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 ...... 31 TABLE 7. OVERALL HOUSEHOLD INCOME REPORTED IN SURVEY ...... 31 TABLE 8. NUMBER OF PARCELS HELD BY HOUSEHOLD BY REGION, STRATUM, AND RESPONDENT ...... 32 TABLE 9. DISTRIBUTION OF LAND OWNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS BY REGION, GENDER, AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION ...... 33 TABLE 10. PERCEPTIONS OF LAND TENURE BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION AND RESPONDENT'S GENDER ...... 34 TABLE 11. TYPES OF NATURAL RESOURCES SOUGHT BY THOSE WHO CLAIMED HAVING LIMITED ACCESS AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE DIFFICULTY ACCESSING THESE RESOURCES ...... 34 TABLE 12. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS THAT ARE MEMBERS IN VARIOUS CBNRM ORGANIZATIONS ...... 35 TABLE 13. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AWARE OF HOTLINES (A) AND HAVING USED HOTLINES (B) FOR REPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES ...... 36 TABLE 14. PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT PERCEIVED A GIVEN ISSUE AS A THREAT TO THE ECOSYSTEM ...... 37 TABLE 15. LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF RESPONDENTS AND HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD (HH) ..... 41 TABLE 16. NUMBER OF MONTHS PER YEAR THAT HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCED A HARVEST DEFICIT (DID NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH TO EAT) ...... 42 TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF BASELINE FINDINGS RELEVANT TO MIKAJY SA 2: WEALTH (SUPPORT COMMUNITY-BASED, CONSERVATION FRIENDLY ENTERPRISES AND LIVELIHOODS) ... 44 TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF BASELINE FINDINGS RELEVANT TO HAY TAO SA 1 (SUPPORT CONSERVATION STAKEHOLDERS ON SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD, NRM, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE THROUGH CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT) ...... 45 TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF BASELINE FINDINGS RELEVANT TO MIKAJY SA 4: ACTION (OPERATIONALIZE COMMUNITY-BASED LAND AND RESOURCE TENURE POLICY ON LANDSCAPES/SEASCAPES) ...... 47 TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF BASELINE FINDINGS RELEVANT TO COMMON GOALS FOR ALL SAS: THREAT REDUCTION, IMPROVED BIODIVERSITY, AND IMPROVED HUMAN WELL-BEING INDICATORS ...... 50 TABLE 21. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SURVEY FINDINGS AND NATIONAL AVERAGES, WHERE AVAILABLE ...... 53 TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF KEY HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS WITH EXTERNAL DATA SOURCES ...... 54 TABLE 23. COMPARATIVE INCOME FROM AND ENGAGEMENT IN VALUE CHAINS ...... 56 TABLE 24. COMPARATIVE NATIONAL AVERAGES OF LAND TENURE ...... 57 TABLE 25. KEY ASSOCIATIONS (EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED) OR FINDINGS FOR CONSIDERATION RELATED TO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 61

5 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

ACRONYMS

ADAPS Association pour le Développement de l’Agriculture et du Paysannat du Sambirano (Association for the Development of Agriculture and Small Farmers of Sambirano) APGL Aire de Pêche Gérée Localement (Locally managed fishing area) CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing CAZ Ankeniheny-Zahamena Forest Corridor in Eastern Madagascar CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resources Management CCP Conservation and Communities Project COBA Communauté de base locale (Basic Local Community) DEFF Design Effect EA Enumeration Area FAA United States Foreign Assistance Act FY Fiscal Year GCF Gestion Contractualisée des Forêts (Contract-Based Forest Management) GELOSE Gestion Locale Sécurisée (Protected Local Management) HH Household ID Identification INSTAT Institut National de la Statistique de Madagascar (National Institute of Statistics) IFC International Finance Corporation IRB Institutional Review Board LMMA Locally Managed Marine Area MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MGA Malagasy Ariary MHH Main Household MI2 Measuring Impact II NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRM Natural Resource Management PPS Probabilities Proportional to Size PSU Primary Sampling Unit RAMEX Ramanandraibe Exportation SA Strategic Approach TGRN Natural Resources Management Transfer Contracts USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government VOI Vondron’Olona Ifotony (Community Group or Association) VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Madagascar’s Conservation and Communities Project (CCP) currently includes two activities:

● USAID Hay Tao, a knowledge management program to provide training and policy support, and ● USAID Mikajy, a site-based program to improve management of targeted, high-biodiversity areas.

CCP currently operates its site-based activities in two geographies: the MaMaBay and Menabe land- and seascapes. The overarching objective of CCP is to conserve biodiversity and secure natural resources while promoting resilient livelihoods. Hay Tao and Mikajy have been operating in MaMaBay and Menabe since August 2018. The purpose of the baseline household survey, which ran in September-October 2019, and this Household Survey Report, is to determine a baseline against which community-level changes can be measured over time. This household survey will be repeated at the project midpoint in 2021 and at the project’s end in 2023.

METHODS

The CCP baseline household survey collects data related to two livelihoods-focused and one governance-focused strategic approaches and key aspects of community well-being, as well as perceptions of the local environment and ecosystems. Health interventions will be initiated in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and therefore will be examined in the midline survey, in FY 2021.

The purpose of this household survey was to measure key variables that can be used to detect changes over time in livelihoods, health access, knowledge/perceptions of governance, and conservation behaviors in the CCP intervention areas. These intervention areas support communities that implementing partners identified based on expected benefits from CCP’s economic development and social support programs. The survey focused on four themes:

● Housing, land tenure, and health; ● Livelihoods and food security; ● Perceptions of ecosystem services and threats to biodiversity; and ● Conservation knowledge and behaviors, including participation in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM).

These themes were selected based on their relevance to two research questions developed from the CCP theory of change. The results from the baseline survey can be used to describe the current status and existing relationships among variables related to these questions but are not intended to answer them directly:

1. Do conservation-friendly livelihood inputs (such as supporting the expansion of sustainable value chains for mangrove crab, seaweed aquaculture, vanilla production, and diversification of spice and agroforestry markets) contribute to improved conservation behaviors, which in turn contribute to improved human well-being or community outcomes?

7 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

2. Do governance inputs (such as environmental justice, land tenure, and participatory land-use planning) contribute to improved conservation behaviors, which in turn contribute to improved human well-being or community outcomes?

Using this framework, the design team took great care and invested in significant collaboration during the design and implementation of the survey to ensure:

• Statistical rigor scaled to the budget and effort identified in the scope of work; • Replicability in the mid-line and end-line, with careful recording of methods, challenges, and lessons learned; • Relationship to the project’s theory of change and key indicators measured by Mikajy and Hay Tao; and • Selection of domains and questions to allow not only baseline measures of key aspects of the theory of change but the ability to understand their relationships in time and space and across important demographic groups.

Measuring Impact II (MI2) developed sample sizes for the two geographies that balanced precision requirements with relative cost and logistical considerations. Each geography was further divided into two strata (marine and terrestrial). MI2 allocated and completed 500 surveys across 20 enumeration areas (EA) for the Menabe region and completed 600 surveys across 24 EAs for the MaMaBay Region, with 25 household surveys completed in each of the sampled EAs.

The questionnaire was developed in English and then translated into French and Malagasy. The survey was conducted in Malagasy or in the local languages of the EAs. The translation was done by enumerators who were from the region and bilingual in Malagasy and the local language. These enumerators were trained on the survey, concepts, and definitions during the training period to avoid translation bias.

In addition to the survey, enumerators conducted semi-structured interviews with community leaders in each EA to provide qualitative data that could inform the interpretation of the quantitative results.

Data Collection, Storage, and Analysis Tablets with Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) software were used to conduct interviews, ensuring standardized data input across all surveys. A supervisor checked all surveys for completeness, in addition to checking that enumerators used standardized interview methods throughout data collection.

After the surveys were completed, data were cleaned by the consulting firm conducting the survey. The survey team then produced original, unweighted statistics by geographic and community level. MI2 computed survey weights, developed a detailed analysis method and calculated the survey results using weighted data. The baseline analysis focuses on identifying and determining the baseline status of livelihoods, governance, and conservation behaviors as they relate to each research question, due to the fact that the site-based activities are early in implementation.

The data and analyses presented in this household survey were prioritized based on the overarching research questions and the assessment of Mikajy and Hay Tao strategic approaches. However, even before the midterm evaluation is complete, the types of analyses, the questions that can be answered, and even the approaches taken to interpreting the data could be even deeper and broader than what is presented here.

USAID 8

Limitations of the Methodology At the time of data collection, the two activities were still in the early implementation stage. The sample includes households that will be beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of CCP interventions, but it was not possible to assign them a beneficiary status at the time of the baseline survey. Thus, the baseline sample should be considered descriptive of the population in the targeted CCP intervention areas independent of beneficiary status. Data on beneficiary status could be collected as part of the midline and endline evaluations to allow comparisons between these groups at the midpoint and end of the project.

Other external variables (political change, market fluctuations, weather, etc.) may also contribute to changes, both positive and negative, in targeted CCP intervention areas. These external variables are generally expected to affect households in targeted CCP intervention areas independent of beneficiary status but are potential confounders for changes in household-level conservation behaviors, livelihoods, and awareness/perceptions of governance measured at the population level. Disaggregating these outcome variables by beneficiary status of CCP interventions at the project midpoint and end will provide better understanding of the successes and challenges of CCP interventions.

Moreover, the quantitative trends identified in this household survey can inform the design of additional future analytical methods that could be used in the midline household survey and/or midterm evaluation, including qualitative methods such as focus groups or semi-structured interviews, which can be employed to better understand the CCP’s contributions to change.

RESULTS

The survey was completed for 500 households from Menabe and 600 households from MaMaBay. Across two strata, 550 marine households and 550 terrestrial households were surveyed. The gender split of respondents was 56% males and 44% females and was similar across Menabe and MaMaBay, while marine strata had 52% male and 48% female heads of household and terrestrial strata had 59% and 41% male and female heads of household. While no formal tests of statistical significance are reported, similarities or differences between comparison groups are reported using the overlap or nonoverlap in the 95% confidence intervals calculated from standard errors.

Livelihoods Results The survey asked respondents about household participation in value chains that fall within six livelihood groups: agriculture (17 different food crops grown for consumption or sale), livestock rearing (included six types of animals, counting fish), breeding (included production of eggs, honey, or milk), fishing (included eight groups of marine or coastal species), ecotourism, and “other” income generating activities. Most households reported engagement in two or more livelihood groups. Agriculture and rearing livestock and agriculture plus “other” were the most common pairings. Using income reported from all sources queried, overall, households brought in an annual income of 3,694,800 MGA per year.

Across both regions (Menabe and MaMaBay) and strata (marine and terrestrial), agriculture and livestock were identified as the predominant income-producing livelihoods. Participation in fishery value chains was also an important activity in marine strata, although more so in Menabe than in MaMaBay (42% vs16% of households, respectively).

Menabe and MaMaBay differed substantially in the crops grown. In Menabe, households were more likely to grow staple crops such as sweet potato, cassava, rice, and maize, whereas households in MaMaBay were more likely to report growing rice, vanilla, cassava, coffee, and clove. On average, households that grew or traded agricultural goods generated approximately three times more income from agriculture in MaMaBay than in Menabe (3,109,312 MGA vs. 1,135,649 MGA per household).

9 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Approximately three-quarters of households surveyed participated in animal husbandry or sale in both regions (72% in Menabe and 75% in MaMaBay). Overall, approximately one-third of households surveyed raised or traded cattle (30% in Menabe and 33% in MaMaBay) and just under two-thirds raised or traded poultry (62% in Menabe and 66% in MaMaBay). Fewer households reported raising goats and pigs (10% in Menabe and less than 1% in MaMaBay raise goats; 14.2% in Menabe and 4.8% in MaMaBay raise pigs). Less than 1% of households reported raising or trading fish or sheep.

Thirteen percent of MaMaBay households engaged in the egg value chain, compared to 6% in Menabe. Milk and honey, though more lucrative, are even less commonly produced.

In Menabe, 32% of households participated in fishery value chains (42% in marine stratum and 15% in terrestrial stratum). Fishing was less common in MaMaBay, where 8% of households fish (16% in marine stratum and 4% in terrestrial stratum). Fish was the most common fishing product, followed by shrimp and mud crab in Menabe and lobster, octopus, and mud crab in MaMaBay.

Participation in ecotourism was very low (less than 1% of households). However, participation in one or more “other” livelihoods or value chains was quite common (72% in Menabe and 64% in MaMaBay). Sixty-six percent of households engaged in “other” livelihood activities. Livelihoods included in the “other” group included fish mongering, collecting, entrepreneurship, transport, mining, crafts, artisanal processing, laboring, and earning income from money transfers.

Households commonly accessed financial resources in the form of loans. In Menabe, 44% of households took loans from microfinance institutions and 45% took loans from friends and family. In MaMaBay, 32% of households reported taking loans from family and friends, 31% from Ramanandraibe Exportation (RAMEX), an International Finance Corporation (IFC)-backed export pre-financing facility for the purchasing and processing of vanilla beans for export, and 19% reported using microfinance.

Governance Baseline Results The survey asked respondents about land ownership, access to natural resources, and governance issues related to natural resource management. Overall, 86% of households surveyed reported holding (claiming to be in possession of, not necessarily with a legal title) at least one parcel of land (78% in Menabe and 93% in MaMaBay), and, overall, 79% hold between one and four parcels. However, among those who hold at least one parcel, 57% had no documents proving that they own or have rights to use their land. Less than 5% reported living on titled land. Male heads of household were more likely to have land documentation than their female counterparts, and the likelihood of documentation increased with reported level of formal education.

Twenty-eight percent of households reported difficulty in accessing natural resources that are important for their livelihoods. Among those who reported experiencing difficulty, approximately two-thirds were seeking firewood (40% in Menabe and 72% in MaMaBay). Wild fruits, bushmeat, wood for building, sweet potato, and fish were other items sought by 5-10% of those who reported limited access. The most frequently reported cause of access challenges was that they now had to travel farther to access the resource (60% in Menabe and 33% in MaMaBay) or that access was now restricted or blocked off (this was negligible in Menabe and 27% in MaMaBay). Across both regions, a majority of respondents facing difficulty said these products were “very important” to their livelihood (93% in Menabe and 54% in MaMaBay).

Overall, 43% of respondents were aware of land use planning in their community. Additionally, approximately half of respondents said that they did not have the right to clear forest land. However, few respondents knew what steps they must follow to clear fallow land.

USAID 10

Participation in CBNRM or locally-managed marine area (LMMA) groups (including basic local communities [COBA], producer groups, or surveillance groups) was higher in MaMaBay than in Menabe, and male respondents were more active than females. Respondents who had been in the community their whole life were more likely to participate in COBAs, and those who had been in the community for shorter periods of time were more likely to participate in surveillance groups. Membership in a producer group was equally likely for newer vs. longer-term residents.

Overall, 31% of households participated in organized groups to surveil and report on activities that damage the environment (23% in Menabe and 35% in MaMaBay). However, knowledge of hotlines that could be used to report environmental crimes was very low: 88% were unaware of hotlines (93% in Menabe and 84% in MaMaBay). Of the 11% who were aware of hotlines, only 12% have used them.

Ecosystem knowledge and threat-related results Respondents in both regions reported high levels of awareness of the benefits of ecosystem services, although knowledge levels were higher in MaMaBay than Menabe. Overall, more than 90% of respondents were aware that nature can be essential to filter water to keep it clean and safe, provde clean air, keep soil fertile and productive, provide raw materials for making and building things, and provide raw materials for medicines.

Seventy-seven percent of all households reported being impacted by the loss of an ecosystem service, and that they had felt the effects in terms of their economic well-being and/or medical health. Respondents identified three ecosystem threats as the most important, but the percentage of respondents selecting each threat differed by region: illegal logging (72% in Menabe and 40% in MaMaBay), slash and burn agriculture (46% in Menabe and 52% in MaMaBay), and climate change impacts (33% in Menabe and 45% in MaMaBay).

Forty-three percent of respondents did not know of benefits of participation in CBNRM and LMMA groups for their households and their communities, and an additional 3% responded that there were no benefits. Among the remaining 54%, respondents most frequently identified opportunities for resources to be available in the future (more common in Menabe) or regulation of access to natural resources (more common in MaMaBay) as the most important benefits.

Overall, 17% of households reported clearing land in the last year for additional cultivation or livestock (14% in Menabe; 18% in MaMaBay). Of these, who cleared land, the majority was reported as having taken place within fallow land outside of protected areas (94%). A small portion of these households reported clearing forested land outside protected areas (9%); less than 1% reported clearing forested land within protected areas. However, because most respondents were aware that clearing land within protected areas is not allowed, this could be underreported. In their qualitative responses, key informants perceived migrants, dahalo (bandits), and corrupt forest managers as important actors contributing to forest and land clearing. However, respondents also identified that maize farm expansion, charcoal production, and permitted or illegal logging are also putting significant pressure on standing forests and mangroves.

In the marine stratum, respondents reported that illegal fishing reduces catch and impacts marine livelihoods. Failure to respect the fishing season, the presence of large fishing boats, and the influence of new migrants were all identified as primary drivers of reduced catch, which, respondents reported, is forcing fishers to go further offshore. Two Menabe households reported that they earn income from fishing and/or trading shark fin.

Use of improved seeds, fertilization, intercropping, agroforestry, and conservation agriculture were included in the household survey as improved agricultural practices. Unimproved agricultural methods

11 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

included monoculture and slash-and-burn agriculture. Overall, 58% of households use some form of improved agricultural method, compared to 42% of households that do not use any improved methods, although far more households in MaMaBay use improved methods (68%) compared with Menabe (28%).

Most households participating in village savings and loan associations (VSLAs) and COBAs reported using improved agricultural methods, whereas non-participating households rarely reported the use of improved methods. However, the reasons or drivers behind this are unknown. Further analysis and/or an investigation into potential confounding factors would be needed to better understand the existing relationships identified here.

MaMaBay households were more likely to report having a woodlot than those in Menabe (33% vs. 4%, respectively) and more likely to have planted trees in the last three years (27% vs. 19%, respectively). The main reasons given for planting trees were reforestation or firewood.

Overall, 26% of households were members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in MaMaBay). Of these, 98% reported that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who were part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM was paying a membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). A plurality also supported CBNRM by respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or planting trees.

Human Well-Being Results The percentage of households reporting access to improved water services, such as boreholes, public taps, or piped water in the home, was greater in Menabe than MaMaBay (32% in Menabe vs. 23% in MaMaBay). However, a majority of households in both regions reported that the availability of drinking water for their household had decreased greatly over the past 12 months (64% in Menabe and 79% in MaMaBay).

Households reported high access to health services in both regions (99% in Menabe and 97% in MaMaBay).

Enumerators recorded data based on their observations of the homes they visited to administer the survey. In Menabe, enumerators reported that the majority of homes were made with walls of mud or thatch and roofed with thatch, grass, or metal sheets. In MaMaBay, homes were mostly made with walls of wood or thatch, and more homes were roofed with metal sheet than thatch. Some MaMaBay respondents suggested that profits from the vanilla industry are driving demand for wood panels and cement for houses.

General literacy was higher in MaMaBay than in Menabe. Overall, 73% of respondents reported that they could read some text and 73% reported that they could write a letter. However, the average level of education was lower in Menabe than in MaMaBay. Heads of household in Menabe were more frequently reported having little or no formal education as compared to their counterparts in MaMaBay.

In terms of food security, in Menabe, 65% of households reported declining crop productivity (vs. 39% in MaMaBay). In qualitative responses, respondents in both regions reported that they could benefit from increased irrigation, but to overcome different challenges, and respondents frequently expressed desire for additional agricultural training, resources, and market access.

Additionally, 88% of households in Menabe and 74% in MaMaBay reported that they did not harvest enough food over the last year to feed their families throughout the year. This harvest deficit lasted three months on average, but varied in length, season, and level of impact by region and stratum. Although one-quarter of households respond, at least in part, by reducing their food intake in lean

USAID 12

months, 85% of households purchase food using income generated from livelihood activities and many also gather and eat natural products such as fish and wild plants.

DISCUSSION

The household survey collected data that could inform the understanding and/or achievement of at least 22 key results across the three activity-level strategic approaches examined. Some of the indicators and key results are specific to single results chains and others are relevant to several of them.

In many ways, the areas surveyed fall very much in line with national averages. This is important because it validates both the survey approach and our assumptions about the nature of the communities in which CCP works.

In- Line with National Averages Different from National Averages Expected • Demographics – Household size • Livelihoods – In Menabe, significantly less rice is (though slightly larger than average in produced than the national average; in both Menabe), gender distribution of head of regions, cattle rearing is significantly less household, proportion of the common than the national average; fishing is population with no formal schooling, much more prevalent than the national average, literacy (though higher in MaMaBay and more common in Menabe than in than Menabe). MaMaBay, even in the marine strata; there are • Livelihoods – Percent of population high rates of vanilla and clove production in that participates in agriculture, the MaMaBay. finding that shrimp is the most lucrative • Well-Being – Access to improved water fishery product. sources is lower in Menabe than the national • Well-Being – Access to improved average; in both regions, the incidence of brick water sources in MaMaBay, rates of or cement-walled homes is far lower than the access to electricity in both regions. national average. However, key informants • Perceptions – Perception of migrants noted that economic growth in MaMaBay is as an important factor in clearing driving increased demand for improved building forested land, which is a commonly materials for homes. held belief nationally. • Land Tenure – In Menabe, higher than average proportion of landlessness than the national average. With a higher rate of migrancy and households that fish, this could be expected in this region.

Unexpected • Livelihoods – Very low levels of • Land Tenure – In both regions, those who do participation in ecotourism. hold land hold far fewer plots than the national • Well-Being – Respondents may have average. greater access to health services than • Well-Being – Lower than average ownership of the national average, often making use mobile telephones, even in MaMaBay where the of community health workers and economy is stronger and household income is clinics. greater.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, there are some potentially new findings that may be immediately useful in further refinement of the CCP’s strategic approach. Four examples are listed here. Similar to the examples above, this Household Survey Report identifies an additional 14 key findings and presents recommendations for interpretation and potential modifications of the activities’ strategic approaches.

13 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Ecosystem knowledge, participation in community groups, and conservation-friendly behaviors. Across both geographies, participation in and demonstrated support to COBAs and other CBNRM-focused, producer, or VSLA groups is already common. Participants who are engaged in these groups already have a high likelihood of having adopted conservation-friendly behaviors such as improved agriculture. In addition, a broad swath of respondents are already quite knowledgeable about the importance of ecosystems and ecosystem services. This provides a good opportunity for CCP and its implementing partners because people are knowledgeable, platforms exist and are active, and many people see their value. However, this will be an important consideration if and when CCP wants to understand their role in additional increases in conservation knowledge and/or uptake of key behaviors as a result of their additional support of community groups.

Special aspects of livelihoods and climate in Menabe and MaMaBay. The survey largely bore out assumptions about engagement in different value chains in the different regions. This confirms the importance of the livelihood-specific strategic approaches identified in the CCP’s theory of change and underlines the importance of managing the livelihood aspects of the strategic approaches differently in the two regions. In addition, the harvest gap falls in different seasons and impacts differently on coastal vs. inland households. Awareness and tracking of how the harvest gap changes across regions and strata from year to year may be worthwhile as it will impact on household resilience.

Poverty, landlessness, and the importance of tenure-focused activities. It is clear that households in MaMaBay, on average, are slightly better off than in Menabe. Rates of agricultural income, quality of housing materials used, access to improved water sources, literacy rates, and other key indicators are all higher in MaMaBay. This may have to do with the importance of the vanilla industry, but there may be other factors at play. Rates of landlessness (percentage of households that hold no land) is also substantially higher in Menabe than in MaMaBay. However, there may be an important correlation between that and the higher rates of fishing in Menabe. Perhaps, coastal households who primarily fish do not need to hold land. This could also be due to higher rates of in-migration in Menabe. Therefore, the relationship between land tenure and strata could receive deepter treatment in the midline survey.

Regardless, given the already low rates of land tenure and the inevitable in-migration and population growth, CCP could do well to continue invest in activities that increase local people’s land tenure while identifying sustainable options for migrants to also access needed land.

