1. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 16 1.2. SURVEY PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 17 2. METHODS ................................................................................................................. 17 2.1. SAMPLING PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 19 2.3. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................... 20 2.4. DATA QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 20 2.5. DATA CLEANING ...................................................................................................................................... 24 2.6. DATA WEIGHTING ................................................................................................................................... 24 2.7. DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 24 2.8. LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 24 3. SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................... 25 3.1. HOUSEHOLDS SURVEYED ...................................................................................................................... 26 3.2. LIVELIHOODS .............................................................................................................................................. 26 3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND GOVERNANCE ......................................................................... 32 3.4. CROSS-CUTTING: KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS, THREAT REDUCTION AND HUMAN WELL-BEING RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 37 4. ALIGNMENT OF SURVEY RESULTS TO MIKAJY AND HAY TAO KEY RESULTS AND INDICATORS ...................................................................................... 43 5. SURVEY DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 53 5.1. SURVEY DISCUSSION: VALIDATION OF KEY RESULTS ............................................................... 53 5.2. SURVEY CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 59 5.3. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CCP AND IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS ................ 61 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MIDLINE SURVEY ................................................ 64 6.1. CHANGES/UPDATES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................... 64 6.2. CHANGES/UPDATES TO SAMPLING METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 65 6.3. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES RECOMMENDED FOR MIDLINE ......................................................... 65 7. RESOURCES CITED ................................................................................................ 66 8. ANNEX ...................................................................................................................... 68 8.1. ANNEX 1: FINAL ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 68 8.2. ANNEX 2: FINAL MALAGASY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................ 98 8.3. ANNEX 3: RESULTS SUMMARIES BY VARIABLE ............................................................................ 131 8.4. ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF BASELINE CCP SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .................... 179 FIGURES FIGURE 1. ELEMENTS OF CCP’S THEORY OF CHANGE EXAMINED WITH THIS HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (LIVELIHOODS [RED] AND GOVERNANCE [GREEN] ARE ILLUSTRATED HERE; HEALTH WILL BE INTRODUCED INTO THE MIDLINE SURVEY DESIGN) ................................ 16 FIGURE 2. MIKAJY SA2 (WEALTH) RESULTS CHAIN INDICATING RESULTS INFORMED BY THIS HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (RED BOXES) ..................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 3. HAY TAO SA1(SUPPORT CONSERVATION STAKEHOLDERS ON SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD, NRM, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE THROUGH CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT) RESULTS CHAIN INDICATING RESULTS INFORMED BY THIS HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (GREEN BOXES) ............................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 4. MIKAJY SA4 (ACTION) RESULTS CHAIN INDICATING RESULTS INFORMED BY THIS HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (GREEN BOXES) ............................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 5. MAP OF MADAGASCAR, SHOWING DENSITY OF SAMPLING IN BLUE (LOWEST DENSITY), RED (INTERMEDIATE), AND YELLOW (HIGHEST). ..................................................... 26 FIGURE 6. ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY GROUPS AND ADOPTION OF IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL TECHNIQUES. THE DRIVERS OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS IS CURRENTLY UNKNOWN. ................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 7. COMPARISON OF FOOD PRODUCTION “HARVEST DEFICIT” CALENDARS FOR MAMABAY AND MENABE, BY STRATUM ............................................................................................. 42 TABLES TABLE 1. ENUMERATION AREAS AND BASELINE SURVEYS COMPLETED BY REGION AND DISTRICT, BY STRATUM, AND BY GENDER OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD ............................... 18 TABLE 2. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT PARTICIPATE IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES FOR INCOME ............................................................................................................................................................ 27 TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT PRODUCED EACH CROP AND AVERAGE INCOME GENERATED AMONG HOUSEHOLDS THAT PRODUCED THE CROP .................. 28 TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ENGAGED IN BREEDING, AND AVERAGE INCOME GENERATED AMONG HOUSEHOLDS THAT PRODUCED IT .................................... 29 TABLE 5. PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARINE STRATA THAT FISH OR CULTIVATE VARIOUS SEAFOOD RESOURCES AND AVERAGE INCOME GENERATED .............................. 29 TABLE 6. NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PARTICIPATING IN MULTIPLE LIVELIHOOD GROUPS AND THEIR AVERAGE TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................................................