Participation in surveillance and use of hotlines. Household participation in surveillance appeared high, but very few have used a hotline to report observed infractions. One contributing factor may be that rates of telephone ownership and use may also be low. Additionally, access to electricity (that could be used to charge telephones) is also low. However, the collection of these data was not designed in a way to be able to connect the dots: What is the proportion of households that have functioning, charged cell phones, and are these same households involved in surveillance, are they aware of the hotline, and would they use or have they used the hotline to report a crime? Further investigation into the awareness and use of hotlines, the incentives and barriers to using hotlines, and access to telephones, may be worthy of deeper treatment in the midline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for CCP and Activity-Level Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

In terms of CCP monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), with few exceptions, the way that data are collected for existing indicators and the way that it was collected in this survey are not currently aligned. And, this survey was able to collect data on 11 key results that are not currently measured in the

USAID 14

activities’ MEL plans. Activities should consider how these data, to be measured again at the midline, would enhance their understanding of progress along their results chains and lead to improvements in implementation.

Additionally, over the course of the survey development and implementation, the CCP developed a draft learning agenda with learning questions relevant to the project as a whole and individual activities within it. In the interpretation of the midline, these learning questions, in addition to any revised theories of change and results chains, should serve as guides for prioritizing variables and interpreting the results of the survey at the midline.

Recommendations for the Midline Survey

This Household Survey Report makes recommendations for changes or updates to the questionnaire. The recommendations focus on strengthening the ability to better understand the connections between CCP interventions, participation in CCP initiatives, and changes in perceptions and behaviors across the region. A second area for improvement could be pursuing more in-depth questioning related to households’ participation in key value chains: what are the challenges they face, what are the opportunities, and how do they imagine it could be better? Finally, as the CCP intends to start up a new human well-being-focused strategic approach over the coming year, the third area for additional questioning will be in the health sector, including current health issues and challenges, types and quality of access to medical care, and awareness of the importance of healthy ecosystems for human health and well-being.

In terms of methodology, the survey has identified a few topics that are very rare (such as participation in ecotourism or providing support to local CBNRM groups), underreported (such as illegal or discouraged activities like cutting down forest), or both. In these cases, modifications to the sampling techniques and/or removal of these questions from the survey (with an intention to investigate in other ways) may be warranted.

Finally, spatial analysis may be a good way to gain insight not only into differences between regions, strata, or genders, but also into how certain variables are clustered in specific parts of the implementation area. The authors strongly recommend building in time and resources for more sophisticated spatial data interpretation and spatiotemporal comparisons, and perhaps comparisons to other spatial data available on conservation trends (such as Global Forest Watch) to better understand the context in which the data were collected.

15 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE Measuring Impact II (MI2) supports monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) for the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Mission in Madagascar’s Conservation and Communities Project (CCP). The two activities under this, which have been operating since August 2018, are:

● USAID Hay Tao, a knowledge management program to provide training and policy support related to managing biodiversity resources, building the capacity of key institutions, and securing natural resource tenure rights, and ● USAID Mikajy, a site-based program to improve management of targeted, high-biodiversity areas through support for communities located near protected areas and in areas suitable for community-based natural resource management (CBRNM).

CCP focuses in two geographic areas of high biodiversity value: the MaMaBay and Menabe land- and seascapes. The overarching objective of CCP is to conserve biodiversity and secure natural resources while promoting resilient livelihoods.

A key aspect of CCP’s theory of change, closely examined in the CCP household survey (and illustrated in Figure 1), is:

CCP will have positive, measurable effects on community well-being via three sets of interventions (livelihoods [red box and straight arrow], governance [green box and straight arrow], and health [not shown]). Based on what communities have gained, experienced, or learned, key community members will both improve their well-being and influence certain target behaviors (red and green curved arrows). New behaviors will have a net positive effect on key aspects of their natural resources (including ecosystem services). In turn, the improvements in natural resources will additionally improve their well-being (blue curved arrow). These connections reinforce a cause-and-effect link: The more communities perceive and receive benefits from their environment, the more they will be motivated to protect it (positive feedback loop shown with curved arrows).

The CCP baseline household survey examined the first two interventions (livelihoods and governance) but not the third (health), as the former are the two initiated in USAID fiscal year (FY) 2019 (2018– 2019).

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)

USAID 16

1.2. SURVEY PURPOSE The purpose of this baseline household survey was to measure key variables that can be used to detect changes over time in livelihoods, health access, knowledge/perceptions of governance, and conservation behaviors in the CCP intervention areas. These intervention areas support communities that implementing partners identified on the basis of expected benefits from CCP’s economic development and social support programs.

MI2 conducted a household survey to begin to monitor changes over time in two key elements of the CCP theory of change: livelihoods and governance (CCP interventions) and conservation behaviors (CCP’s intended outcome). A midline survey will be conducted in FY 2021 to measure changes in these variables over time, with the addition of the third intervention (health). A final endline survey will be conducted in FY 2023 to again measure changes in the variables over time.

2. METHODS To test linkages and causal relationships and inform evidence gaps along the CCP theory of change (Figure 1 on page 16), MI2 developed two research questions to guide the identification of the variables used in this household survey:

1. Do conservation-friendly livelihood inputs (such as supporting the expansion of sustainable value chains for mangrove crab, seaweed aquaculture, vanilla production and diversification of spice and agroforestry markets) contribute to improved conservation behaviors, which in turn contribute to improved human well-being or community outcomes?

2. Do governance inputs (such as environmental justice, land tenure and participatory land use planning) contribute to improved conservation behaviors, which in turn contribute to improved human well-being or community outcomes?

2.1. SAMPLING PLAN The baseline and midline surveys focus on the Menabe and MaMaBay land- and seascapes—the two areas of Madagascar where CCP activities (Mikajy and Hay Tao) are implemented.

The survey’s target population included both households directly participating in CCP interventions and non-participating households.

Madagascar is organized into administrative units, with 22 regions divided into districts, districts sub- divided into communes, and communes sub-divided into fokontany. Each fokontany contains a number of hamlets. The National Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) defined enumeration areas (EA) for the 2018 decennial census, and CCP’s baseline household survey used these EAs to define the sampling areas.

Mikajy provided a file that lists the fokontany exposed to the interventions, together with the respective locations (commune, district, and region). MI2 used this as the main source for the sampling frame. MI2 augmented this file with information obtained from INSTAT, which contained data for smaller areas within or across the fokontany targeted by the interventions.

MI2 stratified the frame by the two main geographies, Menabe and MaMaBay, and each geography was further divided into two strata (one marine and one terrestrial). These four areas were the main analytic domains that drive the derivation of sample sizes for the survey.

17 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

MI2 developed sample sizes for the two geographies that balanced precision requirements with relative cost and logistical considerations. The team calculated the design effect (DEFF)—defined as the survey variance under the actual sampling design divided by the variance under a simple random sample of the same size—to estimate the efficiency of the sampling design. Using this approach, MI2 projected that a minimum of 450 completed surveys per area would be necessary to ensure a margin of error within five percentage points in each of the geographic domains. MI2 allocated and completed 500 surveys for the Menabe region and 600 surveys for the MaMaBay Region, with 25 household completes in each of the sample EAs (Table 1).

Table 1. Enumeration areas and baseline surveys completed by region and district, by stratum, and by gender of head of household

Number of EAs Surveyed Number of Households Surveyed Region Male Head of Female Head of Total Marine Terrestrial Total Districts Household Household MaMaBay Analanjirofo (total) 16 8 8 400 216 184 Mananara Avaratra 7 5 2 175 105 70 Maroantsetra 9 3 6 225 111 114 SAVA (total) 4 0 4 100 67 33 Andapa 1 0 1 25 17 8 Antalaha 3 0 3 75 50 25 Sofia (total) 4 0 4 100 52 48 Befandriana North 4 0 4 100 52 48 Sub-total 24 8 16 600 335 265 Menabe Menabe Belo on Tsiribihina 6 3 3 150 94 56 Mahabo 3 0 3 75 42 33 Manja 2 1 1 50 24 26 Morondava 9 6 3 225 116 109 Sub-total 20 10 10 500 276 224 Grand Total 44 18 26 1100 611 489

With 1100 household surveys completed across the two regions, the survey generated region-level estimates within +/- 4% with 95% confidence. Stratum-level estimates have slightly larger margins of error, within +/- 6%. It should be noted that comparisons (differences) between genders (gender of respondent or gender of head of household), or across strata and region simultaneously, may have larger margins of error.

As it was not feasible to list households within each EA, survey enumerators were instructed to select households in the second stage using a “random walk” from a central location within the EA. The random walk uses a prescribed sequence that minimizes selection biases.

With this approach, survey enumerators were to select 25 households in each of the sampled EAs. These sample sizes allow for non-responses and ensure the target numbers of completed surveys. Within each sample household, the head of household or his/her partner was the selected survey respondent.

USAID 18

2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT MI2 consulted the following sources to develop the CCP survey baseline instrument: ● Notes and materials from the three-day workshop with implementing partners, led in May 2019 by MI2, in which the theory of change was confirmed, and the initial survey framework developed ● Questionnaire design meetings with USAID/Madagascar, CCP implementation teams (Mikajy and Hay Tao), and technical and monitoring and evaluation experts from Tetra Tech, Inc. ● Existing U.S. Government-developed or peer-reviewed literature on conservation issues in Madagascar, including USAID Madagascar’s recent Forestry Assistance Act 118/119 Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Analysis (USAID Madagascar 2019b) and a recent paper on conservation crime in Madagascar (Gore, Ratsimbazafy, and Lute 2013). ● Existing tested instruments and scales with similar research objectives and survey domains, including the baseline instrument from a 2017 evaluation of USAID’s Feed the Future Land Tenure Assistance activity in Tanzania (USAID 2017) and the 2015 household survey instrument from the USAID Liberia Municipal Water Project (USAID Liberia 2015).

A final questionnaire draft was shared with USAID and the implementing partners for review and comment. The approved version was then translated into French by a professional translation firm, with quality assurance from ICF, and to Malagasy by the local survey implementation team, CAETIC Development Society, Madagascar. The survey was conducted in Malagasy or in the local languages of the EAs. The translation was done by enumerators who were from the region and bilingual in Malagasy and the local language. These enumerators were trained on the survey, concepts, and definitions during the training period to minimize translation bias. The final English and Malagasy survey instruments are available in Annexes 1 and 2, respectively.

2.2.1. LINK TO CCP THEORY OF CHANGE MI2 then tested and adapted the baseline instrument. The instrument included four overarching domains related to the Mikajy and Hay Tao theories of change, with a focus on key results and indicators in results chains specific to the activities’ most relevant strategic approaches. The topics covered in the questionnaire are:

Livelihoods ● Participation in certain value chains ● Household income and possessions ● Access to loans Governance ● Land tenure ● Participation and contributions to law enforcement Community Well-Being ● Housing, water access ● Health ● Food security Conservation ● Environmental knowledge ● Perceptions of ecosystem services and threats to biodiversity ● Perceptions of the impacts of ecosystems on human well-being ● Conservation knowledge and behaviors ● Participation in CBNRM

19 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Once the baseline instrument was finalized, and following an extensive series of “pause and reflect” (adaptive management-focused) workshops that clarified and updated their theories of change, MI2 reviewed the updated Mikajy and Hay Tao strategic approaches (SA) most closely linked to the survey domains. MI2 then identified key results that could be measured or, at a minimum, informed by data generated by the survey. These SAs are: • Mikajy SA 2: Wealth (Support community-based, conservation friendly enterprises and livelihoods) (Figure 2 on page 21) • Hay Tao SA 1 (Support conservation stakeholders on sustainable livelihood, natural resource management (NRM), and environmental justice through capacity development) (Figure 3 on page 22) • Mikajy SA 4: Action (Operationalize community-based land and resource tenure policy on landscapes/seascapes) (Figure 4 on page 23)

2.3. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION During field data collection, CAETIC conducted semi-structured interviews with influential community members to triangulate and contextualize socioeconomic, livelihood, and conservation-related findings from the quantitative household survey.

In each of the 44 EAs, CAETIC enumerators interviewed at least one of the following individuals:

● Chief of the Fokontany; ● Traditional chief; ● Vondron’Olona Ifotony (Community Group/Association or VOI) or Communauté de base locale (Basic Local Community or COBA) Manager; ● Leader for the producers’/fishers’ association; ● Non-governmental organization (NGO) manager; and/or ● Forest rangers.

2.4. DATA QUALITY CONTROL CAETIC conducted data quality control on all survey records. Tablets with Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) software were used to conduct interviews (to record responses to both the household surveys and the key informant interviews with community leaders), ensuring standardized data input across all surveys. A supervisor checked all surveys for completeness, in addition to checking that enumerators used standardized interview methods throughout data collection. After the supervisors checked survey record completeness, the completed questionnaires were sent to the web database when the team had access to the internet. The web database was accessible by both MI2 and USAID.

USAID 20

Figure 2. Mikajy SA2 (Wealth) results chain indicating results informed by this household survey (red boxes)

21 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

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)

USAID 22

Figure 4. Mikajy SA4 (Action) results chain indicating results informed by this household survey (green boxes)

23 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

2.5. DATA CLEANING CAETIC developed data cleaning procedures and cleaned the data prior to submission to USAID. In addition, MI2 conducted a midpoint data quality assurance check and provided recommendations to CAETIC on data cleaning to prepare the dataset for analysis. The primary issue in the raw dataset to rectify through data cleaning was that some of the survey questions, such as crop production and income, produced multiple lines for each household identification (ID) number. However, for analysis, it was necessary to create a dataset with one row per household. Thus, MI2 recommended that CAETIC add new variables so all extra rows for each household ID could be consolidated in one row.

2.6. DATA WEIGHTING MI2 computed survey weights—which reflect the probabilities of selection at all stages of selection—and the adjusted overall selection probabilities for households for non-response. MI2 adjusted the sampling weights—which reflect the probabilities of selection—using known population data for the target areas’ key demographics (age and gender).

2.7. DATA ANALYSIS CAETIC produced statistics by geographic and community level. Data was disaggregated by sex and age group when appropriate. The confidence interval for all results were presented to the MI2 analytical team in descriptive tables.

CAETIC also provided cross-tabulation or/and correlation analysis and data interpretation for main variables. These analyses were to help define the household profile and explain structural differences in farm and household characteristics across subgroups in the survey population.

MI2 then developed a detailed analysis method with input from CAETIC, building upon CAETIC’s cross- tabulation and correlation analysis, which led to the baseline survey data analysis. The baseline analysis focuses on identifying and determining the baseline status of livelihoods, governance, and conservation behaviors related to each research question.

The data and analyses presented in this household survey were prioritized based on the overarching research questions and the assessment of Mikajy and Hay Tao strategic approaches. However, even before the midterm evaluation is complete, the types of analyses, the questions that can be answered, and even the approaches taken to interpreting the data could be even deeper and broader than what is presented here. As a result, the authors recommend that the CCP and its implementing partners carefully consider what additional information or analyses could be useful to inform their work and decision making. There are some general suggestions for additional data analysis approaches at the end of this report.

2.8. LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY

At the time of data collection, the two activities were still in the early implementation stage. The sample includes households that will be beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of CCP interventions, but it was not possible to assign them a beneficiary status at the time of the baseline survey. Thus, the baseline sample should be considered descriptive of the population in the targeted CCP intervention areas independent of beneficiary status. Data on beneficiary status will be collected as part of the midterm and final evaluations to allow comparisons between these groups at the midpoint and endpoint of the activities.

USAID 24

Further, this study will not be a “repeated measures” study in the sense that enumerators will not return to the same households at the midline. Instead, they will use the same random walk method implemented at the baseline. Consequently, it will not be possible to attribute statistically significant changes over time in key variables to CCP interventions alone.

Other external variables (political change, market fluctuations, weather, etc.) may also contribute to changes, both positive and negative, in targeted CCP intervention areas. These external variables are generally expected to affect households in targeted CCP intervention areas independent of beneficiary status but are potential confounders for changes in household-level conservation behaviors, livelihoods, and awareness/perceptions of governance measured at the population level. Disaggregating these outcome variables by beneficiary status as subsequent beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of CCP interventions at the project midterm and end will provide better understanding of the successes and challenges of CCP interventions, including the underlying local contexts that serve as catalysts or barriers to achieving project goals.

Moreover, these quantitative trends can inform the design of additional future analytical methods that could be used in the midline household survey and/or mid-term evaluation, including qualitative methods such as focus groups or semi-structured interviews, and USAID’s anticipated CCP midterm evaluation, which can be employed to better understand the CCP’s contributions to change.

3. SURVEY RESULTS This section reports the general characteristics of the baseline survey dataset, as well as quantitative and qualitative results from the baseline survey with regards to the two research questions. For descriptive results for each variable by geographic area and strata, see Annex 3. For qualitative results by geographic area, see Annex 4.

25 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

3.1. HOUSEHOLDS SURVEYED USAID completed 1100 surveys in the two regions. Details about the number of households surveyed in each region are presented in Table 1. Across the two reagions, 500 households from Menabe and 600 households from MaMaBay were surveyed. Across two strata, 550 marine households and 550 terrestrial households were surveyed. The gender split of respondents was 56% males and 44% females and was similar across Menabe and MaMaBay, while marine strata had 52% male and 48% female heads of household and terrestrial strata had 59% and 41% male and female heads of household. While no formal tests of statistical significance are reported, similarities or differences between comparison groups are reported using the overlap or nonoverlap in the 95% confidence intervals calculated from standard errors.

Figure 5 presents a heat map of the sampling areas and the density of sampling within them. In the map, Menabe is the geography to the southwest and MaMaBay is to the northeast. Both of these regions are intentionally coastal in nature, allowing opportunities for interventions impacting on both marine and terrestrial ecosystems and livelihoods. Both areas are forested and include protected areas important for biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services. However, the regions have important differences too. MaMaBay’s climate is wetter and more tropical, allowing for cultivation of important cash crops like vanilla and clove. Menabe’s climate is dryer and the agriculture in this area tends toward staple crops such as maize and rice.

Figure 5. Map of Madagascar, showing density of sampling in blue (lowest density), red (intermediate), and yellow (highest).

3.2. LIVELIHOODS

3.2.1. INCOME FROM VALUE CHAINS This study surveyed participation in six livelihood groups: agriculture (17 food crops for consumption or sale), livestock rearing (six types of animals, including fish), breeding (production of eggs, honey or milk), fishing (eight groups of marine or coastal species), ecotourism, and “other” income generating activities. Across the Menabe and MaMaBay regions and marine and terrestrial strata, engagement in agriculture and livestock value chains were reported as the most important livelihood activities (Table 2). Third most important overall was “other,” which includes a variety of entrepreneurial and service-oriented income sources.

USAID 26

Compared to agriculture and husbandry, fewer households reported participating in fishery value chains. However, fishery value chain participation was relatively more important in the marine strata in both regions. In Menabe, 42% of households in marine strata and 15% of households in terrestrial strata fished, for a global average of 32%. In MaMaBay, fishing was less common, with an overall average of 7% of households fishing or cultivating seafood resources: 11% in marine strata and 5% in terrestrial strata.

Table 2. Percentage of households that participate in various activities for income

Stratum Agriculture Seafood Value Livestock Breeding Ecotourism Other Chain activities

Total 86.8% 15.1% 74.3% 12.3% 0.3% 66.2%

MaMaBay

Marine 80.4% 15.7% 65.2% 17.0% 0% 72.8%

Terrestrial 97.1% 3.7% 80.3% 12.0% 0.3% 59.0%

Average 91.4% 7.8% 75.2% 13.7% 0.2% 63.7%

Menabe

Marine 64.2% 41.9% 69.7% 10.0% 1.2% 79.7%

Terrestrial 96.4% 14.6% 76.6% 7.2% 0% 59.0%

Average 76.3% 31.6% 72.3% 9.0% 0.7% 71.9%

Agriculture value chain participation (food crops or agricultural products) Menabe and MaMaBay differed substantially in the crops grown and the reported income generated from agricultural value chains (Table 3 on page 28). In Menabe, most households reported growing and/or selling staple crops such as peas, cassava, maize, peanuts, rice, and sweet potato. Meanwhile, in MaMaBay, producers reported growing both staple and export crops. Major staple crops in MaMaBay included cassava and rice, and export crops included vanilla, coffee, and clove. The reported average household income generated from agriculture also differed by region and was substantially higher in MaMaBay than in Menabe.

Livestock value chain participation Approximately three-quarters of households surveyed participated in animal husbandry or sale in both regions (72% in Menabe and 75% in MaMaBay). Overall, approximately one-third of households surveyed raised or traded cattle (30% in Menabe and 33% in MaMaBay) and just under two-thirds raised or traded poultry (62% in Menabe and 66% in MaMaBay). Fewer households reported raising goats and pigs (10% in Menabe and less than 1% in MaMaBay raise goats; 14.2% in Menabe and 4.8% in MaMaBay raise pigs). Less than 1% of households reported raising or trading fish or sheep.

27 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Table 3. Percentage of households that produced each crop and average income generated among households that produced the crop

MaMaBay Menabe Food Crop % households Avg. household % households Avg. household that produce income (MGA) that produce income (MGA)

Black eyes – – <1% 600,000

Cacao <1% – – –

Cape pea (Kabaro) – – 19% 496,149

Cassava 39% 22,731 39% 179,509

Cloves 24% 781,778 – –

Coffee 24% 88,741 – –

Dried beans 10% 103,751 2% 66,360

Lojy/ Voanemba <1% 7,487 16% 157,787 (Cow Peas)

Maize 5% 13,485 33% 147,407

Mung bean (Tsiasisa) – – 4% 789,717

Peanuts 2% 74,339 24% 1,369,826

Potatoes 1% 6,159 – –

Rice 86% 48,968 36% 539,253

Sweet potato 7% 20,778 29% 107,152

Vanilla 54% 4,718,104 – –

Yams (farmed) 13% 8,391 – –

Yams (wild collected) 1% – 3% 58,795

Total 91% 3,109,312 76% 1,135,649

Breeding value chain participation The most common product generated through breeding was eggs (6% in Menabe and 13% in MaMaBay), though milk and honey generated more income among households that produced them (see Table 4 on page 29).

USAID 28

Table 4. Percentage of households that engaged in breeding, and average income generated among households that produced it

MaMaBay Menabe Product % households that Avg. income % households that Avg. income produce generated (MGA) produce generated (MGA)

Eggs 13% 12,576 6% 24,540

Honey – – <1% 255,000

Milk <1% 1,006,257 3% 622,508

Fishery value chain participation The most common resource produced in both regions was fish, though more than twice as many households in Menabe relied on fish, compared to MaMaBay (37% vs.16%) (Table 5). Additionally, the average household income from fish appears higher in Menabe than MaMaBay (316,503 MGA vs. 210,475 MGA). In Menabe, shrimp (8%) and mud crab (5%) played a role in marine-based livelihoods, and less than 1% of households (two households) reported gaining income from lobster and shark fin. In MaMaBay, lobster, bivalve mollusks, mud crab, octopus, and sea cucumber were cultivated by few households. Shrimp appeared to be the most valuable seafood resource, with an average household income of 532,640 MGA among households that cultivated it.

Table 5. Percentage of households in marine strata that fish or cultivate various seafood resources and average income generated

MaMaBay Menabe Seafood Avg. income Resources % households who % households who Avg. income generated generated capture or cultivate capture or cultivate (MGA) (MGA)

Bivalve mollusks <1% – – –

Fish 16% 210,475 37% 316,503

Lobster 1% 95,000 <1% 315,000

Mud Crab 1% 10,434 5% 107,167

Octopus 2% 17,223 – –

Sea cucumber <1% 160,000 – –

Shark fin – – <1% 160,000

Shrimp – – 8% 532,640

29 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

3.2.2. ACCESS TO FINANCIAL RESOURCES Respondents were also asked how difficult it was for them to keep up with their financial commitments (on a scale of “very easy” to “very difficult”). In Menabe, 64% of respondents reported that it was very difficult or difficult for them to keep up with their financial commitments, compared to 50% in MaMaBay. For respondents who did not access loans from any source, the primary reason reported in both regions was difficulty reimbursing the lender on time (57% in Menabe and 54% in MaMaBay) followed by difficulty meeting the conditions to get loans (25% in Menabe and 22% in MaMaBay).

Overall, 72% of respondents reported that they did not wish to apply for a loan from any formal microlending institution. However, households showed great willingness to participate in a Village Savings and Loans Association (VSLA) if one were available in their community (95% of residents not currently part of a VSLA in Menabe and 100% in MaMaBay). However, opportunities to participate in a VSLA appeared to be limited, as only 2% of Menabe households and 10% of MaMaBay households reported that a VSLA was available in their village. Only households in MaMaBay reported that they participated in a VSLA at the time of the survey, and 72% of those who participated reported that they invested on a weekly basis. The average amount invested was 10,579 MGA, and on average households borrowed 100,993 MGA the last time they borrowed money.

Only 14% of households reported access to loans from either banks or microfinancing institutions. Households in Menabe were more likely to report access to loans (20%) than households in MaMaBay. The most common types of loans in Menabe were from family and friends (45%), followed by microfinance (44%). In MaMaBay, “family and friends” was also the most reported source of loans (32%) followed by cash advances from Ramanandraibe Exportation (RAMEX) (31%). RAMEX is an International Finance Corporation (IFC)-backed financing facility for the purchasing and processing of vanilla beans for export.

3.2.3. INCOME FROM ECOTOURISM AND OTHER SOURCES Participation in ecotourism was very low, with only four households (less than 1%) reporting that they participated in any ecotourism activities.

In the past 12 months, households reported an average of 1,566,765 MGA of annual income (1,313,951 MGA in Menabe and 1,708,934 MGA in MaMaBay) from “other” sources. The additional livelihoods or income sources included working as a fishmonger or collector, entrepreneurial engagements in commerce or business, transportation, mining, extraction of stones, sands, craft or artisanal techniques/processing, permanent and temporary labor, and monetary transfers.

3.2.4. OVERALL HOUSEHOLD INCOME This study surveyed participation in six livelihood groups: agriculture (17 food crops for consumption or sale), livestock rearing (six types of animals, including fish), breeding (production of eggs, honey or milk), fishing (eight groups of marine or coastal species), ecotourism, and “other” income generating activities. Households participated in two livelihood groups on average (see Table 6 on page 30). Agriculture and livestock or agriculture and “other” were the two most common livelihood pairings. However, some households participated in up to four livelihood groups and one participated in up to five.

Farms were identified as households earning income from agriculture, livestock, or breeding. Out of the 1100 households surveyed, 862 (78%) qualified as farms in this case. Among these households, the average income earned from agriculture, livestock, or breeding (combined) was 2,269,108 MGA.

USAID 30

Table 6. Number of households participating in multiple livelihood groups and their average total household income

Average of total Number of livelihood Number of income from farms Average total income (MGA) groups households (MGA) 1 146 774,159 2,938,063 2 425 2,400,048 3,523,225 3 395 2,125,775 3,637,535

4 120 3,872,559 5,220,465 5 14 4,184,536 5,333,571 Total 1100 2,269,108 3,694,800

Using income reported from agriculture, fish, livestock, breeding, ecotourism, and other sources, the Survey produced an estimate of total annual income per household and average income per person per day (Table 7). The average income per person per day was calculated using the average household size measured in the survey (5.1 people per household across all strata combined, including children).

Table 7. Overall household income reported in survey

Number of Average Total Income per Type of Household Households Household (annual in MGA) All households 1100 3,694,800 MGA Among households who gain 119 2,955,093 income from fishing Among households who gain 778 3,772,353 income from agriculture Among households who gain 432 4,513,900 income from livestock Among households who gain 31 11,163,324 income from breeding Among households with 714 3,882,466 other sources of income

Respondents were asked whether over the past five years their income had increased, decreased, or stayed the same over time. In Menabe, more than half of respondents (69%) reported that their income had decreased, compared to 34% in MaMaBay. Only one tenth of respondents in Menabe reported that their incomes had increased compared to one-quarter of respondents in MaMaBay.

Respondents were also asked whether the number of income sources had increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past five years. As with the direction of overall income, households in MaMaBay reported slightly better outcomes than households in Menabe. In Menabe, 35% of respondents reported that the number of income sources had decreased, compared to 19% in MaMaBay. Only 6% of respondents in Menabe reported that their number of income sources had increased over the past five years, compared to 19% in MaMaBay.

31 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND GOVERNANCE

3.3.1. LAND TENURE The majority of households surveyed held at least one parcel of land (86%), with most households holding between one and four parcels (78% of all households) (Table 8). A higher proportion of households held at least one parcel in MaMaBay compared to Menabe (93% vs. 78%, respectively). There were not substantial discrepancies between male as compared to female heads of household (90% vs. 88% with at least one parcel). However, there was a larger difference between households in marine vs. terrestrial strata (82% vs. 91%).

Table 8. Number of parcels held by household by region, stratum, and respondent

Number of Region Stratum Respondent Total parcels MaMaBay Menabe Marine Terrestrial Female Male 0 14% 7% 22% 21% 8% 15% 12% 1 17% 11% 24% 22% 13% 19% 15% 2 26% 27% 24% 21% 29% 26% 25% 3 23% 26% 18% 17% 26% 19% 25% 4 13% 18% 8% 10% 16% 13% 13% 5 6% 7% 4% 4% 6% 4% 7% 6 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 7 <1% <1% <1% <1% 0% <1% <1% 8 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 11 <1% <1% 0% <1% <1% 0% <1% 14 <1% <1% 0% <1% 0% <1% 0% 15 <1% <1% 0% <1% 0% 0% <1% At least one 86% 93% 78% 79% 92% 85% 88%

Among those who hold at least one parcel, the majority reported that they have no documents proving that they own their land (62% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay) (see Table 9 on page 33). Similar proportions of female and male heads of households holding land had no land documents. Fewer households had simple documents or formal documents, but only 5% of households in Menabe and 4% of households in MaMaBay lived on titled land. Education appears to be associated with land documentation. A higher percentage of respondents with primary or secondary education have either formal land documents, certified land, or titled land, compared to respondents with no education. Furthermore, respondents with higher education had an even higher rate of land documentation, titled land, or certified land compared to respondents with primary or secondary education.

USAID 32

Table 9. Distribution of land ownership arrangements by region, gender, and level of education

Head of Geographic Region Household’s Level of Education What is the Gender

ownership

arrangement for this plot? Male None Higher Female Primary Menabe MaMaBay first cycle first Secondary Secondary Secondary second cycle second State owned <1% 4% 1% <1% <1% 1% <1% <1% 0% land Titled Land 4% 5% 4% 3% 1% 5% 5% 3% 14% Certified Land 3% 10% 4% 6% 3% 4% 5% 13% 14% Non-titled privately-owned 9% 9% 9% 9% 6% 10% 10% 7% 14% with formal documents Non-titled privately-owned 28% 10% 27% 21% 15% 28% 31% 15% 11% with simple docs No Documents 56% 62% 55% 61% 74% 51% 50% 62% 46%

Across regions and genders, a small proportion of respondents thought it was possible that someone could try to take away one or more of their parcels in the next five years (11% in Menabe and 16% in MaMaBay; 17% Male and 12% Female) (see Table 10 on page 34). Of those who thought it possible, approximately three-quarters felt it was somewhat or very likely that someone would attempt to do so (85% in Menabe and 72% in MaMaBay; 76% Male and 73% Female).

Respondents who said it was somewhat or very likely that someone would try and take their parcels were asked who they thought would do so. In both regions, the top response was “someone inside the village” (39% in Menabe and 33% in MaMaBay). In Menabe, the second most common response was “new arrival” (15%), whereas in MaMaBay it was “extended family” (27.3%). When asked to rank the reasons why they thought this could happen, 42% of Menabe residents said that “lack of documents” was the top reason and “ongoing or past disputes or expropriation” was ranked second by 61% of residents. In MaMaBay, 39% said “ongoing or past disputes or expropriation” was the first-place reason, with 39% ranking “lack of documents” second.

33 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Table 10. Perceptions of land tenure by geographic region and respondent's gender

Geographic Region Gender MaMaBay Menabe Male Female In the next five years, do you think it’s possible that someone could try to take one of your parcels from you without your permission? Yes 16% 11% 17% 12% No 66% 62% 64% 65% Don’t know 12% 6% 9% 12% Not applicable 6% 21% 10% 11% Of those responding Yes: How likely do you think it is that someone would try to take one of your parcels from you in the next five years? Impossible – 6.% – 4% Possible but unlikely 27% 9% 22% 23% Somewhat likely 65% 71% 68% 64% Very likely/It is happening now 7% 14% 8% 9% Don't know 1% – 1% –

3.3.2. NATURAL RESOURCE ACCESS AND USE Just over seven in ten households report they have had undisrupted access to natural resources important for their livelihoods in the last 12 months (overall: 72% unrestricted and 28% restricted). This proportion was consistent across region (unrestricted: 71% in Menabe and 73% in MaMaBay) and gender (unrestricted: 72 % male and 72% female).

Among the approximately one-quarter who did experience difficulty accessing forest areas that they rely on were asked which specific forest products they have had difficulty accessing (Table 11). Firewood was selected by 40% in Menabe and 72% in MaMaBay. The next most common response, “other,” allowed respondents to provide open-ended answers. These included “wood for building” and “sweet potato.”

Table 11. Types of natural resources sought by those who claimed having limited access and percentage of households who claimed to have difficulty accessing these resources

Type of natural resource Total MaMaBay Menabe sought Honey 1% 1% 1% Mushrooms 0% 0% 0% Caterpillars, locusts, or <1% <1% 0% other insects Wild fruits 6% 6% 8% Bushmeat 5% 5% 7% Medicinal plants <1% <1% 0% Firewood 62% 72% 40% Charcoal 6% 3% 12% Fish 7% 4% 15% Other 25% 23% 30%

USAID 34

The main difficulty faced by residents in both regions was that the area they need to access is now farther away (60% in Menabe and 33% in MaMaBay), indicating that local sources may depleted or the ecosystem that harbored them may now be degraded or, in the case of deforestation, eliminated. Additionally, 27% of those experiencing access issues in MaMaBay said the area they need to access is now blocked. Across both regions, a majority of respondents facing difficulty said these products were “very important” to their livelihood (93% in Menabe and 54% in MaMaBay).

3.3.3. LAND-USE PLANNING The majority of households were not aware of land-use planning processes in their community (overall: 43% are aware and 57% are unaware). In Menabe, the proportion of participants unaware of land-use planning processes in their community (61%) was higher than that in MaMaBay (55%). Additionally, while 50% of male heads of household were aware of some land-use planning processes in their community, only 34% of female respondents were.

When asked if they had the right to clear new forest land, a majority of respondents in both regions said they did not (56% in Menabe and 51% in MaMaBay).

There was no consensus about what steps residents should follow in order to request a permit to clear savoka/monka (fallow) land. A majority (58%) of residents in Menabe said they did not know what they had to do; 29% of MaMaBay residents also did not know. Of those who knew, a plurality of MaMaBay respondents identified submitting the request to the COBA president (25% of all respondents), sending the request to the forest district (24%), and having the forest district verify the land area and the firewall (20%) as the correct course of action. Menabe respondents were less likely to identify these steps (17%, 13%, and 17%, respectively). Controlled burn was only identified by 3% of respondents.

3.3.4. KNOWLEDGE OF AND PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY GROUPS The survey measured participation in community groups, including producer organizations and COBA/VOIs. A total of 12% of households participated in producer organizations, including 5% of households in Menabe and 14% of households in MaMaBay. Membership in producer organizations also appeared to differ by gender, as 14% of male respondents belong to an organization, while 8% of female respondents are members. Overall, 26% of respondents were members of COBAs, though this percentage was higher in MaMaBay (31%) compared to Menabe (14%) (Table 12). In qualitative interviews, key informants said that where COBAs are active, local communities are more respectful of forest governance laws.

Table 12. Percentage of respondents that are members in various CBNRM organizations

Gender of the Length of time in the Geographic region respondent community

one

Type of CBNRM organization

year Male Female Menabe one year MaMaBay Whole life More than Less than Member of COBA 31% 13% 30% 16% 0% 17% 31% Member of Producers group 14% 5% 14% 8% 5% 12% 11% Member of surveillance group 35% 23% 38% 18% 62% 28% 32%

35 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

3.3.5. ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING Overall, just under one-third of households participated in organized groups to surveil and report on activities that damage the environment. The percentage was lower in Menabe (23%) than in MaMaBay (35%).

Even fewer respondents were aware or had made use of hotlines for reporting environmental crimes established by the Hay Tao activity under Strategic Approach 1 (overall: 91% unaware; 88% of those who are aware of the hotline have not used it). However, there appeared to be differences in hotline awareness and reported use among geographic region, gender, level of education, and length of time lived in the community (Table 13).

Table 13. Percentage of respondents aware of hotlines (a) and having used hotlines (b) for reporting environmental crimes

Question Yes No (a) Are you aware that there is a confidential hotline for reporting when someone does not comply with laws or rules related to natural resources? Total 9% 91% MaMaBay 7% 93% Geographic region Menabe 16% 84% Male 12% 88% Gender Female 6% 94% None 7% 93% Primary 8% 92% Level of education Secondary first cycle 10% 90% Secondary second cycle 23% 77% Higher 27% 73% Less than one year 34% 66% Length of time in the More than one year 14% 86% community Whole life 7% 93% (b) Have you ever used the hotline to report a case where laws related to natural resources were not followed? Total 12% 88% MaMaBay 8% 92% Geographic region Menabe 16% 84% Male 14% 86% Gender Female 7% 93% None 18% 82% Primary 12% 88% Level of education Secondary first cycle 8% 92% Secondary second cycle 10% 90% Higher 16% 84% Less than one year 34% 66% Length of time in the More than one year 14% 86% community Whole life 9% 91%

USAID 36

3.4. CROSS-CUTTING: KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS, THREAT REDUCTION AND HUMAN WELL-BEING RESULTS

3.4.1. KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS OF THREATS, ECOSYSTEMS AND SERVICES Knowledge about ecosystems and ecosystem services

Generally, respondents in both regions reported high levels of awareness of the benefits of ecosystem services. However, there were some gaps in awareness, particularly in Menabe. In Menabe, more than one-third of respondents (34%) reported that they were not aware that nature protects communities and property from storm impacts. In addition, 47% of Menabe respondents reported that they were unaware that nature is essential for pollinating plants and crops to produce food and 44% were unaware that nature is essential for reducing or controlling the spread of many diseases. The majority of respondents in both regions reported that they had been impacted by the loss of an ecosystem service that would be normally provided by nature (92% in Menabe and 71% in MaMaBay). The primary impact of this loss was reduced economic well-being (87% in Menabe and 61% in MaMaBay) followed by impacts on medical health (10% in Menabe and 34% in MaMaBay).

Perceived threats to the environment

Among a list of potential threats to the ecosystem (Table 14), the most commonly perceived threats to the ecosystem were illegal logging (72% in Menabe and 40% in MaMaBay), slash and burn agriculture (46% in Menabe and 52% in MaMaBay), and climate change (33% in Menabe and 45% in MaMaBay).

Table 14. Percent of households that perceived a given issue as a threat to the ecosystem

Ecosystem Threat MaMaBay Menabe Illegal logging 40% 72% Slash and Burn Agriculture 52% 46% Poaching 6% 7% Wildlife trafficking 6% 2% Illegal fishing (beach seine net) 5% 12% Other illegal fishing 2% 11% Climate change impacts 45% 33% Unsustainable farming practices 5% 11%

Knowledge of benefits of CBNRM

When asked of their knowledge or perceptions of benefits of CBNRM/ LMMA activities in their village (inclusive of activities by CBNRM associations such as VOI or COBA, of specific management contracts1 and groups working in marine areas such as LMMA or Aire de Pêche Gérée Localement [APGL]), overall, respondents most frequently stated that they didn’t know (43%). Three percent of respondents said that there were no benefits.

1 In Madagascar, specific management contract structures mentioned in the survey included GELOSE (Gestion Locale Sécurisée, enacted through law number 96-025), GCF (Gestion Contractualisée des Forêts, enacted through decree number 2001-122), and TGRN (natural resources management transfer contracts established under GELOSE and GCF).

37 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Respondents who did know responded that benefits were regulation of access to natural resources (225 in Menabe and 25% in MaMaBay), assurance that resources would be available in the future (27% in Menabe and 19% in MaMaBay), or regulation of accesses to natural resources (20% in Menabe and 26% in MaMaBay). Additional answers reported by more than 10% of respondents included local involvement in resource management, local participation in control of resources, strengthened law enforcement, and reduced illegal activities. Five percent also responded with “other” additional benefits, which included environmental protection, access to livelihoods or agricultural training, improved water quality and quantity, improved health, and access to loans.

3.4.2. UNSUSTAINABLE AND ILLEGAL RESOURCE USE Land clearing

Overall, 17% of households reported clearing land within the last five years for additional cultivation or livestock (14% in Menabe and 18% in MaMaBay). Those who did cleared mainly fallow land (87% overall, with 78% in Menabe and 90% in MaMaBay), though some also cleared forest (9% overall, with 13% in Menabe and 8% in MaMaBay). In terms of the location of the clearing, very few reporting clearing within protected areas (overall less than 1%, with 1% in Menabe and zero in MaMaBay) and in areas managed through transfert de gestion (2 % overall 2%, with 5% in Menabe and less than 1% in MaMaBay).

In qualitative interviews, key informants in MaMaBay identified that although insufficient farmland has become an issue, the development of vanilla and clove value chains has limited the practice of slash-and- burn agriculture. Even logging permits sometimes obscure the ultimate goal of the individual or company, which is to cultivate vanilla in the forest understory. In Menabe, key informants reported that forest is increasingly cleared for maize production.

Key informants in both Menabe and MaMaBay perceive migrants to be important actors involved in land clearing. In Menabe, dahalo (armed bandits) are also blamed for forest clearing. Climate constraints on livelihoods can drive forest clearing vis-à-vis individuals needing to produce charcoal for income, and in Menabe, coastal mangroves are being cleared for this purpose. In MaMaBay, key informants identified corruption of forest managers as an enabler of forest clearing, since communities have used corrupt channels to illegally exploit land resources.

Marine resource use Overall, only a small proportion of households in MaMaBay fished for seafood to eat or sell (32% IN Menabe and 8% in MaMaBay). When visiting these households who reported that they fish, enumerators recorded any nets they observed. Most frequently, no nets were observed (79% in Menabe and 55% in MaMaBay). However, gill (Harato, Jarifa) nets were seen more often in MaMaBay (44% vs. 11% in Menabe) and mosquito nets modified for fishing were observed more frequently in Menabe (10% vs. 1% in MaMaBay). Qualitative interviews from both Menabe and MaMaBay note that illegal fishing reduced catch and impacted marine resource-dependent livelihoods. In Menabe, the fishing season was no longer respected, and respondents perceived that new migrants were among those who did not respect the seasonal restrictions. Additionally, large fishing boats took most of the catch. In MaMaBay, illegal fishing reduced the availability of fish near the shore, forcing fishers to go further offshore for the same catch. Two households in Menabe reported that they exploit shark fin for their livelihoods. Given that shark fin is an illegal resource, other households that may participate in shark fishing may not have been willing to admit this in the survey.

USAID 38

3.4.3. CONSERVATION-FRIENDLY BEHAVIORS Conservation-friendly agriculture

For this analysis, improved agricultural practices included the use of improved seeds, fertilization, intercropping, agroforestry, and conservation agriculture. Unimproved agricultural methods included monoculture and slash-and-burn agriculture. Overall, 58% of households used some form of improved agricultural method, compared to 42% of households that did not use any improved methods, though far more households in MaMaBay practiced improved methods (68%), compared with Menabe (28%).

A higher proportion of members of producer organizations practiced improved methods (69%) compared to non-members (31%), while a higher proportion of non-members practiced unimproved methods (93%) compared to members (7%) (Figure 6). Conversely, fewer members of producer organizations use unimproved agricultural techniques, such as monoculture and slash and burn, than non-members. The same is true for VSLAs, with 85% of VSLA members practicing improved agricultural techniques compared to 6% of non-members, and 7% of VSLA members practicing unimproved techniques compared with 93% of non-members.

The underlying factors driving these relationships is currently unknown. Important confounding factors, co-variates, or alternative explanations could include the type, purpose, or sponsorship of the organization; the reason people join the organizations; current or past presence of other projects promoting these techniques; or the prevailing livelihoods in the areas where these occur.

Figure 6. Associations between participation in community groups and adoption of improved agricultural techniques. The drivers of these associations is currently unknown.

39 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Tree and Mangrove Planting

In MaMaBay, just under one-third of households had a woodlot (plantation) compared to just 4% in Menabe. Approximately one-quarter of households (19% in Menabe and 27% in MaMaBay) had planted trees in the past three years. Across both regions, the main reason for planting trees was “reforestation/restoration” (81% in Menabe and 51% in MaMaBay). In Menabe, , the next most common reason was “fruits to eat” (20%), while in MaMaBay it was “firewood for own use” (26%). In Menabe, 5% of households planted mangroves in the past three years, whereas no mangrove planting was reported in MaMaBay.

Support to CBNRM/LMMA organizations

Overall, 26% of households were members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31 % in MaMaBay). Of these, 98% reported that the COBA was still functioning. Of those who were part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM was paying a membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). Overall, approximately one-third of respondents also supported CBNRM by respecting regulations (58% in Menabe and 28% in MaMaBay), asking others to respect regulations (62% in Menabe and 27% in MaMaBay = 27%), and/or planting trees (20% in Menabe and 40% in MaMaBay). Only sixteen percent of COBA members reported providing no support to CBNRM.

3.4.4. ACCESS TO WATER AND HEALTH SERVICES Menabe households had greater access than MaMaBay to improved water services such as boreholes, public taps, or piped water in the home (38% in Menabe and 22% in MaMaBay). Of the overall 30% that experience a change in the availability of drinking water in the past 12 months, a majority reported that it had declined (64% in Menabe and 79% in MaMaBay). However, a majority of households in both regions have experienced unchanged quality of their water over the past year (61% in Menabe and 65% in MaMaBay). Of those who experienced a change in their water quality, approximately half reported the quality of drinking water had decreased greatly (47% in Menabe and 54% in MaMaBay).

Households reported high access to health services in both regions (99% in Menabe and 97% in MaMaBay). However, it is possible that this variable overrepresents access to improved health services. The Malagasy version of the questionnaire asked if households have a practice of going to the health center when someone is sick but does not ask for details on types of health centers, or professionalism of services sought. In qualitative interviews, key informants explained that community health workers (agents communautaires) do a lot of the health work in rural areas, and that when people go to clinics they are often seen by nurses or midwives.

3.4.5. SHELTER, ENERGY, AND ASSETS Enumerators recorded data on their observations of homes they visited to administer the survey. In Menabe, the majority of homes were made with walls of mud (58%) or thatch (17%). In MaMaBay, homes were mostly made with walls of wood (36%), thatch (33%), or mud (15%). Across both regions, more homes were roofed with metal sheet (66%) compared to thatch (26%). Qualitative interviews with key informants revealed that in MaMaBay, as vanilla production drives an increase in household income, there is greater demand for wood panels and cement for house construction.

In both regions, 9% of homes reported using electricity from an electrical grid – this is closest in line with the findings from INSTAT’s 2010 household survey (INSTAT 2015). In addition, many homes used generators or solar panels to generate some electricity (27% in Menabe and 73% in MaMaBay). Overall, households rarely used candles (1%). Instead, they most frequently used solar panels for light (53%),

USAID 40

followed by energy provided via a local producer’s association, Association pour le Développement de l’Agriculture et du Paysannat du Sambirano (ADAPS) (18%), oil lamps (12%), electricity (9%), or other sources of light (7%).

Firewood was reported to be the most common cooking energy source used (overall 87% with 76% in Menabe and 92% in MaMaBay), followed by electricity (overall13%, with 24% in Menabe and 8% in MaMaBay). Less than 1% of homes used charcoal to cook in either region or overall.

In terms of household assets, in Menabe, 58% reported having had mobile phones, 46% had radios, and 27% had generators or solar panels. By comparison, in MaMaBay, 65% of households had mobile phones, 58% had radios, and 73% had either generators or solar panels.

3.4.6. EDUCATION AND LITERACY General literacy was reported to be higher in MaMaBay than in Menabe. Overall, 73% of respondents could read some text (58% in Menabe and 80% in MaMaBay) and 73% could write a letter (58% in Menabe and 79% in MaMaBay).

Overall, 28% of respondents had no formal education. An additional 42% of respondents had some primary-level education or had completed primary school (Table 15). Heads of household were equally to slightly more likely to have completed at least some schooling than respondents who were not heads of household. MaMaBay respondents were more likely to have at least some schooling than those in Menabe (37% of heads of household reported having no formal schooling in Menabe and 37% in MaMaBay). Male and female respondents had similar levels of schooling, although females were slightly more likely to have no education or primary education, and males were more likely to have secondary- level education.

Table 15. Level of education of respondents and heads of household (HH)

All Respondents MaMaBay Menabe All Level of Respondent not Respondent Respon - Male Female Head of HH Head of HH Education head of HH not head of dents (n= 611) (n= 489) (n= 600) (n= 500) (n= 192) HH (n = 140) None 28% 26% 30% 17% 21% 37% 40% Primary 42% 46% 38% 49% 47% 34% 28% Secondary 20% 19% 22% 25% 23% 17% 19% first cycle Secondary 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 9% 11% second cycle Higher 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2%

3.4.7. FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION Households in both Menabe and MaMaBay reported difficulties with agricultural livelihoods and food security. In Menabe, 65% of respondents reported declining crop productivity for their primary crop, compared with 20% that reported stable productivity and 13% who reported an increase. In MaMaBay, 39% of farmers reported declining crop productivity, compared to 25% who reported stable productivity and 15% who reported an increase. In both regions, there was a need for additional irrigation infrastructure. In the case of Menabe, this was needed to combat drought, and in MaMaBay this was necessary to make better use of existing land and water resources. Key informants in both

41 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

regions noted that additional training and resources for improved agricultural techniques and market access would improve their productivity and livelihoods.

Additionally, 88% of households in Menabe and 74% in MaMaBay reported a “harvest deficit” (usually, the gap between harvests when many households run low on food) in the past 12 months: these are months in which they were not able to feed their families from food they had harvested. The average number of harvest deficit months was 3 months, but this varied from 2.5 months for marine strata in Menabe to 3.5 months for marine strata in MaMaBay (Table 16).

The harvest deficit occurred in Table 16. Number of months per year that households experienced a somewhat different months in harvest deficit (did not produce enough to eat) Menabe and MaMabay and also Stratum varied in terms of the proportion Region Marine Terrestrial of households affected in the Menabe 2.5 2.9 marine and terrestrial strata (Figure MaMaBay 3.5 2.6 7). In MaMaBay, there was less variability over the year, but households tended not to produce enough food to eat in two parts of the year, in March-April and in September-November. In MaMaBay, more marine households did not produce enough food than did terrestrial households in the same months. In Menabe, the primary harvest deficit occurred in January- March. Terrestrial communities experienced a second gap during September-October, but marine communities appear not to have experienced this gap as strongly.

Figure 7. Comparison of food production “harvest deficit” calendars for MaMaBay and Menabe, by stratum

Qualitative interviews and questionnaire responses revealed that in both regions, this harvest deficit can push households to pursue other livelihood strategies. When experiencing harvest deficits, 22% of households consumed less food.

During harvest deficit periods, 87% of households purchased food, often from the sale of crops or livestock. A few households relied on natural resources to generate income to purchase food. Among households who reported purchasing food, less than1% generated income by hunting, 8% rely on fishing, less than 1% cut wood for firewood, 2% cut wood for charcoal, less than 1% cut wood for construction, and less than 1% harvest non-timber forest products (such as honey, mushrooms, caterpillars, and wild fruit).

Households with insufficient harvest also relied on natural resources for food during the lean months. Among households who reported having an insufficient harvest, less than 1% report eating bushmeat (2% in Menabe and less than 1% in MaMaBay), 6% of households forage for edible wild plants (18% in

USAID 42

Menabe and less than 1% in MaMaBay), and 5% fish (10% in Menabe and 3% in MaMaBay). No households collected grubs or other insects to fill harvest gaps. Additionally, in qualitative interviews, key informants reported that in Menabe families turned to fishing when the land was less productive, and in MaMaBay people turned to logging.

4. ALIGNMENT OF SURVEY RESULTS TO MIKAJY AND HAY TAO KEY RESULTS AND INDICATORS The household survey collected data that can be used to measure and/or improve CCP’s understanding of 22 key results (Table 17 through Table 20), including seven USAID standard indicators (Table 17 and Table 19), three threat-reduction targets (Table 20), and four human well-being targets (Table 20). Some of the variables are specific to single results chains (Table 17-Table 19) and others are relevant to many, and therefore presented as cross-cutting in Table 20. The sevenstandard indicators that can be measured or are potentially informed by this survey are:

• Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with United States Government (USG) assistance (EG.3.2-24) • Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance (EG.3.2-26) • Number of hectares of biologically significant areas showing improved biophysical conditions as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-1) • Number of hectares of biologically significant areas under improved NRM as a result of USG assistance (EG 10.2-2) • Number of people with improved economic benefits derived from sustainable NRM and/or biodiversity conservation as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-3) • Number of people with secure tenure rights to land, with legally recognized documentation, and who perceive their rights as secure, as a result of USG assistance (EG 10.4-6) • Number of institutions with improved capacity to address climate change (and/or biodiversity conservation) issues as a result of USG assistance (USAID EG.11-2)

It is important to note that the household survey results do not necessarily report on the key results or indicators as they are interpreted in the Mikajy and Hay Tao MEL plans. This is because the MEL plans and indicators were developed before the household survey questionnaire was completed. Although care was taken to ensure that the variables that were used aligned as closely as possible to those in the MEL plans, the nature of the survey meant that some variables would need to be counted differently.

In addition, the household survey provides data that can help interpret at least five results in Mikajy and Hay Tao results chains that currently do not have indicators. The authors of this report recommend that the Mikajy and Hay Tao teams review the tables in relation to their MEL plans and, where possible, use the results from the survey to further inform their learning and adapting during pause and reflect sessions.

43 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Table 17. Summary of Baseline Findings Relevant to Mikajy SA 2: Wealth (Support community-based, conservation friendly enterprises and livelihoods)

Key result Examples of relevant baseline Examples of summary baseline results Key result Mikajy Indicator group survey variables2 relevant to this key result and/or indicator

Target groups Improved/ conservation-friendly N/A Agricultural techniques: CONFCROP, A higher proportion of members of producer organizations actively engaged in production TECHREG1, CROPFIND1, practiced improved methods compared to non-members. conservation- CROPPROD1, CROPFACT1, Fewer members of producer organizations use unimproved friendly production ADOPTPROD agricultural techniques such as monoculture and slash-and- burn than non-members. The same is true for VSLAs.

Target groups connect economic N/A N/A Not measured but recommend to measure at the midline. development with conservation

Increased Improved income for target 2.3: Value of annual sales of farms Income: SELLFOOD Average annual sales derived from participation in farm- conservation- communities and local and firms receiving USG based value chains (livestock, agriculture, breeding) friendly income government assistance (EG.3.2-26) (whether or not they participated in any Mikajy or Hay Tao interventions) were calculated as 2,895,614 MGA per year

Households’ financial management 6.4: Number of people with Income from Value Chains: SELLFOOD Average annual income from all sources (whether or not improved improved economic benefits Income from ecotourism: ECOTOUR, they participated in any Mikajy or Hay Tao interventions) derived from sustainable NRM ECOINC were calculated as 3,694,800 MGA per year and/or biodiversity conservation Income from other sources: LIVE1 as a result of USG assistance Financial Capital: INCOME (EG.10.2-3)

2 Definitions of survey variables listed here can be found in Annexes 1 (English Survey) and 2 (Malagasy Survey). Baseline totals for these variables are available in Annex 3.

USAID 44

Table 18. Summary of Baseline Findings relevant to Hay Tao SA 1 (Support conservation stakeholders on sustainable livelihood, NRM, and environmental justice through capacity development)

Key result Hay Tao Examples of relevant baseline Examples of summary baseline results relevant to this key result and/or Key result group (if any) Indicator survey variables3 indicator

Level of N/A Perceptions of Ecosystems and Both regions have high levels of awareness of the benefits of ecosystem services, but awareness is knowledge on Services: higher in MaMaBay. In Menabe, 34% were not aware that nature protects communities and properties NRM, ECOSYST, ECOSLOSS, from storm impacts; 47% were unaware that nature is essential for pollinating plants and crops to sustainable ECOSIMPACT produce food, and 44% were unaware that nature is essential for reducing or controlling the spread livelihood, and Perceptions of Threats: THREAT of many diseases. Most households had been impacted by a loss of an ecosystem services (92% in environmental Menabe 92% and 71% in MaMaBay); primary loss was economic well-being followed by medical health. justice known Knowledge of CBNRM/LMMA: The most common perceived threats to the ecosystem were illegal logging, slash-and-burn CBNRM1, CBNRM2 agriculture, and climate change. Respondents in Menabe perceived illegal logging as the most important threat. Respondents in MaMaBay perceived slash-and-burn agriculture as the most Knowledge of user rights and important. obligations in CBNRM/LMMA: KNOWNRM, SUPPORT, When asked about the benefits of CBNRM and LMMAs. Respondents most frequently stated that it Awareness of LUP: USEAWARE, regulated accesses to natural resources (22% in Menabe and 26% in MaMaBay) and that it provided an LANDAWARE, RIGHTCLEAR, opportunity for resources to be available in the future (17% in Menabe and 19% in MaMaBay). PERMICLEAR Overall, 26% of households are members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in MaMaBay). Of these, 98% report that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who are part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM is paying a membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). A plurality also support CBNRM by respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or planting trees. Just under one-third of households participate in organized groups to surveil and report on activities that damage the environment, though the percentage is lower in Menabe than in MaMaBay A majority of respondents reported that they did not have the right to clear new forest land (56% in Menabe and 51% in MaMaBay). A majority also did not know what they must do to secure permits to clear fallow land. The majority of households participating in the survey are not aware of land-use planning processes. In Menabe, the proportion of participants unaware of land-use planning is 6% higher than in MaMaBay. Male heads of household are more aware of some land-use planning processes than females.

Targeted Improved N/A Enforcement: participation and Just under one-third of households participate in organized groups to surveil and report on activities organization and quality of willingness to report; SURV, HOT1, that damage the environment, though the percentage is lower in Menabe than MaMaBay. Less than individual actors reporting/cases HOT2, HOT3, HOT4 10% of respondents across regions are aware of or have made use of hotlines for reporting positively change being developed environmental crimes. There are important differences in awareness and hotline use among the way of on wildlife/NRM geographic region, gender, level of education, and length of time lived in the community. delivering services crimes

3 Definitions of survey variables listed here can be found in Annexes 1 (English Survey) and 2 (Malagasy Survey). Baseline totals for these variables are available in Annex 3.

45 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

(behavior change) Legal literacy N/A Knowledge of CBNRM/LMMA: A majority of respondents reported that they did not have the right to clear new forest land (56% in improved CBNRM1, CBNRM2 Menabe and 51% in MaMaBay). A majority also did not know what they must do to secure permits to Knowledge of user rights and clear fallow land. obligations in CBNRM/LMMA: When asked about the benefits of CBNRM/LMMAs, respondents most frequently stated that it KNOWNRM regulated accesses to natural resources (22% in Menabe and 26% in MaMaBay) and that it provided an Awareness of LUP, RIGHTCLEAR, opportunity for resources to be available in the future (27% in Menabe and 19% in MaMaBay). PERMICLEAR

Protected area N/A Participation in COBA/VOI: COBA, Twelve percent of households participate in producer organizations (5% in Menabe and14% in and CBNRM COBFUNC, WHYSTOP, MaMaBay) and more males than females participate. In qualitative interviews, key informants said that management COBAROLE, COBCHAL where COBAs are active, local communities are more respectful of forest governance laws. actions Support to NRM: SUPPORT Overall, 26% of households are members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in MaMaBay). Of improved Enforcement: participation and these, 98% report that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who are part of a COBA, the most willingness to report: SURV, HOT1, common form of support for CBNRM is paying a membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in HOT2, HOT3, HOT4 MaMaBay). A plurality also support CBNRM by respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or planting trees. Just under one-third of households participate in organized groups to surveil and report on activities that damage the environment, though the percentage is lower in Menabe than MaMaBay. Less than 10% of respondents across regions are aware of or have made use of hotlines for reporting environmental crimes. There are important differences in awareness and hotline use among geographic region, gender, level of education, and length of time lived in the community.

USAID 46

Table 19. Summary of Baseline Findings relevant to Mikajy SA 4: Action (Operationalize community-based land and resource tenure policy on landscapes/seascapes)

Key result Mikajy Examples of relevant baseline Examples of summary baseline results relevant to this key result Key result group (if any) Indicator survey variables4 and/or indicator

Improved capacity Fokontany’s natural 6.6: Percent Perceptions of Ecosystems and Services: Both regions have high levels of awareness of the benefits of ecosystem services, but for NRM resource improvement in ECOSYST, ECOSLOSS, ECOSIMPACT awareness is higher in MaMaBay. In Menabe, 34% were not aware that nature protects management and capacity of USAID Perceptions of Threats: THREAT communities and properties from storm impacts; 47% were unaware that nature is land use planning Mikajy supported Knowledge of CBNRM/LMMA: CBNRM1, essential for pollinating plants and crops to produce food, and 44% were unaware that capacity improved community-based CBNRM2 nature is essential for reducing or controlling the spread of many diseases. Most organizations and Knowledge of user rights and obligations households had been impacted by a loss of an ecosystem services (92% in Menabe and Local capacity to local government, in CBNRM/LMMA: KNOWNRM 71% in MaMaBay); primary loss was economic well-being followed by medical health. manage natural disaggregated by Participation in COBA/VOI: COBA, The most common perceived threats to the ecosystem were illegal logging, slash-and- resources natural resources COBFUNC, WHYSTOP, COBAROLE, burn agriculture, and climate change. Respondents in Menabe perceived illegal logging as strengthened management, land COBCHAL the most important threat. Respondents in MaMaBay perceived slash-and-burn use planning, or Support to NRM: SUPPORT agriculture as the most important. marine spatial Awareness of LUP: USEAWARE, planning LANDAWARE A majority of respondents reported that they did not have the right to clear new forest land (56% in Menabe and 51% in MaMaBay 51). A majority also did not know what they must do to secure permits to clear fallow land. Twelve percent of households participate in producer organizations (5% in Menabe and 14% in MaMaBay), and more males than females participate. In qualitative interviews, key informants said that where COBAs are active, local communities are more respectful of forest governance laws. Overall, 26% of households are members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in MaMaBay). Of these, 98% report that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who are part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM is paying a membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). A plurality also support CBNRM by respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or planting trees. Just under one-third of respondents participate in organized groups to surveil and report on activities that damage the environment, though the percentage is lower in Menabe than MaMaBay The majority of households are not aware of land-use planning processes in their communities. In Menabe, the proportion of participants unaware of land-use planning is 6% higher than that in MaMaBay. Male heads of household are more aware of some land- use planning processes than females.

4 Definitions of survey variables listed here can be found in Annexes 1 (English Survey) and 2 (Malagasy Survey). Baseline totals for these variables are available in Annex 3.

47 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Effective Knowledge of user rights and obligations A majority of respondents reported that they did not have the right to clear new forest participatory land in CBNRM/LMMA: KNOWNRM land (56% in Menabe and 51% in MaMaBay 51). A majority also did not know what they use planning SUPPORT must do to secure permits to clear fallow land. Awareness of LUP: USEAWARE, The majority of households are not aware of land-use planning processes. In Menabe, the Communes LANDAWARE, RIGHTCLEAR, proportion of participants unaware of land-use planning is 6% higher than that in empowered to do PERMICLEAR MaMaBay. Male heads of household are more aware of some land-use planning processes land use planning than females. and natural resources management

Tools in place for Land- and seascape 6.6: Percent Participation in COBA/VOI: COBA, Twelve percent households participate in producer organizations (5% in Menabe and14% improved NRM plans implemented improvement in COBFUNC, WHYSTOP, COBAROLE, in MaMaBay), and more males than females participate. In qualitative interviews, key and tenure to strengthen land capacity of USAID COBCHAL informants said that where COBAs are active, local communities are more respectful of and resource Mikajy supported Support to NRM: SUPPORT forest governance laws. tenure community-based Enforcement: willingness to report: SURV Overall, 26% of households are members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in organizations and MaMaBay). Of these, 98% report that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who are local government, part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM is paying a membership disaggregated by fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). A plurality also support CBNRM by natural resources respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or planting trees.. management, land use planning, or Just under one-third of households participate in organized groups to surveil and report marine spatial on activities that damage the environment, though the percentage is lower in Menabe planning than MaMaBay.

Land and seascape 4.1: Percent of N/A Not measured but recommend to measure at the midline strategies to actors that are part strengthened land of shared vision and resource who have action tenure developed plans aligned with based on shared the NRM and land vision tenure shared vision

Stakeholder action 1.2: Number of Participation in COBA/VOI: COBA One-in-ten households participate in producer organizations (5% in Menabe and 14% in plans align with local people COBFUNC, WHYSTOP, COBAROLE, MaMaBay), and more males than females participate. In qualitative interviews, key shared natural participating in COBCHAL informants said that where COBAs are active, local communities are more respectful of vision and NR use planning, Support to NRM: SUPPORT forest governance laws. rights/ tenure management, Enforcement: willingness to report: SURV Overall, 26% of households are members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in enforcement for MaMaBay). Of these, 98% report that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who are improved NRM part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM is paying a membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). A plurality also support CBNRM by respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or planting trees.. Just under one-third of households participate in organized groups to surveil and report on activities that damage the environment, though the percentage is lower in Menabe than MaMaBay.

USAID 48

4.1: Percent of N/A Not measured but recommend to measure at the midline actors that are part of shared vision who have action plans aligned with the NRM and land tenure shared vision

Access to natural (1) Rules of access N/A Enforcement: willingness to report: SURV, Just under one-third of households participate in organized groups to surveil and report resources to natural HOT1, HOT2, HOT3, HOT4 on activities that damage the environment, though the percentage is lower in Menabe controlled resources and land than MaMaBay. Less than 10% of respondents across regions are aware of or have made (community) at implemented use of hotlines for reporting environmental crimes. There are important differences in the Fokonolona (2) Access to awareness and hotline use among geographic region, gender, level of education, and level natural resources length of time lived in the community. under control of community

Communities (1) Communities 4.3: Number of Access to NR: RESTRICT, NOACCESS Just over 70% of households report that in the last 12 months, they have had undisrupted access services have access to people with secure Land Tenure: LANDHOLD, PA, LABEL, access to natural resources important for their livelihoods. This was consistent across and advocate for tenure services tenure rights to HECTARES1, OWNERSHIP1, TITLE, geographies and genders. Those who experienced difficulty were most likely to be trying tenure rights (2) Communities land, with legally DOCCHAL, LT1, LT2, LT3, LT4, LT5, to access firewood (40% in Menabe and 72% MaMaBay), wood for building, charcoal, fish, knowledgeable on recognized PLTCEN wild fruits, bushmeat, or sweet potato. and advocate for documentation, Ninety percent of households surveyed hold at least one parcel of land, with 80% rights and who perceive households holding between one and four parcels, but the rate was substantially higher in (3) Communities their rights as MaMaBay than Menabe. There were not substantial discrepancies between male and have improved secure, as a result female heads of household. tenure security of USG assistance (EG 10.4-6) Just under 60% of households have no documents proving that they own their land. Less than 5% of households in Menabe and MaMaBay live on titled land. Again, there was no substantial difference between male and female-headed households. However, households headed by those with more education are more likely to have land ownership documentation. Sixty-five percent of respondents think it is not possible that someone will take away one or more of their parcels in the next 5 years. Of those who do think it is possible that someone could try to take one of their parcels, more than 70% of respondents also think it is at least somewhat likely.

49 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Table 20. Summary of Baseline Findings relevant to Common Goals for all SAs: Threat Reduction, Improved Biodiversity, and Improved Human Well-being Indicators

Key result Key Examples of relevant baseline Examples of summary baseline results relevant to this key Indicator group (if any) result survey variables5 result and/or indicator

Overall CBNRM, Cr-C-1: Number of Participation in COBA/VOI: COBA, Twelve percent of households participate in producer organizations (5% in Menabe protected area, institutions with COBFUNC, WHYSTOP, COBAROLE, and 14% in MaMaBay), and more males than females participate. In qualitative livelihoods, improved capacity to COBCHAL interviews, key informants said that where COBAs are active, local communities environmental address climate change Support to NRM: SUPPORT are more respectful of forest governance laws. crime (and/or biodiversity Overall, 26% of households are members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in management and conservation) issues as a MaMaBay). Of these, 98% report that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who system improved result of USG assistance are part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM is paying a (USAID EG.11-2) membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). A plurality also support CBNRM by respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or planting trees.

Communities and 2.4: Number of Agricultural techniques: CONFCROP, A higher proportion of members of producer organizations practiced improved private sector individuals in the TECHREG1, CROPFIND1, methods compared to non-members. Fewer members of producer organizations operators adopt agriculture system who CROPPROD1, CROPFACT1, use unimproved agricultural techniques such as monoculture and slash and burn and implement have applied improved ADOPTPROD than non-members. The same is true for VSLAs. conservation- management practices or Engagement in CBNRM: TREE, Twelve percent of households participate in producer organizations(5% in Menabe friendly practices technologies with USG TREEPLANT, WHYPLANT, MANG, and 14% in MaMaBay), and more males than females participate. In qualitative assistance (EG.3.2-24) WHYPLANT2 interviews, key informants said that where COBAs are active, local communities No burning/ cutting for agriculture and are more respectful of forest governance laws. livestock: CLEAR, CLEARTYPE, PACLEAR, CLRMORE, WHYCLR, Overall, 17% of households reported clearing land within the last five years for WHERECLRMORE, PACLEAR2 additional cultivation or livestock, including clearing forest (9% of those who clear land), within protected areas (0.3%); in transfert de gestion (2%), and in fallow land outside protected areas (93.5%). In Menabe, clearing is primarily for maize production. In MaMaBay, logging is an important driver of forest clearing, but it works at cross-purposes with the vanilla industry, which relies on standing trees. In Menabe, 4% of households have a woodlot and 19% planted trees in last three years (81% of whom said it was for “reforestation/restoration” and 20% for “fruits to eat.” Five percent planted mangroves in past three years. In MaMaBay, 33% of households have a woodlot and 27% planted trees in the past three years (51% of whom said the main reason was “reforestation/restoration” and 26% said “firewood for own use”). There were no reports of mangrove planting.

5 Definitions of survey variables listed here can be found in Annexes 1 (English Survey) and 2 (Malagasy Survey). Baseline totals for these variables are available in Annex 3.

USAID 50

Adequate/continu 6.1: Number of ha of Participation in COBA/VOI: COBA, Twelve percent of households participate in producer organizations (5% in Menabe ously improving biologically significant COBFUNC, WHYSTOP, COBAROLE, and 14% in MaMaBay), and more males than females participate. In qualitative NRM areas showing improved COBCHAL interviews, key informants said that where COBAs are active, local communities biophysical conditions as Support to NRM: SUPPORT are more respectful of forest governance laws. Improved a result of USG assistance Overall, 26% of households are members of a COBA (13% in Menabe and 31% in landscape/ (EG.10.2-1) MaMaBay). Of these, 98% report that the COBA is still functioning. Of those who seascape are part of a COBA, the most common form of support for CBNRM is paying a management 6.2: Number of ha of membership fee (23% in Menabe and 56% in MaMaBay). A plurality also support biologically significant CBNRM by respecting regulations, asking others to respect regulations, and/or areas under improved planting trees. NRM as a result of USG assistance (EG 10.2-2)

6.3: Percent of inshore area under sustainable management

Threats to Uncontrolled N/A No burning/ cutting for agriculture and Overall, 17% of households reported clearing land within the last five years for biodiversity burning reduced livestock: , CLEAR, CLEARTYPE, additional cultivation or livestock, including clearing forest (9% of those who clear reduced PACLEAR, CLRMORE, WHYCLR, land), within protected areas (0.3%); in transfert de gestion (2%), and in fallow land Reduced N/A WHERECLRMORE, PACLEAR2 outside protected areas (93.5%). In Menabe, clearing is primarily for maize unsustainable Shark finning rate production. In MaMaBay, logging is an important driver of forest clearing, but it resource use Fishing compliance: NETOBS works at cross-purposes with the vanilla industry, which relies on standing trees. Food Security: MEAT, BUSH Shark finning does occur but was reported in very low percentages. Reduced illegal/ N/A In MaMaBay, enumerators observed that 44% of households that fish had gillnets in unsustainable their home. They did not identify any seine nets, although seining does occur in the hunting, collection area. for wildlife trade, logging, mining Among those who experienced a harvest gap, 2% of Menabe and less than 1% of MaMaBay households reported eating bushmeat to supplement their diet. Overall, less than 1% of households reported relying on hunting to generate income to purchase additional food. Among those who reported experiencing difficulty accessing forest areas, 7% of Menabe and 5% of MaMaBay households were seeking bushmeat and 15% of Menabe and 4% of MaMaBay households were seeking fish.

Improved human Improved human N/A Water: WATER, WATERAVAIL, The percentage of households reporting access to improved water services, such as wellbeing health WATERCHANGE, WATERQUAL, boreholes, public taps, or piped water in the home, was larger in Menabe (31%) WATERTIME than MaMaBay (22%). Health: HEALTHACC Of the 30% who said there had been changes in the availability of drinking water in the past 12 months, a majority reported that it had declined (64% in Menabe and 79% in MaMaBay). Just over one-third of respondents reported that the quality of water had decreased and, of those, just over half said the water quality had greatly decreased. Overall, 98% of households reported having access to health services.

51 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Improved shelter N/A Housing: ROOFDWELL, MATWALLS, In Menabe, the majority of homes were made with walls of mud, and a plurality of and energy MAINLIT, MAINCOOK, homes were roofed with thatch, grass, and metal sheets. In MaMaBay, homes were Equipment: BASICNEC, HHHAVE mostly made with walls of wood or thatch and two-thirds were roofed with metal sheets. Qualitative interviews in MaMaBay revealed that as vanilla production increases household, there is greater demand for wood panels and cement for houses. In Menabe, 58.5% of households had mobile phones, 45.6% had radios, and 26.8% had generators or solar panels. By comparison, in MaMaBay, 64.5% of households had mobile phones, 57.5% had radios, and 72.6% had either generators or solar panels.

Improved food N/A Food Security: MEAT, BUSH, Households in Menabe and MaMaBay both reported difficulties with food security. security and SEAFOOD, SEAMAIN, FOODCROPS, Sixty five percent of Menabe and 40% of MaMaBay households report declining crop nutrition ENOUGHFOOD, NOFOODMONTH, productivity for their primary crop. Eighty-eight percent of Menabe and 74% of HOWSECURE, HOWBUY, PROORG, MaMaBay households report that they did not harvest enough food to feed their PROFUNC, PROCHAL families last year. The level of wild food consumption is generally low (less than 1% of households eat wild meat, 6% eat wild plants, and 5% fish) Some households rely on natural resources to generate income to produce food.

Improved 6.4: Number of people Income from Value Chains: SELLFOOD Average annual income from all sources (whether or not they participated in any sustainable local with improved economic Income from ecotourism: ECOTOUR, Mikajy or Hay Tao interventions, across both regions and strata) was calculated as livelihoods benefits derived from ECOINC 3,694,800 MGA per year. sustainable NRM and/or Income from other sources: LIVE1 biodiversity conservation as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-3)

USAID 52

5. SURVEY DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1. SURVEY DISCUSSION: VALIDATION OF KEY RESULTS This survey measured a baseline of key variables to inform the understanding of three results chains and two research questions relevant to the CCP, Mikajy, and Hay Tao theories of change.

This section reviews key Household Survey results and compares them to those found from other studies in the literature. In many cases, the Survey results reflected national averages and results found in other areas of the country (within a margin of error of approximately +/- 5%). In other cases, the populations surveyed should be considered as above or below national and regional averages. A summary of findings is presented here and then described in greater detail in the sections below.

5.1.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In many ways, the areas surveyed fall very much in line with national averages (Table 21). This is important because it validates both the survey approach and our assumptions about the nature of the communities in which CCP works. In other ways, the populations of Menabe and MaMaBay are different from the national averages. This is important because it can frame the approach and types of interventions that the implementing partners may take.

Table 21. Relationship between survey findings and national averages, where available

In- Line with National Averages Different from National Averages Expected • Household size (though slightly larger • In Menabe, significantly less rice is produced than average in Menabe) than the national average • Gender distribution of head of • In both regions, cattle rearing is significantly less household common than the national average • Proportion of the population with no • Fishing is much more prevalent than the formal schooling national average, and more common in Menabe • Literacy (though higher in MaMaBay than in MaMaBay, even in the marine strata than Menabe) • High rates of vanilla and clove production in • Percent of population that participates MaMaBay in agriculture • Access to improved water sources is lower in • Shrimp is the most lucrative fishery Menabe than the national average product • In both regions, the incidence of brick or • Access to improved water sources in cement-walled homes is far lower than the MaMaBay is in line with the national national average (however, key informants average noted that economic growth in MaMaBay is • Key informants in both regions driving increased demand for improved building perceive migrants as an important materials for homes) factor in clearing forested land, which • In Menabe, higher than average proportion of is a commonly held belief nationally landlessness than the national average, with a • Access to electricity in rural areas higher rate of migrancy and a higher rate of households that fish (this could be expected in this region) • Higher proportion households that farm land than the national average (national average includes urban areas, in which many people do not farm)

USAID 53

Unexpected • Very low levels of participation in • In both regions, those who do hold land hold ecotourism far fewer plots than the national average • Respondents may perceive greater • Lower than average ownership of mobile access to health services than the telephones, even in MaMaBay where the national average, often making use of economy is stronger and household income is community health workers (agents greater communautaires) and clinics staffed by midwives and nurses. Those who do not access health services often turn to traditional healers.

5.1.2. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS AND EDUCATION LEVELS The household survey began by identifying key demographic elements of the household. The average household size of surveyed households was largely in line with the national average of 4.7 (5.7 in Menabe and 4.7 in MaMaBay) (see Table 22 on page 54). Likewise, the percentage of surveyed households headed by women was close to the national average of 22% (23% in Menabe and 18% in MaMaBay).

People in Menabe and MaMaBay are somewhat better educated than people near another important protected area: those in the Ankeniheny-Zahamena (CAZ) Forest Corridor in Eastern Madagascar. In 2018, Jones et al. found that nearly 90% of the population had little or no schooling.

Overall, 25% of respondents and 19% of heads of household had no formal education. An additional 45% of respondents and 42% of heads of household had some primary-level education or had completed primary school. In total, 60% of respondents and 61% of heads of household have equal to or less than a primary school education. However, heads of household and respondents overall were both less likely to have any formal schooling in Menabe than in MaMaBay.

This same trend is reflected in the literacy rates. Although the overall average is in line with national data (overall, 73% of respondents could read some text and 73% could write a letter), Menabe’s literacy rate was lower than the national average (58% could read some text and 58% could write a letter).

Table 22. Comparison of key household demographic characteristics with external data sources

Comparative Variable Household Survey Result Comparative result Data source result location Household Mean is 5.1 Mean is 6; standard CAZ Forest (Jones et al. 2018) size (5.7 in Menabe and 4.7 in seviation is 2 Corridor in MaMaBay) Eastern Madagascar Overall mean is 4.6; National (Institut National de mean is 4.7 in rural average la Statistique areas and 4.4 in urban (INSTAT) and ORC zones Macro 2005) Mean is 4.7 National (United Nations Average Economic and Social Affairs Population Division 2017)

USAID 54

Percent head Menabe: 23% Female 22% Female National (United Nations of household MaMaBay: 18% Female Average Economic and Social Affairs Population Division 2017) Respondent’s Menabe: 90% had 0-5 years of CAZ Forest (Jones et al. 2018) reported level 39% of males had no schooling Corridor in of formal formal schooling, 36% Eastern schooling had at least some Madagascar primary-level schooling 20% of males and 25% National (Institut National de 40% of females had none, of females have no Average la Statistique 29% had primary education (INSTAT) 2015) MaMaBay: Average number of National (The World Bank 15% of males had none, years in school: 7.5 average n.d.) 54% had primary years 23% of females had none, 46% had primary Literacy 66% of heads of 65% of the population National (Central Intelligence household can read some over age 15 can read average Agency n.d.) text or write a letter and write (67% for (66% in Menabe and 86% males; 63% for females) in MaMaBay)

5.1.3. ENGAGEMENT IN AND INCOME FROM VALUE CHAINS In some value chains, Menabe and MaMaBay participation is in line with national averages (Table 23). In other livelihood aspects, the populations surveyed should be considered as having key characteristics that distinguish them from the rest of the country.

The population surveyed is largely agricultural. Seventy-eight percent of households surveyed farm at least some land. This increases to more than 95% of households in the terrestrial strata. This is significantly higher than the national average of 70% (which includes urban households in the national tota; many urban households do not farm land, so the national average is expected to be lower).

Rice is perhaps the most important staple crop in Madagascar and accounts for 71% of all agricultural production. In Menabe, where the climate is significantly drier, only 36% of households produce rice. In MaMaBay, 86% of households are engaged in rice production. Across all strata, 26% of cultivated area was committed to rice, which is lower than the national average of 50%.

Cattle rearing is very important across Madagascar, with 60% of households claiming cattle rearing or participation in the cattle value chain as their primary source of household income. In contrast, only 30% of Menabe and 33% of MaMaBay30% of Menabe households (across terrestrial and marine strata) earned income from cattle in the previous year. This is likely explained by the fact that cattle rearing is focused in the savanna areas, largely in the western and southern parts of the island, which were not covered by this survey (USAID Madagascar 2019a).

At the same time, significantly more households in the survey area take part in the fisheries value chains than the national average of 2%. Overall, 32% of all households in the marine strata participate in fishery value chains. This is likely due to the intentional project focus on coastal geographies and fishing populations. The reports of income earned from fishing locally validated the national statement that shrimp is the most valuable fishery: households involved in the shrimp fishery earned far more than their counterparts in any other fishing sector.

55 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Finally, the Household Survey’s accounting of participation in the tourism sector, although very small (less than 1% of households across both geographies) is in line with the estimated national average of 0.1% of the population. However, for incidences as rare as this, especially in a case like this when the results are likely to be very geographically patchy, a household survey is likely not the best instrument for measuring true participation rates or changes in participation over time.

Table 23. Comparative income from and engagement in value chains

Household Survey Variable Comparative result Location Reference Result Rice as proportion 36% of householders Rice accounts for 70% National Average (Conservation of total agricultural in Menabe produce of Madagascar’s total International - production rice agricultural production Madagascar 86% of households 2014) in MaMaBay produce rice Amount of Mean is 26% across Approximately 50% National average (USAID cultivated land all farms and regions Madagascar committed to rice 2019a) Percentage of Average is 78% in Approximately 70% of National average (USAID population who Menabe, 95% in the population consists Madagascar farm terrestrial stratum of farmers 2014) Averate is 91% in MaMaBay, 98% in terrestrial stratum Population 31% of all 2% of population National average (USAID working in households in (500,000) Madagascar fisheries sector marine strata 2019a) Value of fisheries Shrimp is the most Shrimp is the most National average (USAID valuable fishery by valuable fishery Madagascar far in Menabe 2014) Jobs generated by Menabe: 0.6% 0.1% of population National total (Conservation the tourism sector participate in (31,207) participate International - ecotourism (2011 figure) Madagascar MaMaBay: 0.5% 2014) participate in ecotourism

5.1.4. LAND TENURE The household survey found that a larger than average proportion of households in the study area were landless (22% in Menabe and 7% in MaMaBay), as compared to the national average of 4% (Table 24). Of those who own land, a far smaller-than-average proportion of the population owns more than four plots The national average is 38%, but across both regions in the household survey, the total was 8% (5% in Menabe 5% and 11% in MaMaBay. This may be due to the nature of the land and the proportion of the population engaging in non-agricultural activities. However, as stated above, the proportion of the population engaging in agricultural activities is higher than the national average, so a large proportion of the population may be sharecropping or working in other land-sharing arrangements.

This low proportion of land ownership and tenure may have an important impact on forest clearing and other unsustainable behaviors, as described below.

USAID 56

Table 24. Comparative national averages of land tenure

Household Survey Variable Comparative result Location Reference Result Percentage of 17% of households 48% own two to three National average (USAID population owning own one plot plots Madagascar multiple plots 48% own two to 38% own more than 2019a) three four 13% own four 8% own more than four Percentage of 11% of households 4% of the population National average (USAID population that is were landless (22% Madagascar landless in Menabe and 7% in 2019a) MaMaBay)

5.1.5. ACCESS TO IMPROVED WATER The national average for rural population access to improved water services such as boreholes, public taps, or piped water in the home is 35%. Menabe households had greater access (38%) than MaMaBay (22%) to improved water services. (Central Intelligence Agency n.d.).

5.1.6. DEFORESTATION Nationally, the primary threats to the environment and biodiversity are illegal logging, slash-and-burn agriculture (tavy), wildlife trafficking, unsustainable resource use; bushmeat, mining, erosion, wildfire, climate change, and population pressure (USAID Madagascar 2014).

Expansion of tavy is a major cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. Traditionally, tavy occurs in lands that have been left fallow but require clearing for planting that season. But with population expansion, land degradation, and lack of access to land, expansion of tavy systems threaten primary forests, high-altitude lands, and steep slopes (Conservation International Madagascar 2014). This is in part due to the fact that rights to land under customary tenure are traditionally secured through land clearing (Jones et al. 2018) and that Malagasy agricultural tradition encourages each new household to be invested in land, often leading to clearing new forests for farmland (USAID Madagascar 2019b).

Key informants in both Menabe and MaMaBay perceive migrants to be significant perpetrators of land clearing. In Menabe, armed bandits (dahalo) are also blamed for forest clearing. Climate constraints on livelihoods can drive forest clearing vis-à-vis individuals needing to produce charcoal for income, and in Menabe, coastal mangroves are being cleared for this purpose. In MaMaBay, key informants identified corruption of forest managers as an enabler of forest clearing, since communities have taken advantage of corrupt channels to illegally access and exploit land resources.

In a study of forest clearing near protected areas in the CAZ forest corridor in Eastern Madagascar, Jones et al. (2018) found that 29% of residents had cleared forest in the previous year. In their research, which included an in-depth study of migrancy and land tenure as it related to forest clearing, the team found that households were less likely to have a cleared forest if they live close to established protected areas, live further from the forest or are more recently established. Far fewer households in Menabe and MaMaBay described having cleared forest in the previous year (13% and 8%, respectively). This discrepancy could be due to a variety of factors, including differences in access to standing forest, varying

57 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

pressures of population growth, local traditions and rules, understanding of the importance of not clearing forest, the influence of other livelihoods on retaining forests intact, or other factors.

5.1.7. HEALTH SERVICES No questions about the quality of human health or the type of health services that were available to households. When asked whether they go to a health center when someone is sick, 99% of Menabe and 97% of MaMaBay respondents said yes. This was surprising, as the national average for Madagascar is 1.8 physicians and two beds available per 10,000 people (Central Intelligence Agency n.d.). However, in qualitative interviews, key informants explained that community health workers (agents communautaires) do a lot of the health work in rural areas, and that when people go to clinics, they are often seen by nurses or midwives. A 2003-2004 national household survey revealed that 77% of rural women (and 90% of urban women) who delivered a live birth in the previous five years had received prenatal care from a trained health professional, indicating a widespread availability of some level of medical care even in rural areas (INSTAT 2015).

In addition, traditional medicine is an important element in Madagascar, with significant use of medicinal plants (Conservation International Madagascar 2014), and inclusion of traditional medical practitioners may have been part of many responses. In other cases, however, some of the respondents who did not go to a health center visited traditional healers instead. In the midline survey, it will be important to validate and dig more deeply into this result to understand the opportunities and perspectives of medical care in the survey area.

5.1.8. SHELTER In 2010, 23% of Madagascar’s rural homes had walls of brick, block, or cement (The World Bank 2014). The incidence of these types of structures was much lower in the study area, where only 9% of Menabe and 5% of MaMaBay homes had walls of brick and mortar or cement. In Menabe, mud was the most common wall type and in MaMaBay, a plurality of homes were made of wood, thatch, or mud.

In the CAZ Forest Corridor, 95% of house roofs were made of thatch (Jones et al. 2018). In Menabe, only 33% were grass and 34% thatch, while in MaMaBay, 26% were thatch. Metal sheet roofs were far more common in Menabe (34%) and MaMaBay (66%).

5.1.9. ENERGY In Madagascar, access to electricity is low, especially in rural areas, and the populations depend heavily on fuelwood and charcoal to meet their energy needs (Conservation International Madagascar 2014). The national average proportion of electrified households ranged in the literature from 13% (The World Bank n.d.) to 17% (Conservation International Madagascar 2014) to 20% overall/11% rural (INSTAT) 2015) to 23% overall/17% rural (Central Intelligence Agency n.d.). In the study area, 10% of homes in both regions used electricity from an electrical grid – this is closest in line with the findings from INSTAT’s 2015 household survey. In addition, many homes used generators or solar panels to generate some electricity (7% in Menabe and 73% in MaMaBay).

In the CAZ Forest Corridor, 83% of households used candles for their primary source of home lighting, and 45% claimed not to have sufficient light to complete household or other tasks (Jones et al. 2018). In the study area (both regions combined), households rarely used candles (1%). Instead, they most frequently used solar panels for light (53%), followed by energy provided via a local producers’ association, ADAPS (18%), oil lamps (12%), electricity (9%), or other sources of light (7%).

USAID 58

These differences, in addition to the differences in wall and roof type in the section above, indicates that MaMaBay and Menabe households, although less well off than the national average, are better off than their counterparts in the CAZ Forest Corridor.

5.1.10. MOBILE TELEPHONES The national average of mobile telephone phone subscriptions is estimated at 35-41 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (Central Intelligence Agency n.d.; Knoema n.d.). In Menabe, 58% of households owned cellular telephones. Given an average household size of 5.7 people, this calculates to a minimum rate of 10 telephones per 100 people. In MaMaBay, 64% of households owning telephones with an average 4.7 people per household calculates to a minimum of 14 telephones per 100 people. This calculated rate is a minimum because many households may own more than one telephone. However, for both locations, the rates of subscriptions per 100 inhabitants may be well below the national average. Assuming that the rate of telephone ownership is higher in urban areas, it is unknown how this might compare to the average rate in the rural areas.

Whether or not these telephones are functional or have credit was not asked in the survey, however, the low presence of mobile phone ownership may be important for the advancement of key strategic approaches such as use of hotlines to report environmental crime.

5.1.11. FOOD SECURITY The household survey revealed that the average household did not produce enough to eat during three months of the year (see Table 16 on page 42). This varied slightly among region and stratum: MaMaBay marine communities needed to access supplemental food for 3.5 months of the year (the highest average) while Menabe marine communities needed to access supplemental food for 2.5 months of the year (the lowest average). This is significantly less than residents of the CAZ forest corridor, whose households did not have enough to eat during an average 6.6 months of the year (Jones et al. 2018).

5.2. SURVEY CONCLUSIONS This household survey measured a baseline of variables that can be used by CCP for multiple purposes, including:

• Understanding the demographic context in which the CCP’s activities operate, including where they align with or diverge from national averages; • Providing a baseline of data for tracking changes in community livelihoods, community-relevant governance of natural resources and land, community-based threats and participation in threat- reduction initiatives, and human well-being in the geographies where USAID operates; • Providing baseline measures of key indicators that measure progress along activities’ theories of change; and • Setting up opportunities for meaningful and useful longitudinal comparisons of changes in communities over time, and the drivers behind observed changes.

In general, the results were in line with national averages and what is known about regional differences, although there were key exceptions that may have implications for how the activities will implement their projects in the coming years. In addition, there are some potentially new findings that may be immediately useful in further refinement of the CCP’s strategic approach. Four examples of how these findings can come together are detailed below.

59 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Ecosystem knowledge, participation in community groups and conservation-friendly behaviors

Across both geographies, participation in, and demonstrated support to COBAs and other CBNRM- focused, producer, or VSLA groups is already common. Participants who are engaged in these groups already have a high likelihood of having adopted conservation-friendly behaviors such as improved agriculture. In addition, a broad swath of respondents are already quite knowledgeable about the importance of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Also, a large proportion of the population is already engaged in tree planting (though the incidence of mangrove planting is much rarer) and/or maintains a woodlot.

This provides a good opportunity for CCP and its implementing partners: people are knowledgeable, platforms exist and are active, and many people see their value. However, this will be an important consideration if and when CCP wants to understand their role in additional increases in conservation knowledge and/or uptake of key behaviors as a result of their additional support of community groups. In order to do so, CCP must first investigate the existing sources of information, drivers of and incentives for behavior change, and other confounding factors that could render it very difficult to understand CCP’s contribution in this space. Recommendations for additional methods for gathering this kind of information are presented in Section 6, below.

Special aspects of livelihoods and climate in Menabe and MaMaBay

The survey largely bore out assumptions about engagement in different value chains in the different regions. The high rates of fishing, low rates of cattle rearing, and low rates of rice production (in Menabe) confirmed CCP assumptions and other economic reports. This reconfirms the importance of the livelihood-specific strategic approaches identified in the CCP’s theory of change and underlines the importance of managing the livelihood aspects of the strategic approaches differently in the two regions.

The harvest gap falls in different seasons and impacts differently on coastal vs. inland households. Awareness and tracking of how the harvest gap changes from year to year may be worthwhile, as this can influence households’ resilience and ability to take economic risks (e.g., take a loan) and/or participate fully in interventions.

Poverty, landlessness, and the importance of tenure-focused activities

It is clear that households in MaMaBay, on average, are slightly better off than in Menabe. Rates of agricultural income, quality of housing materials used, access to improved water sources, literacy rates, and other key indicators are all higher in MaMaBay. This may have to do with the importance of the vanilla industry, but there may be other factors at play.

Rates of landlessness (percentage of households that hold no land) is also substantially higher in Menabe than in MaMaBay. However, there may be an important correlation between that and the higher rates of fishing in Menabe. Perhaps coastal households who primarily fish do not need to hold land. However, this would need further investigation before drawing any conclusions.

Malagasy society has a strongly cultural link to the land and to agriculture, and tradition requires that all heads of household must be landowners (USAID Madagascar 2019b). According to this tradition, each new household needs to be invested in land. For this reason, the high level of landlessness, combined with the very low level of documentation may be concerning from a natural resources conservation perspective. Researchers have found strong correlations between low rates of land tenure and high rates of forest clearing: those without land, whether migrant or resident, are more likely to clear

USAID 60

forested land or land at the boundary of protected areas because the existing fallow land is already claimed by others.

The role of migrancy is often discussed in relationship to forest clearing. However, Jones et al. (2018) found that migrant status was not a significant predictor of land clearance, despite the fact that migrants tended to live closer to the edge of protected areas than non-migrants. However, Jones et al. also found a higher degree of land documentation among migrants, who also tended to be better educated than non-migrants. As rural populations continue to increase, through both in-migration and high birth rate, there will be increasing pressure on forests. They found that establishing protected areas was one important throttle on the rate of forest clearing. However, Jones and her team also concluded that, due to the higher rates of land tenure among migrants than among non-migrants, protecting remaining forests in Madagascar while not disadvantaging local people would likely require improvements in tenure security for existing residents, focusing on the forest frontier.

As population growth and migrancy both put pressure on forested land, CCP could do well to continue their investments in land tenure focused activities that support local people while identifying sustainable opportunities for migrants to also access needed land.

Participation in surveillance and use of hotlines

Household participation in surveillance appeared high, but rates of hotline use is still quite low. Also, rates of telephone ownership and use may also be low. Finally, access to electricity (that could be used to charge telephones) is also low. However, the collection of these data was not designed in a way to be able to connect the dots: What is the proportion of households that have functioning, charged cell phones, and are these same household involved in surveillance, are they aware of the hotline, and would they use or have they used the hotline to report a crime? Further investigation into the awareness and use of hotlines, the incentives and barriers to using hotlines, and adults’ access to charged, working cell phones, may be worthy of deeper treatment in the midline.

5.3. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CCP AND IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Recommendations for how CCP and its implementing partners may strategically use survey results are presented in Table 25. At the same time, it is likely that important findings exist in the data have that have not yet been brought forward or highlighted in this report. However, once identified, these can be studied in greater detail using the existing data or as needed in the midline.

Table 25. Key associations (existing or anticipated) or findings for consideration related to project implementation

Observed association or key finding Potential implication Environmental knowledge Communities do have a baseline level of knowledge Activities can build on existing baseline level of about ecosystem services and key threats to the ecosystem understanding but may need to reframe environment, especially illegal logging, slash-and-burn key topics based on needs. agriculture, and climate change Less than 50% of respondents were aware of any land- If land use planning will be a key strategy, education use planning processes in their communities or how to about the processes, benefits, and goals may be gain permission to use land in certain ways. Awareness required. Also, awareness raising about the shared was lower among female respondents than among visions that have been developed with support from males. Mikajy would augment awareness numbers in general.

61 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Adoption of conservation-friendly behaviors/threat reduction More than 40% of respondents did not know the the Activities may need to improve understanding of the benefits of COBAs and other community associations. benefits of these groups for individuals and for nature. Those that did know found value in improvements in However, in other cases they can build on the more the ecosystem, regulated access to natural resources, commonly identified incentives to improve and access to training and other types of support that participation in or the perception of benefits from participation provides. groups. A relationshiop currently exists between participation Although causation is unknown, the existing strong in COBAs and VSLAs and participants’ adoption of association between conservation-friendly behaviors improved agricultural techniques. and participation in community groups should indicate that working through these groups could be a good strategy. However, careful monitoring will be needed to understand the drivers and alternative explanations of these associations. Disaggregating the types of behaviors improved through associations with each group may also be useful in understanding their impact. Many households already plant trees for personal or Build on this positive behavior to further encourage agricultural needs, including reforestation, firewood, tree planting for personal and community use. Identify and fruit trees. Many also already have woodlots, areas where mangrove reforestation is taking place which can reduce pressure on wild forest. A few have and use these positive examples elsewhere to replanted mangroves. encourage the behavior further. There is weak association between participation in The Mikajy program has a community outreach organized groups to surveil and report on activities strategy to improve knowledge and use of the that damage the environment and awareness and use hotlines, so tracking this awareness and use over time of the hotline. will be key to measuring success. Although the admissions were rare, the survey did Using other methods, activities may wish to study pick up evidence of several illegal or unsustainable these activities more closely using different activities, including shark finning, forest clearing, or measurement techniques. hunting bushmeat for consumption and sale. The most commonly sought natural resource whose Consider looking geographically at responses for areas access is restricted is wood for energy or building where woodlot or other reforestation interventions material. may be most desirable. Some MaMaBay respondents were aware of the CCP could examine the role that corruption may play tension between the sale of logging permits and the in logging permitting in the implementation areas and need for standing forests to grow crops such as vanilla identify pathways to reduce both corruption and and, potentially, coffee. Sometimes logging permits are permitting. perceived to be distributed through a corrupt system that incentivizes unsustainable behavior. Land tenure Most households don’t have documentation for their Jones et al. (2018) suggests the importance of land land but also don’t perceive threats to others taking tenure interventions to control forest clearing, for their land. both long-term residents and migrants, but this may be difficult if there is a low perception of need to have titled land Livelihood status Approximately 80% of households farm. Most Understanding this income diversification, the desire households engage in two or more livelihood groups. to diversify, and the impacts of certain livelihoods on The most common pairing was agriculture and natural resources, will be important in engaging livestock or agriculture and “other.” Almost all fishing households in various livelihood efforts. families also farm. However, one-quarter to one-third of households reported the number of sources of income having decreased over the past five years.

USAID 62

Many households access loans of one kind or another. There is scope to expand microfinance institutions to However, most of these are from friends and family formalize the loan sector and provide equal access to or, in MaMaBay, RAMEX. those who may not be able to borrow from market partners or from friends or family. Incomes have increased in MaMaBay and decreased in Livelihood interventions that focus on income Menabe over the past five years. generation may be in higher demand in Menabe than in MaMaBay The very few (31) households who reported engaging Investigate this linkage further: is this because in breeding (sale of eggs, milk, and honey) had the households who earn income in this way also are highest overall average income. engaged in other lucrative activities, or do they have more capital to invest overall, or is the diversity of income beneficial to their overall economic health? Human health and well-being Although access to the electrical grid is lower than the Expansion of the use of solar or other sustainable national average, many households are using power options may be worth pursuing as part of a generators or solar panels to generate electricity. broader strategy. This may impact on households’ ability to use charged mobile telephones to call a hotline. Both regions have lower than the national average Improvements in water services and quality may be access to improved water services, even compared to worth pursuing as part of a broader strategy. other rural areas. Most households also reported that their water quality had diminished over the past 12 months. The “harvest gap” (months when households are Many households depend on natural resources during unable to be able to eat food that they have these months. Consider regional differences in harvested) is temporally different in the two regions seasonality and intensity and their impact on behaviors and affects marine and terrestrial strata differently. and natural resoruces impacted to determine needed interventions. Education levels are generally higher in MaMaBay than Examine spatially (are there geographies with in Menabe and higher among men than among women. characteristically higher or lower literacy?) and consider literacy levels by area to determine the best way to deliver interventions, especially training materials.

Recommendations for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

The household survey results do not necessarily report on the key results or indicators as they are interpreted in the Mikajy and Hay Tao MEL plans. This is because the MEL plans and indicators were developed before the household survey questionnaire was completed. Although care was taken to ensure that the variables used aligned as well as possible to those in the MEL plans, the nature of the survey meant that some variables would need to be counted differently.

The situation is similar for the activities’ learning questions (LQ). The results of the survey may be useful to interpret activity-level learning questions across several CCP learning themes:

63 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

CCP1: Livelihood benefits and threat reduction

• CCP: Do beneficiaries of alternative and sustainable livelihoods (e.g., conservation enterprise approaches) reduce their unsustainable practices (i.e., threats to biodiversity)? • Hay Tao LQ1: If we develop skills and capacity, to what extent do we ensure that the actors (communities, protected area managers) change their behavior? • Mikajy LQ2: Does meeting basic needs (food, water, shelter, education, income) of communities through conservation-friendly strategies reduce drivers of deforestation and over-exploitation of natural resources?

CCP3: CBNRM and community co-management in protected areas

• Hay Tao LQ1: If we develop skills and capacity, to what extent do we ensure that the actors (communities, protected area managers) change their behavior? • Mikajy LQ1: How to best promote restoration and other means of conservation among reticent communities that may consider conservation a risk to their livelihood? • Mikajy LQ3: How can social development programs be most effectively engaged to promote engagement of key stakeholders in favor of better management of protected areas and their natural resources? • Mikajy LQ5: What actions are most effective for empowering community-level stakeholders to become effective advocates and participants in local and landscape-level processes?

CCP4: Interactions between strategic approaches and the achievement of threat reduction

• Mikajy LQ1: How to best promote restoration and other means of conservation among reticent communities that may consider conservation a risk to their livelihood? • Mikajy LQ3: How can social development programs be most effectively engaged to promote engagement of key stakeholders in favor of better management of protected areas and their natural resources?

In addition, this household survey provides data that can help interpret several results in the results chain that currently do not have indicators assigned. The authors recommend that Mikajy and Hay Tao review their results chains and MEL plans to identify any new indicators that could be designed around the questions in the household survey.

The authors of this report recommend that the Mikajy and Hay Tao teams review Table 17 through Table 20 in relation to their MEL plans. Where possible, use the results from the survey to inform existing indicators. Where useful, use the household survey to track key results in the results chains that could benefit from comparative measurement at the activity midline and, if completed in time, endline.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MIDLINE SURVEY

6.1. CHANGES/UPDATES TO QUESTIONNAIRE The authors and analysts have identified a few additions and changes to the questionnaire that may benefit the interpretation of the midline.

Investigating relationships between perceptions and behaviors to Mikajy and Hay Tao interventions:

USAID 64

• Ask about changing behavior: for conservation-friendly behaviors, how long have households been doing this behavior, how did they learn, and what is their motivation to continue • Ask about participation in site-based activities to be able to associate conservation behavior changes to Mikajy and Hay Tao interventions • Ask about shared vision/action plans – have communities participated in processes? Do they share the vision? Do they have an action plan? (This is related to indicator 4.1) • Land-use planning – ask about participation in land-use planning, not just awareness • Target groups connect economic development with conservation – a key result in Mikajy SA 2 (Wealth) that was not measured in this survey

Livelihoods

• It may be useful to ask more questions about participation in specific value chains and/or access to markets. The ways in which households sell their goods (or their inability to do so) may be important for understanding how to refine market-based solutions that encourage conservation- friendly farming. • Dig more deeply into the relationships between improved fishing or farming techniques and participation in community groups such as COBAs and VSLAs. What is driving this relationship? What are some alternative explanations? Could focus groups or other additional methods support an improved understanding of this relationship and CCP’s contribution to any observed changed over time?

Adding health-related questions

• Add health questions to get baseline. • Currently, nearly all households reported using health facilities. Ask more questions about what kind of facilities, why they are accessing them, and the last time they accessed them. • Ask about health care costs.

6.2. CHANGES/UPDATES TO SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Participation in ecotourism is very rare. Participation in breeding is also rare, and it (specifically, honey production) is a focus of the Mikajy livelihoods program. The household survey may not be the best way to track this. Instead, recommend focus groups or more concentrated efforts in the geographies where ecotourism exists.

The survey also asks a few specific questions about illegal or discouraged activities. The response rates for these were very low, and it is difficult to know whether this reflects the true levels of these activities. New research in tracking the rates of illegal or discouraged activities (e.g., Davis et al. 2019), could be helpful in modifying the questioning and/or identifying different ways to track the prevalence of behaviors like shark finning, bushmeat consumption, cutting wild forest, or unsustainable fishing methods.

6.3. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES RECOMMENDED FOR MIDLINE For the midline, the authors suggest additional analysis to measure change along the CCP, Mikajy, and Hay Tao theories of change, in particular through spatial analysis and causal inference methods. Using geocoded surveys for analysis can shed light on whether the site-based activities are achieving the anticipated livelihood, governance, behavior change, and threat reduction results around particular key landscapes, and can highlight where additional efforts may be needed to achieve desired results.

65 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

To attribute changes to Mikajy and Hay Tao actions, the authors recommend analyzing the data through a causal inference framework, establishing time order effects, correlation between interventions and outcomes, and elimination of possible alternative explanations (USAID 2018). One potential method for this analysis would be Propensity Score Matching. This technique is based on the presumption that demographic and geographic factors mediate household selection or participation in Mikajy and Hay Tao interventions, matches households in the intervention and non-intervention groups along a set of demographic and geographic variables.

Using GIS, analysts may combine its spatially explicit analysis of trends in behavior, livelihoods, and governance with available data on conservation trends (such as Global Forest Watch) to assess whether the activities are improving the status of land, forest, and marine resources in target areas.

In the midline analysis, the household survey analytical team recommends aligning the analysis and discussion of results from the midline survey with the CCP learning agenda to contribute to project- wide learning in the thematic areas outlined above.

7. RESOURCES CITED Central Intelligence Agency. n.d. “Africa: Madagascar — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency.” Accessed January 15, 2020. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/ma.html.

Conservation International - Madagascar. 2014. “Ecosystem Profile: Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands.” Antananarivo, Madagascar.

Davis, Elizabeth Oneita, Brian Crudge, Thona Lim, David O’Connor, Vichet Roth, Matt Hunt, and Jenny Anne Glikman. 2019. “Understanding the Prevalence of Bear Part Consumption in Cambodia: A Comparison of Specialised Questioning Techniques.” PLoS ONE 14 (2): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211544.

Gore, Meredith L., Jonah Ratsimbazafy, and Michelle L. Lute. 2013. “Rethinking Corruption in Conservation Crime: Insights from Madagascar.” Conservation Letters 6 (6): 430–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12032.

Institut National de la Statistique (INSTAT). 2015. “Madagascar - Enquête Périodique Auprès Des Ménages 2010.” Antananarivo, Madagascar.

Institut National de la Statistique (INSTAT), and ORC Macro. 2005. “Enquête Démographique et de Santé, Madagascar 2003–2004: Rapport de Synthèse.” Childhood A Global Journal Of Child Research. Calverton, Maryland, USA. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/SR105/SR105MD03- 04Eng.pdf.

Jones, Julia P.G., Rina Mandimbiniaina, Ruth Kelly, Patrick Ranjatson, Bodonirina Rakotojoelina, Kate Schreckenberg, and Mahesh Poudyal. 2018. “Human Migration to the Forest Frontier: Implications for Land Use Change and Conservation Management.” Geo: Geography and Environment 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.50.

Knoema. n.d. “World Data Atlas: Madagascar.” Accessed January 21, 2020. https://knoema.com/atlas/Madagascar.

The World Bank. n.d. “Human Capital Project.” Accessed January 15, 2020a.

USAID 66

https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/human-capital.

The World Bank. n.d. “Madagascar Overview.” Accessed January 15, 2020b. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/madagascar/overview.

The World Bank. 2014. “The Face of Poverty in Madagascar : Poverty, Gender, and Inequality Assessment.” http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/03/19548476/face-poverty- madagascar-poverty-gender-inequality-assessment.

United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. 2017. “Household Size and Composition around the World 2017 - Data Booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/405).” United Nations. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos6091362.

USAID. 2017. “Baseline Report : Impact Evaluation of the Feed the Future Tanzania Land Tenure Assistance Activity.” Washington, D.C.

USAID. 2018. “Evidence in Action: Using and Generating Evidence about Effectiveness in Biodiversity Programming. Unit 1 : Understanding an Evidence-Based Approach.”

USAID Liberia. 2015. “Liberia Municipal Water Project FY 2015 Household Survey Instrument for Robertsport Liberia.” Monrovia, Liberia.

USAID Madagascar. 2014. “Madagascar Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment 2014 Update.” Antananarivo, Madagascar.

USAID Madagascar. 2019a. “Madagascar : Land Tenure and Property Rights Profile.” Antananarivo, Madagascar.

USAID Madagascar. 2019b. “Madagascar FAA 118/119 Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Analysis.” Antananarivo, Madagascar.

67 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

8. ANNEX

8.1. ANNEX 1: FINAL ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE

8.1.1. COVER PAGE INTERVIEWER NOTES:

NOTES FOR YOUR USE IN ADMINISTERING THE INTERVIEW ARE IN RED TEXT, CAPITALIZED, AND IN PARENTHESES AND SHOULD NOT BE READ TO THE RESPONDENT.

“DON’T KNOW” AND “REFUSED” SHOULD NEVER BE READ TO THE RESPONDENT AS CHOICES, BUT YOU SHOULD USE THEM IF A RESPONDENT VOLUNTEERS “DON’T KNOW” OR REFUSES TO ANSWER A QUESTION, RESPECTIVELY.

REGION: 1. Menabe 2. Mamabaie6 STRATA: DISTRICT: COMMUNE:

ZD7: FOKONTANY: SAMPLE STARTING POINT:

DATE AND TIME OF INTERVIEW:

INTERVIEW NUMBER:

INTERVIEWER NAME:

6 “Mamabaie” as written in the questionnaire is the same as MaMaBay as it is written in the rest of the report. It is an alternative spelling that uses the French “baie” in place of the English “Bay”. 7 ZD (Enumeration Zone) is the French equivalent of EA (Enumeration Area), as used in the rest of the report

USAID 68

8.1.2. INTRO AND INFORMED CONSENT Greetings! My name is ______. I am from CAETIC. We are conducting a survey on behalf of Environmental Incentives, a contractor with the United States Agency for International Development. We are currently visiting [COMMUNITY] in [landscape] to gain a better understanding of livelihoods and land-use. The answers from this questionnaire will be used to help USAID learn about the impacts of their programs on your community and the environment. I will not tell anyone about your answers to these questions and am required to keep your answers confidential. Only the research team will view your responses. Although we will ask for information about you, we will never use personal information in our documentation and will not report sensitive information to anyone. The entire survey will take about 1 hour. If you have any questions in the future, you can contact the responsible of CAETIC at 034.80.616.62 or 032.11.825.04. You are selected among households in this region at random to represent your community. Your participation in this study is very important for this region and the program. Are you willing to proceed with the interview? CONSENT: 1. Yes 2. No (END SURVEY) Thank you for agreeing to take this survey. To start, I would like to ask you a few questions about your household.

8.1.3. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS/CONTEXT QUESTIONS

8.1.3.1. ABOUT THE RESPONDENT GENDER_RES: INTERVIEWER: SELECT RESPONDENT GENDER 1. Male 2. Female HEAD_RES: Are you the head of the household? 1. Yes 2. No HHLDSIZE: How many people live in your home? (not including visitors and guests?) _____ AGE_RES: How old are you? READ_RES: Can you read some text? 1. Yes 2. No WRITE_RES: Can you write a letter? 1. Yes 2. No

69 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

EDUCATION_RES: What is the highest level of education you completed? 1. None 2. Primary 3. Secondary first cycle 4. Secondary second cycle 5. Higher 6. Don’t know MARITAL_RES: What is your current marital status? 1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced/Separated 4. Widow(er) MIGRATE_RES: How long have you lived in this community? ___Years (Range 1-99) 100 . Since birth 101. Less than one year

(ASK IF MIGRATE NE 1 (IE RESPONDENT NOT BORN IN AREA)) MIGLIVE_RES. Where did you live before you came here? [ENTER PROVINCE/REGION/DISTRICT] ______MIGSTAY_RES. How long do you intend to stay in the area? [ENTER MONTHS/YEARS] ______100. FOREVER

MIGETHNIC_RES. What is your ethnicity? 1. Antaifasy 2. Antaisaka 3. Antakarana 4. Antambahoaka 5. Antandroy 6. Antanosy 7. Antemoro 8. Bara 9. Betsileo 10. Betsimisaraka 11. Bezanozano 12. Mahafaly 13. Merina 14. Sakalava 15. Sihanaka 16. Tanala 17. Tsimihety 18. Vezo 19. Other

USAID 70

(ASK IF MIGETHNIC = 19) MIGSTAYOTH_RES. What is your ethnicity?______

(IF HEAD=2, ASK DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS ABOUT HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD)

8.1.3.2. ABOUT THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD GENDER_HHD: What is the gender of the head of household? 1. Male 2. Female AGE_HHD: How old is he/she? READ_HHD: Can he/she read some text? 1. Yes 2. No WRITE_HHD: Can he/she write a letter? 1. Yes 2. No EDUCATION_HHD: What is the highest level of education he/she completed? 1. None 2. Primary 3. Secondary first cycle 4. Secondary second cycle 5. Higher 6. Don’t know MARITAL_HHD: What is his current marital status? 1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced/Separated 4. Widow(er) MIGRATE_HHD: How long has he/she lived in this community? ___Years (Range 1-99) 100. Since birth 101. Less than one year

(ASK IF MIGRATE NE 1 (I.E., RESPONDENT NOT BORN IN AREA)) MIGLIVE_HHD. Where did he/she live before he/she came here? [ENTER PROVINCE/REGION/DISTRICT] ______MIGSTAY_HHD. How long does he/she intend to stay in the area? [ENTER MONTHS/YEARS]______100. FOREVER

71 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

MIGETHNIC_HHD. What is his/her ethnicity? 1. Antaifasy 2. Antaisaka 3. Antakarana 4. Antambahoaka 5. Antandroy 6. Antanosy 7. Antemoro 8. Bara 9. Betsileo 10. Betsimisaraka 11. Bezanozano 12. Mahafaly 13. Merina 14. Sakalava 15. Sihanaka 16. Tanala 17. Tsimihety 18. Vezo 19. Other

(ASK IF MIGETHNIC=19) MIGSTAYOTH_HHD. What is his/her ethnicity?______

8.1.4. HOUSING

8.1.4.1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING (OBSERVE THE STRUCTURE OF THE DWELLING – ASK ONLY IF UNCERTAIN) ROOFDWELL: What is the nature of the roof of this dwelling? 1. Thatch/palm/leaves 2. Motte grass 3. Wooden boards 4. Sheet 5. Tile 6. Other (ASK IF ROOFDWELL = 6) ROOFDWELLOTH: What is the nature of the roof? ______

(OBSERVE THE STRUCTURE OF THE DWELLING – ASK ONLY IF UNCERTAIN) MATWALLS. What is the principal material used for the walls of this dwelling? 1. Thatch/Palm/Leaves 2. Mud (Torchi) 3. Wooden boards

USAID 72

4. Sheet 5. Cement 6. Brick and mortar 7. Other (ASK IF MATWALLS = 7) MATWALLSOTH: What is the material used for walls? ______

MAINLIT: What is the main source of lighting in your house? 1. Oil lamp 2. ADAPS 3. Solar panel 4. Candle 5. Electricity 6. Other (ASK IF MAINLIT = 6) MAINLITOTH: What is the lighting source? ______

MAINCOOK: What is the main source of cooking energy used by your household? 1. Firewood 2. Charcoal 3. Gas 4. Electricity 5. Other ASK IF MAINCOOK = 5 MAINCOOKOTH: What is the cooking energy? ______

8.1.4.2. WATER QUALITY WATER: What is the main source of drinking water for your household? 1. Borehole/protected dug well 2. Protected spring 3. Unprotected dug well 4. Unprotected spring 5. Rainwater collection 6. Bottled water 7. Cart with small tank/drum 8. Tanker truck 9. Surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation channel) 10. Public tap/standpost a. Cultivation area 11. Piped drinking water supply at the household 12. Other

73 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

(ASK IF WATER = 12) WATEROTH: Please explain______

WATERAVAIL: In the past 12 months, have there been any changes in the availability of drinking water for your household? 1. Yes 2. No (ASK IF WATERAVAIL = 1) WATERCHANGE: How would you describe this change? 1. Availability improved greatly 2. Availability improved slightly 3. Availability decreased slightly 4. Availability decreased greatly

WATERQUAL: In the past 12 months, have there been any changes in the quality of the drinking water your household uses? 1. Yes 2. No ASK IF WATERQUAL = 1 WATERQUAL2: How would you describe this change in quality? 1. Quality improved greatly 2. Quality improved slightly 3. Quality decreased slightly 4. Quality decreased greatly

WATERTIME: On average, how much time does it take for you to collect water from your primary source of drinking water? Please include time to travel there and back, as well as waiting time. ENTER: ___hours ___minutes

8.1.4.3. HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENTS BASICNEC: Which of these items do you think are basic necessities, things that everyone should be able to have and no one should have to go without? Household Assets 1. Yes / 2. No 1. Bed/mattress 2. Table 3. Chaise 4. Lamp/floor lamp 5. Fan 6. Marmite 7. Mobile phone

USAID 74

8. Radio 9. Hifi or sound system 10. Video recorder/CDDVD player 11. Television 12. Satellite dish/decoder 13. Desktop or laptop 14. Refrigerator/freezer chest 15. Sewing machine 16. Jewelry 17. Generator/solar panel 18. Bicycle 19. Motorcycle/motorbike 20. Truck/van or pickup 21. Cart 22. Plow (engine or animal propelled) 23. Harrow 24. Weeder 25. Tractor/farm vehicle (e.g., tiller) 26. Pirogue/canoe 27. Fishing line 28. Fish net 29. Palangre/palangrotte 30. Nasse casier/ Engin à crabe 31. Spear for fishing, rifle for hunting

HHHAVE: Which of these items does your household have? (THESE WOULD NEED TO BE IN WORKING CONDITION) Household Assets 1. Yes / 2. No 1. Bed/mattress 2. Table 3. Chaise 4. Lamp/floor lamp 5. Fan 6. Marmite 7. Mobile phone 8. Radio 9. Hifi or sound system 10. Video recorder/CDDVD player 11. Television 12. Satellite dish/decoder 13. Desktop or laptop 14. Refrigerator/freezer chest 15. Sewing machine 16. Jewelry

75 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

17. Generator/solar panel 18. Bicycle 19. Motorcycle/motorbike 20. Truck/van or pickup 21. Cart 22. Plow (engine or animal propelled) 23. Harrow 24. Weeder 25. Tractor/farm vehicle (e.g., Tiller) 26. Pirogue/canoe 27. Fishing line 28. Fish net 29. Palangre/Palangrotte 30. Nasse casier/engin à crabe 31. Spear for fishing, rifle for hunting

8.1.4.4. HEALTH HEALTHACC. When your family member gets sick, do you have access to healthcare services? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Other

(ASK IF HEALTHACC = 3) HEALTHACCOTH: Please explain______

8.1.5. LIVELIHOODS

8.1.5.1. INCOME FROM VALUE CHAINS SELLFOOD: Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), what are the main foods produced by the household ? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

USAID 76

FOOD CROP OR Cultivated? Number of SIZE OF Quantity Unit of Qty Quantity Quantity Quantity sold Total PRODUCT (PA01) years of OPERATION harvested harvested consumed for other (SELL) amount of (CULTI) cultivation (OPSIZE) (HARV) (HARVUNIT) (CONSUM) use (seeds, sales in 1. Yes (YEARSCUL) in kind Ariary 2. No (in Acres) transfer) (INC) (QOTH) IF MAMABAIE 1. Vanilla 2. Cloves 3. Cacao 4. Coffee 5. Pepper IF MENABE AND MAMABAIE 6. Rice 7. Cassava 8. Maize 9. Yams (farmed) 10. Yams (wild collected) 11. Sweet potato 12. Peanuts 13. Dried beans 14. Cape pea (Kabaro) 15. Mung bean (Tsiasisa) 16. Lojy/Voanemba 17. Black eyes 18. Lentil 19. Potatoes 20. Other (specify) 21. Other (specify)

USAID 77

SELLFOOD: Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), how was the production from fishing?

SEAFOODS / Fishe Number Area for fishing Period Quantity Unit of Qty Quantity Quantity Quantity Total Number of PRODUCTS d? of years (OPSIZE) (PERIOD) harvested harvested consumed for other sold amount months of fishing (HARV) (HARVUNI (CONSUM) use (in kind (SELL) of sales in within the (CUL (YEARSC 1. Lagon) 1. weekly T) transfer) Ariary year TI) UL) 2. Récif 2. monthly (QOTH) (INC) (FREQ) 1. Yes 3. Large 3. annually 2. No 4. Mangrove (1 to 12) 5. Fresh water 40. Fish

41. Shark fin

42. Shrimp

43. Lobster

44. Mud Crab (unit or kg) 45. Sea cucumber

46. Squid

47. Octopus

48. Bivalve molluscs 49. Sea turtles (fano) 50. Seaweeds

51. Other (specify)

52. Other (specify) 53. Other (specify)

54. Other (specify)

55. Other (specify)

SELLFOOD: Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), how was the livestock production?

USAID 78

LIVESTOCK Practiced? Number of SIZE OF Actual Unit of Qty Quantity Quantity Quantity sold Total (CULTI) years of OPERATIO numbers (HARVUNIT) consumed for other (SELL) amount of 1. Yes practice N (HARV) (CONSUM) use (seeds, sales in 2. No (YEARSCUL) (in m2) in kind Ariary (OPSIZE) transfer) (INC) (QOTH) 70. Cattle Head

71. Porcine Head

72. Ovine Head

73. Goat Head

74. Poultry Head

75. Fish farming Kg

SELLFOOD: Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), how was the production from breeding?

PRODUCTION FROM Practiced? Number of SIZE OF Quantity Unit of Qty Quantity Quantity Quantity sold Total BREEDING years of OPERATION harvested harvested consumed for other (SELL) amount of (CULTI) practice (in acres) (HARV) (HARVUNIT) (CONSUM) use (in kind sales in 1. Yes (YEARSCUL) (OPSIZE) transfer) Ariary 2. No (QOTH) (INC) 80. Milk Liter 81. Eggs Number

82. Honey Liter

83. Other (Specify)

79 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

8.1.5.2. INCOME FROM ECOTOURISM ECOTOUR: In the last year, did you participate in any of the following eco-tourism activities? (FOR ANY ACTIVITY FOR WHICH ECOTOUR = YES) ECOINC: What income did you receive from this activity?

Activity Yes/No Income received (ECOTOUR) (ECOINC) Made handicrafts to sell in craft markets Yes No

Hosted farm and homestead visits Yes No

Worked as nature/wildlife/adventure guide Yes No

Eco-lodge or other hospitality (CHOOSE ONE FROM BELOW) Yes No Work in a guesthouse Yes No Cook for tourists Yes No Provide massages for tourists Yes No Work as a porter Yes No Other hospitality [SPECIFY] Other [SPECIFY] Yes No

8.1.5.3. INCOME FROM OTHER ACTIVITIES LIVE1: In the past 12 months, has any member of the household worked in any of the following industries?

1. Yes Income generated (in Ariary) Activity 2. No (LIVE1INC) (LIVE1) Fishmonger Collector Commerce/business Transportation Mining Extraction of stones, sands, … Craft or artisanal techniques/processing Permanent labor Temporary labor Monetary transfer received Other 1 (Specify)

8.1.5.4. AGRICULTURAL TECHNIQUES CONFCROP: Can you please confirm the three dominant crop activities? 1. CROP/ACTIVITY 1 2. CROP/ACTIVITY 2 3. CROP/ACTIVITY 3

USAID 80

TECHREG1: What crop management techniques have you adopted to optimize production of [INSERT CROP/ACTIVITY 1]? (Select all that apply) 1. Better quality seeds 2. Fertilization 3. Monoculture 4. Slash and burn 5. Companion planting (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ______6. Agroforestry (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ______7. Conservation agriculture (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ______8. Equipment used (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ______9. Maintenance (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ______10. Harvest conservation techniques (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ______11. Processing methods (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ______12. Other

(ASK IF TECHREG1=12) TECHREGOTH1: Please describe the crop management technique: ______

CROPFIND1: How did you find out about this crop management technique? (Select all that apply) 1. Through observation and imitation of my peers 2. Through a producer organization of which I am member 3. Through training provided by a development organization 4. Through training provided by a private company or organization that buys the harvest 5. Other

(ASK IF CROPFINDOTH1 = 5) CROPFINDOTH1: Please describe how you found out about this technique: ______

CROPPROD1: How has the productivity of [CROP/ACTIVITY 1] changed in the last year? 1 Increase 2 Stable 3 In decline 4 Uncertain

CROPFACT1: According to you, what is the cause of this? 1. Appropriate crop management technique 2. Decreased soil productivity 3. Overexploitation of resources 4. Favorable climate (rainfall, temperature, less/no cyclone impact, etc.) 5. Negative effect of climate change 6. Other

(ASK IF CROPFACTOTH1 = 6) CROPFINDOTH1: Please describe the cause: ______

(ASK IF CROPPROD1 = 03, 04) ADOPTPROD: What alternative techniques have you adopted to ensure continued production? [OPEN-ENDED]

8.1.5.5. FOOD SECURITY

81 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

MEAT: Does anyone in this household hunt for wild meat to eat or sell? 1. Yes 2. No

(ASK IF MEAT = 1) BUSH: What are the main bushmeats collected by the household to eat? (Not for sale) (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Duck 2. Guinea fowl 3. Tenrec 4. Wild boar (fr: sanglier) 5. Lemur 6. Other

(ASK IF BUSH = 6) OTHBUSH: Please specify the bushmeat______

SEAFOOD: Does anyone in this household fish for seafood to eat or sell? 1. Yes 2. No

(ASK IF SEAFOOD = 1) SEAMAIN: What are the main seafoods fished by the household to eat? (Not for sale) (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Fish 2. Shrimp 3. Lobster 4. Crab 5. Squid 6. Octopus 7. Bivalve molluscs 8. Sea turtles 9. Other

(ASK IF SEAMAIN = 9) OTHSEAMAIN: Specify what other main seafoods are fished by the household: ______

FOODCROPS: What are the main food crops produced by the household for food to eat? (Not for sale) (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Rice 2. Cassava 3. Maize 4. Yams (cultivated) 5. Sweet potatoes 6. Bananas/plantains 7. Pigeon peas 8. Irish Potato 9. Cape pea (fr: pois du Cape, mg: kabaro) 10. Pois du Bambara 11. Beans 12. Mung beans (Tsiasisa) 13. Lojy/Voanemba

USAID 82

14. Lentil 15. Peanuts 16. Leafy vegetables 17. None (•SKIP TO NOFOODMONTH) 18. Other

(ASK IF FOODCROPS = 18) OTHFOODCROPS: Specify the other main food crop: ______

ENOUGHFOOD: Did you harvest enough food last year to feed your family throughout the year? (September 2018-August 2019) 1. Yes 2. No

(ASK IF ENOUGHFOOD = 2) NOFOODMONTH: During which month(s) did you run out of food last year (September 2018- August 2019)? (Select all that apply) 1. January 6. June 10. October 2. February 7. July 11. November 3. March 8. August 12. December 4. April 9. September 13. All months 5. May

(ASK IF ENOUGHFOOD = 2) HOWSECURE: How did you secure food for your household? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Hunted bushmeat 2. Foraged edible wild plants 3. Collected grubs/insects 4. Fishing 5. Purchased food 6. Borrowed food 7. Exchanged labor with food 8. Relied on my relatives to share food 9. Received free food from government, NGO, or other relief program 10. Consumed less 11. Consumed less for adults 12. Skipped meals 13. Migrated to find job and/or money 14. Took from stored food products in community-based granary 15. Other

(ASK IF HOWSECURE = 15) OTHSECURE: Specify how you secured food: ______

(ASK IF HOWSECURE = 5) HOWBUY: How did you get the income to purchase food? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Hunting 2. Fishing 3. Cutting and selling firewood 4. Cutting wood to make charcoal 5. Cutting wood for construction 6. Cutting trees for other purposes 7. Sale of household assets (such as livestock)

83 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

8. Harvesting and sale of non-timber forest products (honey, mushrooms, caterpillars, other insects (e.g., locusts), wild fruits, bushmeat…) 9. Sale cash crops (vanilla, cloves, coffee, pepper…) 10. Sale food crops (peanut, beans…) 11. Cash advance from the collectors 12. Employed for temporary work 13. Other

(ASK IF HOWBUY = 13) OTHHOWBUY: Specify how you got the income to purchase food: ______

8.1.5.6. PRODUCER ORGANIZATION

PROORG: Are you a member of a producer organization? 1. Yes 2. No

(ASK IF PROORG = 1) ORGNAME: What is the name of the producer organization? (LIST)

(ASK IF PROORG = 1) PROFUNC: How often do members of this producer organization meet regularly? 1. Weekly, monthly, quarterly 2. Semi-annually, annually 3. Less often (not regularly) 4. No meeting

ASK IF PROORG = 1 PROCHAL: What challenges have you encountered in your producer organization? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Lack of reliable markets 2. Weak local leadership support 3. Lack of knowledge and expertise for extraction, processing, marketing, etc. 4. Weak financial base to scale up business 5. Lack of interest from members 6. Transparency and accountability issues 7. Poor market information 8. Spatial distribution and density 9. Poor infrastructure for access 10. Lack of basic communication network (radio, telephone, etc.) to successfully hear and respond to buyers demands 11. Other

ASK IF PROCHAL = 11 OTHPROCHAL: Please specify other challenge______

8.1.5.7. FINANCIAL CAPITAL

INCOME: Over the past 5 years, has your income increased, decreased or stayed the same over time?

USAID 84

1. Increased 2. Stayed the same 3. Decreased

INCSOURCE: Over the past 5 years, has the number of income sources for your household increased, decreased or stayed the same over time? 1. Increased 2. Stayed the same 3. Decreased

LOAN: Do you currently access loans from any micro-financing institutions/Bank or other source of loans? 1. Yes 2. No

ASK IF LOAN = 1 LOANTYPE: What type(s) of loan(s) do you have? (Select all that apply) 1. Commercial bank 2. Microfinance Institution 3. Got goods in advance to pay back later from a shop/cooperative/someone else / 4. Get cash advance from RAMEX (or other buyer) 5. Informal savings groups 6. Money lender in community 7. Family/friends that you had to pay back 8. Religious/community-based institution 9. Other

ASK IF LOANTYPE = 9 LOANOTH: Specify other loan type: ______

ASK IF LOAN = 1 LOANAMT. And how much money did you borrow the last time that you borrowed money? ___Ariary

ASK IF LOAN = 1 FINCOM: Using the following scale, from “very easy to very difficult,” tell me how easy or difficult is it for you to keep up with financial commitments? 1. Very easy 2. Easy 3. Difficult 4. Very difficult 5. Not applicable

ASK IF LOAN = 2 FINCOM2: What is the main obstacle that prevent you from applying for loans? 1. Difficulty to reimburse on time 2. Difficulty to meet the conditions to get loans 3. Unsatisfactory reimbursement conditions (interest rate,…) 4. No need to apply for loans

ASK IF LOAN = 2 OR LOANTYPE <> (1, 2) WANTLOAN: Do you wish to apply for loans from any formal micro-financing institutions? 1. Yes

85 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

2. No

VSL: Are there Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA) in your [village]? 1. Yes 2. No (• SKIP TO INVEST)

(ASK IF VSL = 1) VSLMEM: Are you a member of the VSLA? 1. Yes 2. No

(ASK IF VSLMEM = 2) JOIN: Do you wish to join such groups? 1. Yes 2. No

(ASK IF VSLMEM = 1) INVEST_M: How often do you save / invest / put money away with VSLA 1. Weekly 2. Monthly 3. More than one month

(ASK IF VSLMEM = 1) INVESTAMT: How much do you usually save / invest / put away with the VSLA on this frequency? ______Ariary

(ASK IF VSLMEM = 1) LOANVSLA: And how much money did you borrow the last time that you borrowed money from the VSLA? ______Ariary

INVEST: In general, what problems do you face in investing in new opportunities to make money? 1. Lack of knowledge/skills 2. Lack of information about investing opportunities 3. Lack of means of communication 4. Lack of capital 5. Lack of access to credit 6. Lack of business training opportunities 7. Lack of markets 8. Security challenges 9. Other

(ASK IF INVEST = 9) INVESTOTH: Specify other challenges: ______

8.1.6. PERCEPTIONS OF THREATS, ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES

ECOSYST: The following list shows some examples of benefits arising from nature that are also known as ecosystem services. Before today, were you aware that nature can be essential to…?

…filter water to keep it clean and safe ￿1Yes / ￿2No

USAID 86

…provide clean air ￿1Yes / ￿2No …keep soil fertile and productive ￿1Yes / ￿2No …protect communities and property from storm ￿1Yes / ￿2No impacts …provide raw materials for making and building ￿1Yes / ￿2No things …pollinate plants and crops to produce food ￿1Yes / ￿2No …reduce or control the spread of many diseases ￿1Yes / ￿2No …provide raw materials for most medicines ￿1Yes / ￿2No

ECOSLOSS: In the last 12 months, have you been directly affected by the loss of an ecosystem service that would normally be provided by nature? 1. Yes 2. No (ASK IF ECOSLOSS = 1) ECOSIMPACT: Which ONE of the options below MOST closely matches the way that this loss affected you? 1. Economic well-being 2. Medical health 3. Cultural heritage 4. Emotional, psychological, or spiritual well-being 5. Other (ASK IF ECOIMPACT = 5) ECOSOTH: In what other way did this loss affect you?______THREAT: In your opinion, what are the biggest threats to the ecosystem in your community? There are no right or wrong questions, we would like to know what you think. (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Illegal logging 2. Slash-and-burn agriculture 3. Poaching (lemurs, tortoises, birds, tenrecs…) 4. Wildlife trafficking 5. Illegal fishing by using beach seine net 6. Illegal fishing in other ways (closed season, non-respect of minimum size) 7. Climate change impacts (such as cyclones, changes to growing seasons, reduced water availability, flooding, tidal surge) 8. Unsustainable farming practices 9. Other unsustainable resource use (ASK IF THREAT = 9) THREATOTH: Specify other threat: ______

8.1.7. CONSERVATION BEHAVIORS

8.1.7.1. KNOWLEDGE OF CBNRM / LMMA

CBNRM1: Do you know if a CBNRM group is operating where you live?

87 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

INTERVIEWER: This includes activities by CBNRM associations (VOI, COBA), specific management contracts (TGRN, GELOSE, GCF) and groups working in marine areas (LMMA, APGL). 1. Yes 2. No • (SKIP TO KNOWNRM)

(ASK IF CBNRM1 = 1) CBNRM2: Can you tell us what CBNRM activities are occurring? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Natural resource management decisions 2. Managing access to resources 3. Law enforcement 4. Showing development leadership at community level 5. Providing log/ fishing permits 6. Conservation activities 7. Participation in patrolling 8. Outreach and communication 9. Raising revenues from conservation 10. Other (ASK IF CBNRM2 = 10) CBNRM2OTH: Please specify the CBNRM activities______

8.1.7.2. COBA/ VOI COBA: Are you member of the COBA in this area? 1. Yes 2. No (ASK IF COBA = 1) COBFUNC: Is the COBA still functioning? 1. Yes 2. No (ASK IF COBFUNC = 2) WHYSTOP: Why did it stop functioning? (CHECK ALL THE APPLY) Governance: 1. Withdrawal of support by NGO 2. Non-respect of rules by COBA members 3. Weak local leadership support 4. Poor governance, participation, transparency, and accountability 5. Conflict in the organization 6. Corruption Production: 7. Lack of effective production methods 8. Lack of reliable markets 9. Lack of knowledge and expertise 10. Weak financial base to scale up business 11. Poor market information

USAID 88

12. Spatial distribution and density 13. Poor road access 14. Lack of basic communication network 15. Other (ASK IF WHYSTOP = 15) WHYSTOPOTH: Specify why it stopped functioning: ______(ASK IF COBFUNC = 1) COBAROLE: Is the COBA involved in: 1. Conservation alone 2. Conservation and production (agriculture, fisheries, forestry etc.) (ASK IF COBFUNC = 1) COBCHAL: What challenges have you encountered in your COBA? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Lack of reliable markets 2. Weak local leadership support 3. Lack of knowledge and expertise 4. Weak financial base to scale up business 5. Poor governance 6. Poor market information 7. Spatial distribution and density 8. Poor road access 9. Lack of basic communication network 10. Other

(ASK IF COBBCHAL = 10) COBCHALOTH: Please specify other challenge______

8.1.7.3. KNOWLEDGE OF CBNRM / LMMA: USER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

KNOWNRM: What do you think are the benefits of CBNRM/LMMA activities in your village? (THIS INCLUDES ACTIVITIES BY CBNRM ASSOCIATIONS (VOI, COBA), SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS (TGRN, GELOSE, GCF) AND GROUPS WORKING IN MARINE AREAS (LMMA, APGL).) (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Access to natural resource is regulated 2. Local involvement in resource management 3. Local people participating in control of resources 4. Local participation in patrolling 5. Conflict resolution opportunity 6. Strengthened law enforcement 7. Reduced illegal activities 8. Promoting good leadership at community level 9. Raising revenues from conservation 10. Opportunity for resources to be available for the future 11. Other

89 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

12. Don’t know 13. No benefits (ASK IF KNOWNRM = 11) NRMOTH: Specify other benefit:______

(ASK IF COBA = 1) SUPPORT: How do you support CBNRM/LMMA in your community? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Pay a membership fee 2. Pay a fee for collecting products within the management transfer or fisheries area 3. Respect regulations 4. Ask the others to respect regulations 5. Planting trees 6. Respect seasonal or local closures allowing fish to grow 7. Protect wild animals 8. Other 9. No support (ASK IF SUPPORT = 8) SUPPORTOTH: Specify other form of support: ______

8.1.7.4. ENGAGEMENT IN CBNRM

Engagement in reforestation TREE: Do you or any member of your household have a tree nursery or woodlot (plantation)? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) Tree nursery 1. Woodlot (plantation) 2. No, none of the above

TREEPLANT: Have you or members of your household planted any tree (s) in the past three years? 1. Yes 2. No

ASK IF TREEPLANT = 1 WHYPLANT: Why did you plant trees? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Reforestation/restoration 2. Firewood for own use 3. Firewood for sale 4. Charcoal for sale 5. Fruits for sale 6. Fruits to eat 7. Timber for sale 8. Timber for own use 9. Soil improvement / erosion control 10. Shade for agriculture 11. Other ASK IF WHYPLANT=11

USAID 90

WHYPLANTOTH: Specify other reason for planting trees: ______MANG: Has any member of your household replanted mangroves in the past 3 years? 1. Yes 2. No ASK IF MANG = 1 WHYPLANT2: Why did you plant mangroves? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Reforestation/restoration 2. Firewood for own use 3. Firewood for sale 4. Timber for sale 5. Timber for own use 6. Soil improvement/erosion control 7. Habitat for fish and crabs (mangroves) 8. Reduce flooding/coastal defense (mangroves) 9. Other ASK IF WHYPLANT2 = 9 WHYPLANTOTH2: Specify other reason for planting trees: ______

Compliance with fishing rules and regulations; Less use of unsustainable methods of fishing (ASK IF SEAFOOD = 1) The following questions are about fishing and collecting seafood. The person in the household who is most knowledgeable about fishing practices should answer these questions. FSPEC: Which types of seafood do you catch, either to eat or to sell? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Fish 2. Molluscs (bivalves) 3. Cephalopods (squid, octopus) 4. Crustaceans (lobster, crab, shrimp) 5. Echinoderms (urchins, sea cucumbers) 6. Seaweeds (green, red, or brown algae) 7. Sea turtles (PROGRAMMER: ASK NEXT SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOR EACH OPTION SELECTED IN FSPEC. ) FMON1: Which months of the year do you fish for or harvest these seafood? 1. January 6. June 10. October 2. February 7. July 11. November 3. March 8. August 12. December 4. April 9. September 13. All year round 5. May

FDATE1: Do you know the closing date for fishing in your area? 1. Yes →what is it? ______(FCLOSEDATE1) 2. No FTECH1: Which tools/techniques do you use for fishing? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Pirogue 2. Monofilament net 3. Jarifa 4. Beach seine

91 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

5. Mosquito net 6. Palangrotte 7. Line and hook 8. Nasse 9. Engin à crabe 10. Seabed traps 11. Traps/fences (valakira) 12. Spearfishing 13. Masque 14. Rifle for hunting 15. Stick 16. Reef gleaning 17. Poison PROGRAMMER: REPEAT FMON, FDATE, FTECH FOR EACH OPTION SELECTED IN FSPEC NETOBS: INTERVIEWER: OBSERVE AND SELECT THE TYPES OF FISHNET MESH IN THE HOUSEHOLD BACKYARD. (Select all that you observe) 1. Net, gill-net (Harato, Jarifa) 2. Seine net (Haratobe/Tarikaky) 3. Mosquito net 4. None of these above

No burning/ cutting for agriculture and livestock CLEAR: Over the past five years, did you clear land to allow for more cultivation/livestock? 1. Yes 2. No ASK IF CLEAR = 1 CLEARTYPE: What kind of land did you clear for cultivation? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Forest (ala) 2. Fallow agricultural land / savoka 3. Mangrove (Delta region) 4. Other ASK IF CLEARTYPE = 4 CLRTYPEOTH: Please specify the type of land that was cleared______

ASK IF CLEAR = 1 PACLEAR: Where do you usually clear land? 1. Protected area (ala fady in local language) 2. Transfert de gestion 3. Fallow land outside the protected area/transfert de gestion 4. Other

ASK IF PACLEAR = 4 PACLEAROTH: Please specify where you usually clear land______

CLRMORE: In the next 12 months, do you intend to clear land for cultivation? 1. Yes 2. No ASK IF CLRMORE = 1 WHYCLR: Why do you plan on clearing more land for cultivation? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

USAID 92

1. To grow more crops to sell 2. To grow more crops to consume 3. To grow different types of crops 4. The land I was cultivating in the past is no longer productive 5. To increase the size of my plot of land 6. To prevent others claiming or acquiring it 7. Other

ASK IF WHYCLR = 7 WHYCLRTH: Please specify______

ASK IF CLRMORE = 1 WHERECLRMORE: Where do you plan to clear land? (Select all that apply) 1. Forest 2. Fallow agricultural land 3. Mangrove (delta region) 4. Other ASK IF WHERECLRMORE = 4 WHERECLRMOREOTH: Please specify where you plan to clear land______

ASK IF CLRMORE=1 PACLEAR2: Is the land you plan to clear in a protected area or transfert de gestion? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know USEAWARE: Are you aware of any land use planning process in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know ASK IF USEAWARE = 1 LANDAWARE: What types of land-use planning are you aware of? 1. Attribution of lands by customary inheritance rules 2. Land use planning by the Vondron’Olona Ifotony (VOI) (in the transfert de gestion) 3. Communal land use planning (in a Schémad’Aménagement Communal (SAC) or Plan d’OccupationFoncière (PLOF) 4. Other ASK IF LANDAWARE = 4 LANDAWAREOTH: Please specify the type of land-use planning______

RIGHTCLEAR: Do you have the right to clear new forest land? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Other/it depends

ASK IF RIGHTCLEAR = 4 RIGHTCLEAROTH: Please explain______

93 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PERMICLEAR: What do you do when you request a permit for clearing fallow/savoka/monka land? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

Submit the request to the COBA president or the fokontany chief 1. Send the request to the forest district 2. The forest district verifies the land area and the firewall 3. Controlled burn 4. I don’t know 5. Other

ASK IF PERMICLEAR = 6 PERMICLEAROTH: Please specify the process you follow______

8.1.7.5. ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES RESTRICT: In the past year, have you experienced difficulty accessing forest areas that you rely on for food, medicine, building materials, firewood or other products? 1. Yes 2. No

ASK IF RESTRICT = 1 NOACCESS. What forest products do you have difficulty accessing? Product Difficulty What is the nature of How important are these to your livelihood? accessing the access issues? (ACCESSLIV) 1. Yes (ACCESSDIFF) 1. Very important 2. No 1. Area is now further 2. Somewhat important away 3. Not very important 2. Products no longer 4 Not at all important available for harvest 3. Area blocked off 4. Other (specify) 1. Honey 2. Mushrooms 3. Caterpillars, locusts, or other insects 4. Wild fruits 5. Bushmeat 6. Medicinal plants 7. Firewood 8. Charcoal 9. Fish 10. Other [SPECIFY]

8.1.7.6. LAND TENURE LANDHOLD: How many pieces of land does your household hold? ______(If None → SKIP TO LT1)

USAID 94

PA: Does any of this land overlap with a Protected Area or a transfert de gestion (VOI)? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) Yes a. Protected area b. Transfert de gestion des ressources naturelles (TGRN)/VOI 1. No LABEL: I would like to ask you about each plot of land that you hold, starting with the one closest to where you live.

HECTARES1: How many acres is this plot? ______

OWNERSHIP1: What is the ownership arrangement for this plot? Is it… (INTERVIEWER READ LIST) 1. State owned land 2. Titled land 3. Certified land 4. Non-titled privately-owned land with formal documents 5. Non-titled privately-owned land with simple documents 6. No documents (PROGRAMMER: REPEAT QUESTIONS HECTARES, OWNERSHIP FOR EACH PLOT) TITLE: How important is it for you to have a land title or a certificate/karatany? 1. Very important 2. Somewhat important 3. Not very important 4. Not important at all 5. Don’t know

(ASK IF OWNERSHIP1<> 2 or 3) DOCCHAL: For the pieces of lands for which you do not own any formal document, what are the obstacles that prevent you from acquiring it? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

The land office is too far away 1. I don’t have all the required documents 2. I don’t know the registration process 3. The process takes too much time 4. It is very costly to get formal document 5. Staff in the land office did not know how to process the registration 6. I don’t think it’s important to have a formal land certificate 7. Other 8. Not applicable

(ASK IF DOCCHAL = 8) DOCCHALOTH: Specify obstacle: ______

8.1.7.7. PERCEPTION OF LAND AND RESOURCE TENURE AND SECURITY LT1: In the next five years, do you think it’s possible that someone could try to take one of your parcels from you without your permission? 1. Yes 2. No

95 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

3. Don’t know 4. Not applicable

(ASK IF LT1 = 1) LT2: How likely do you think it is that someone would try to take one of your parcels from you in the next 5 years? 0. Impossible 1. Possible but unlikely 2. Somewhat likely 3. Very likely/it is happening now 4. Don’t know (ASK IF LT2 = 2, 3) LT3: Who do you think would try to take your parcels? 1. Government 2. Foreign investor 3. Malagasy investor (from outside the village) 4. Someone inside the village 5. Absentee owner/land claimants 6. Extended family 7. New arrival 8. Other

(ASK IF LT3 = 8) OTHLT3: Please specify who would try to take your parcels______

(ASK IF LT2 = 2 or 3) LT4: Which if any of the following are reasons why you think this could happen? Please rank from the most important reason to the least important reason. 1. Ongoing or past disputes or expropriation 2. Lack of documents 3. Length of agreement (lease will expire) 4. Problems experienced by others in the community Enter rank order: ______

(ASK IF LT1 = 1 AND LT2 = (1, 2, 3)) LT5: Compared to one year ago, do you think the possibility that someone could try to take one of your parcels has increased, decreased, or stayed the same? 1 Increased 2 Decreased 3 Stayed the same 4 Don’t know

PLTCEN: Have you ever participated in any activity to confirm and document the boundaries of your parcels? 1. Yes 2. No

8.1.7.8. ENFORCEMENT: WILLINGNESS TO REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES (HOTLINE) (ASK IF CBNRM1 = 1)

USAID 96

SURV: Do you participate in any organized groups to keep watch for and report any activities that are damaging to the environment (such as forest or bush fire surveillance patrols)? 1. Yes 2. No HOT1: Are you aware that there is a confidential hotline for reporting when someone does not comply with laws or rules related to natural resources? 1. Yes 2. No (ASK IF HOT1 = 1) HOT2: Have you ever used the hotline to report a case where laws related to natural resources were not followed? 1. Yes 2. No HOT 3: If you witnessed someone not complying with laws related to natural resources, would you ever report it to the hotline? 1. Yes 2. No (ASK IF HOT3 = 2) HOT4: Why not? (INTERVIEWER, DO NOT READ LIST, SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1. I do not know what the regulations are 2. I do not know how to make a report 3. It is not my responsibility 4. I fear the consequences if someone found out I made the report 5. I do not consider breaking these rules/regulations to be “real crimes” 6. I do not want to get anyone in trouble 7. I do not trust officials to follow up on my report 8. Other reason: ______

(ASK IF HOT4 = 8) HOT4OTH: Please specify why not______

END. Thank you so much for your time today.

97 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

8.2. ANNEX 2: FINAL MALAGASY QUESTIONNAIRE

8.2.1. PEJY FANOLORANA

TENY FANAMARIHANA HO AN’NY MPANAO FANADIHADIANA :

NY TENY VOALAZA @ SORA-BAVENTY SY AO ANATY FARANGO SOSONA DIA FANAZAVANA NATAO HO AN’NY MPANAO FANADIHADIANA. NOHO IZANY DIA TSY NATAO HO LAZAINA @ NY TOKANTRANO ATAO FANADIHADIANA IZANY.

NY TENY TOY NY HOE « TSY HAY » NA NY « FANDAVANA » DIA TSY VALINTENY NA SAFIDY OMENA NY OLONA ATAO FANADIHADIANA MIHITSY. NY HANY AZO AMPIASAINA AZY DIA RAHA TOA KA ILAY OLONA ATAO FANADIHADIANA MIHITSY NO MILAZA HOE « TSY HAIKO » NA MANDA TSY HAMALY FANONTANIANA, ARAKA NY ZAVAMISY.

FARITRA: TOERANA: 1. MaMaBaie8 2. Menabe

STRATE: 1. Marine 2. Terrestre DISTRIKA: KAOMININA: ZD: FOKONTANY:

TOERANA FANOMBOHAN’NY FANADIHADIANA:

DATY SY ORA FANOMBOHAN’NY FANADIHADIANA:

LAHARAN’NY FANADIHADIANA:

ANARAN’NY MPANADIHADY:

8 This spelling of MaMaBaie is the equivalent of Mamabaie in the English version of the survey and MaMaBay in the main body of the report.

USAID 98

8.2.2. TENY FAMPIDIRANA SY FANEKEN’ILAY TOKANTRANO HANAOVANA NY FANADIHADIANA Miarahaba tompoko! ______ny anarako. Avy @ CAETIC Développement aho. Manatanteraka izao fanadihadiana eo anivon’ny tokantrano izao izahay ho an’ny Environmental Incentives, ary miara-miasa @ USAID @ fanatanterahana izany. Mandalo ety @ vohitra misy anareo eto [ANARAN’I TANANA] izahay ankehitriny manatanteraka fanadihadiana ahafahana mahalala bebe kokoa momba ny lafiny ara-pivelomana sy ny asa aman-draharaha anareo ety, ary koa ny resaka manodidina ny fanajariana ny tany sy ny fiarovana ny tontolo iainana. Anisan’ny voafidy tao anatin’ireo tokantrano maro ety @ Kaominina sy Faritra misy anareo ety ny tokantranonao hanatanterahina izany fanadihadiana izany. Ny valinteny omenao dia hanampy betsaka ny USAID hahafantatra momba ny fiantraikan’ireo tetik’asa izay tontosainy ety an-toerana ary koa eo @ fikajiana ny tontolo iainana. Mijanona ho tsiambaratelo tanteraka ny valin’ity fanadihadiana ity araka ny lalàna mifehy ny fanatanterahana fanadihadiana sy ny antontan’isa eto Madagasikara. Noho izany dia ireo olona mpikaroka ihany no hikirakira ny valin’izao fanadihadiana izao afahana mamoaka ny valin’ny fanadihadiana sy hahafantarana ny zavamisy ety @ faritra misy anareo. Fa ny valinteny isan-tokantrano kosa dia mijanona ho tsiambaratelo hatrany. Marihina fa efa nandalo teo @ lehiben’ny Fokontany izahay nampahafantatra azy ny fanatanterahana izao fanadihadiana izao. Maharitra ora iray eo ho eo ity fanadihadiana ity. Ka afaka manomboka ny fanadihadiana ve isika? Raha manana fanontaniana ianao dia afaka miantso ny CAETIC Développement @ laharana 034.80.616.62 na 032.11.825.04. CONSENT: 1. Eny 2. Tsia (TAPITRA NY FANADIHADIANA) Misaotra anao manaiky handray anjara @ izao fanadihadiana izao. Hanombohantsika azy dia misy fanontaniana vitsivitsy momba anao sy ny tokantranonao.

8.2.3. FANONTANIANA MIKASIKA NY OLONA MAMALY NY FANADIHADIANA SY NY LOHAN-TOKANTRANO

8.2.3.1. MIKASIKA NY OLONA MAMALY NY FANADIHADIANA

GENDER: (MARIHIN’NY MPANADIHADY HOE VAVY SA LAHY ILAY OLONA ANONTANIANA) 1. Lahy 2. Vavy

HEAD: (ADIHADIANA HOE LOHAN-TOKANTRANO VE ILAY OLONA ANONTANIANA) Lohan-tokantrano? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

HHLDSIZE: Firy ny isan’ny olona ato @ tokantranonao (ankoatry ny mpamangy)? _____

99 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

AGE: Firy taona ianao izao? (EN ANNEES REVOLUES)

READ: Afaka mamaky teny ve ianao? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

WRITE: Afaka manoratra ve ianao? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

EDUCATION: Ambaratongam-pianarana inona no narahinao farany? 1. Tsy nandeha tany an-tsekoly 2. Ambaratonga fototra 3. Ambaratonga faharoa 1er cycle (CEG) 4. Ambaratonga faharoa 2nd cycle (Lycée) 5. Ambaratonga ambony 6. Tsy fantatra

MARITAL: Inona ny satam-panambadianao? 1. Mpitovo 2. Manambady 3. Nisara-bady 4. Maty vady

MIGRATE: Firy taona izay no nipetrahanao teto @ ity Fokontany ity? _ _Taona (1 ka hatramin’ny 99) 100. Teto foana 101. Latsaky ny heritaona

ANONTANIANA RAHA MIGRATE<>100 (IZANY HOE TSY TERAKA TEO ILAY MPAMALY) MIGLIVE: Taiza ianao no nipetraka talohan’ny nahatongavana teto? [AMPIDIRIANA FARITANY/REGION/DISTRIKA] ______

MIGSTAY: Hafiriana no heverinao hipetrahana eto? _ _Taona (1 ka hatramin’ny 99) _ _Volana (1 ka hatramin’ny 11) 100. Eto foana

MIGETHNIC: Inona ny foko misy anao? 1. Antaifasy 2. Antaisaka 3. Antakarana 4. Antambahoaka 5. Antemoro 6. Antandroy 7. Antanosy 8. Bara 9. Betsileo 10. Betsimisaraka 11. Bezanozano 12. Mahafaly

USAID 100

13. Merina 14. Sakalava 15. Sihanaka 16. Tanala 17. Tsimihety 18. Vezo 19. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA MIGETHNIC = 19 MIGSTAYOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’______

PROGRAMMER: ANONTANIANA NY MOMBA NY LOHAN-TOKANTRANO RAHA HEAD = 2

8.2.3.2. MIKASIKA NY LOHAN-TOKANTRANO

GENDER_HHD: Lahy ve sa vavy ny lohan-tokantrano? 1. Lahy 2. Vavy

AGE_HHD: Firy taona izy izao? (EN ANNEES REVOLUES)

READ_HHD: Afaka mamaky teny ve izy? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

WRITE_HHD: Afaka manoratra ve izy? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

EDUCATION_HHD: Ambaratongam-pianarana inona no narahiny farany? 1. Tsy nandeha tany an-tsekoly 2. Ambaratonga fototra 3. Ambaratonga faharoa 1er cycle (CEG) 4. Ambaratonga faharoa 2nd cycle (Lycée) 5. Ambaratonga ambony 6. Tsy fantatra

MARITAL_HHD: Inona ny satam-panambadiany? 1. Mpitovo 2. Manambady 3. Nisara-bady 4. Maty vady

MIGRATE_HHD: Firy taona izay no nipetrahany teto @ ity Fokontany ity? _ _Taona (1 ka hatramin’ny 99) 100. Teto foana 101. Latsaky ny heritaona

ANONTANIANA RAHA MIGRATE<>100 (IZANY HOE TSY TERAKA TEO ILAY LOHAN-TOKANTRANO) MIGLIVE_HHD: Taiza izy no nipetraka talohan’ny nahatongavana teto? [AMPIDIRIANA FARITANY/REGION/DISTRIKA] ______

101 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

MIGSTAY_HHD: Hafiriana no heveriny hipetrahana eto? _ _Taona (1 ka hatramin’ny 99) _ _Volana (1 ka hatramin’ny 11) 100. Eto foana

MIGETHNIC_HHD: Inona ny foko misy azy? 1. Antaifasy 2. Antaisaka 3. Antakarana 4. Antambahoaka 5. Antemoro 6. Antandroy 7. Antanosy 8. Bara 9. Betsileo 10. Betsimisaraka 11. Bezanozano 12. Mahafaly 13. Merina 14. Sakalava 15. Sihanaka 16. Tanala 17. Tsimihety 18. Vezo 19. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA MIGETHNIC = 19 MIGSTAYOTH_HHD: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’______

8.2.4. MOMBAMOMBA ILAY TOKANTRANO

8.2.4.1. MIKASIKA NY TRANO FONENANA

ROOFDWELL: MPANADIHADY: JEREO NY TEOTRY NY TRANO IPETRAHANA – ANONTANIO RAHA MAMPISALASALA 1. Inona ny tafo trano? 2. Hodikazo, ravinkazo, rantsan-kazo 3. Bozaka 4. Hazo fisaka, contre-plaqué 5. Fanitso 6. Tafo tanimanga (taila) 7. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA ROOFDWELL = 6 ROOFDWELLOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’______

MATWALLS: INTERVIEWER: JEREO NY TOETRY NY TRANO IPETRAHANA – ANONTANIO RAHA MAMPISALASALA

USAID 102

Inona ny akora nanamboarana ny rindrina? 1. Hodikazo, ravinkazo, rantsan-kazo 2. Rotso-peta / tovom-peta 3. Hazo fisaka, contre-plaqué 4. Fanitso 5. Béton, fibro-ciment 6. Biriky 7. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA MATWALLS = 7 MATWALLSOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’______

MAINLIT: Inona ny jiro tena fampiasa manazava ao an-tokantrano? 1. Jiro petrôla 2. ADAPS (ampoule + piles) 3. Jiro mandeha @ heri-masoandro (Panneaux solaires) 4. Labozia 5. Electricité 6. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA MAINLIT = 6 MAINLITOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’ ______

MAINCOOK: Inona ny angovo tena fampiasa andrahoana sakafo ao an-tokantrano? 1. Kitay 2. Saribao 3. Gaz 4. Herin’aratra (Electricité) 5. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA MAINCOOK = 5 MAINCOOKOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’ ______

8.2.4.2. TOETRY NY RANO FISOTRO

WATER: Aiza ianareo no maka rano sotroin’ny ato an-tokantrano? 1. Forage/vovo voaaro 2. Loharano voaaro 3. Vovo tsy voaaro 4. Loharano tsy voaaro 5. Ranonorana 6. Rano @ tavoahangy 7. Mpivaro-drano 8. Camion-citerne 9. Eau de surface (rivière, barrage, lac, étang, ruisseau, canal, canal d’irrigation) 10. Borne fontaine publique 11. Robinet an’ny tokantrano manokana 12. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA WATER = 12 WATEROTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

103 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

WATERAVAIL: Tao anatin’ny 12 volana farany, nisy fiovana ve ny fahazoan’ny tokantranonao io rano fisotro io? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA WATERAVAIL = 1 WATERCHANGE: Ahoana no amaritanao izany fiovana izany? 1. Nisy fihatsarany goavana ny fahazoana rano fisotro 2. Nisy fihatsarany kely ny fahazoana rano fisotro 3. Nisy faharatsiana kely ny fahazoana rano fisotro 4. Nisy faharatsiana lehibe ny fahazoana rano fisotro

WATERQUAL1. Tao anatin’ny 12 volana farany, nahatsapa ve ianao fa nisy fioavana ny hatsaran’io rano fisotro io (izany hoe ny lokony, ny tsirony, ny fofony)? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA WATERQUAL = 1 WATERQUAL2: Ahoana no amaritanao izany fiovana teo @ hatsaran’ny rano fisotro izany? 1. Nisy fihatsarany goavana ny toetry ny rano fisotro 2. Nisy fihatsarany kely ny toetry ny rano fisotro 3. Nisy faharatsiana kely ny toetry ny rano fisotro 4. Nisy faharatsiana lehibe ny toetry ny rano fisotro

WATERTIME: Amin’ny ankapobeny, hafiriana ny fotoana fakanareo io rano fisotro io (izany hoe fotoana mandroso sy miverina miaraka @ fiandrasana)? AMPIDIRINA: ___ora ___minitra

8.2.4.3. FITAOVANA SY KOJAKOJA AO AN-TOKANTRANO

BASICNEC: Iza @ ireto fitaovana/kojakoja ao an-tokantrano ireto no heverinao fa tokony hananan’ny tokantrano tsirairay avy ka tena ilaina mba ahafahany miaina araka ny tokony ho izy? (MPANADIHADY: TANISAINA IRETO FITAOVANA MANARAKA IRETO)

Fitaovana ao an- tokantrano 1. Eny / 2. Tsia 1. Farafara sy kidoro 2. Latabatra 3. Seza 4. Lampe/ Lampe sur pied 5. Ventilateur 6. Vilany 7. Finday 8. Radio 9. Chaîne hifi/ampli/subwoofer 10. Lecteur CD/DVD 11. Vata fahita lavitra 12. Antenne parabolique/décodeur 13. Ordinateur 14. Vata fampangatsiahana (réfrigérateur) 15. Masina fanjairana 16. Firavaka/vangovango 17. Groupe/panneaux solaires 18. Bisikileta

USAID 104

19. Moto 20. Camion/camionnette/bâchée /pick-up 21. Sarety 22. Angadin’omby/lacharrue (misy motera na taritin’omby) 23. Ragiragy (herse) 24. Sarcleuse 25. Tracteur na fiara fampiasa @ fambolena 26. Lakana 27. Fintana 28. Harato/Filet ZZ 29. Palangre/palangrotte 30. Nasse casier/Engin à crabe 31. Harpon, fusil pour chasse sous marine

HHHAVE: Iza @ ireto fitaovana/ kojakoja ireto no efa hanananao ato an-tokantrano? (Kojakoja mbola miasa) (MPANADIHADY: TANISAINA IRETO FITAOVANA MANARAKA IRETO)

Fitaovana ao an- tokantrano 1. Eny / 2. Tsia 1. Farafara sy kidoro 2. Latabatra 3. Seza 4. Lampe/lampe sur pied 5. Ventilateur 6. Vilany 7. Finday 8. Radio 9. Chaîne hifi/ampli/subwoofer 10. Lecteur CD/DVD 11. Vata fahita lavitra 12. Antenne parabolique/décodeur 13. Ordinateur 14. Vata fampangatsiahana (réfrigérateur) 15. Masina fanjairana 16. Firavaka/ Vangovango 17. Groupe / Panneaux solaires 18. Bisikileta 19. Moto 20. Camion/camionnette/bâchée/pick-up 21. Sarety 22. Angadin’omby/ Lacharrue (misy motera na taritin’omby) 23. Ragiragy (herse) 24. Sarcleuse 25. Tracteur na fiara fampiasa @ fambolena 26. Lakana 27. Fintana 28. Harato/ Filet ZZ 29. Palangre/ Palangrotte 30. Nasse casier/ Engin à crabe 31. Harpon, fusil pour chasse sous marine

105 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

8.2.4.4. FAHASALAMANA

HEALTHACC. Rehefa misy marary ato an-tokantrano, manana fahazarana mandeha any @ tobim-pahasalamana/ AC ve ianareo? 1. Eny 2. Tsia 3. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA HEALTHACC = 3 HEALTHACCOTH: Afaka hazavainao ve ilay “Hafa“______

8.2.5. LAFINY ARA-PIVELOMANA

USAID 106

8.2.5.1. VOLA AZO AVY @ ROJO-PIHARIANA (CHAÎNES DE VALEUR) POK1: Namboly ve ianareo tao anatin’ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019)? 1. Eny / 2. Tsia • POK2

SELLFOOD: Nandritry ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019), inona avy ireo vokatry ny fambolena nifotoranareo? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) Vokatry ny Namboly Firy taona no Haben’ny Lanjan’ny Venty ) Lanjan’ny Lanjan’ny Lanjan’ny Totalim- bidy fambolena […] ve ianao? efa tany vokatra niakatra ampiasaina vokatra vokatra vokatra ny vokatra (PA01) nambolenao novolena handanjana nohanina nampiasaina namidy namidy (CULTI) an’io voly io? (en ares) (HARV1) ny vokatra ankoatry ny (Ariary) 1. Eny (CONSUM1) sakafo (SELL1) 2 Tsia (YEARSCUL1) (OPSIZE1) (UNIT1) (masomboly, (TOTSELL1) natao fanomezana, …) (QOTH1) RAHA ANY MAMABAI IHANY 1. Lavanila 2. Jirofo 3. Cacao 4. Kafe 5.Dipoivatra RAHA ANY MENABE SY MAMABAI 6. Vary akotry 7. Mangahazo 8. Katsaka 9.Oviala (nambolena) 10.Oviala dia 11.Vomanga/ Bageda/ Bele 12. Voanjo lava 13. Tsaramaso maina 14.Kabaro 15.Tsiasia 16.Lojy/Voanemba 17.Black eyes 18.Lentille USAID 107

19.Ovy 20.Hafa (farito) 21.Hafa (farito) 22.Hafa (farito) 23.Hafa (farito) 24.Hafa (farito)

POK2: Nandritry ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019), nanjono ve ianareo tao anatin’ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019)? 1. Eny / 2. Tsia • POK3

Nandritry ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019), inona avy ireo vokatry ny jono? Vokatry ny jono Manjono Firy taona no Aiza ny Période Lanjan’ny Venty Lanjan’ny Lanjan’ny Lanjan’n Totalim- Firy (PA02) na nanaovanao io toerana (PERIOD) vokatra ampiasaina vokatra vokatra y bidy ny volana manarat asa anjonoana niakatra handanjan nohanina nampiasaina vokatra vokatra ao o […] ve fanjonoana io? (OPSIZE2) 1. isan- (HARV2 a ny (CONSUM2 ankoatry ny namidy namidy anatin’n ianao? (YEARSCUL2 kerinandr ) vokatra ) sakafo (SELL2) (Ariary) y taona (CULT2) ) 1. o (UNIT2) (natao (TOTSELL2 (FREQ) Anaovany 2. isam- fanomezana ) 1. Eny (Lagon) bolana , …) (1 à 12) 2 Tsia 2. 3. isan- (QOTH2) Lohariake taona (Récif) 3. Ambohon y (Large) 4. Mangrove 5. Ranomam y 40. Trondro 41. Aileron de requin 42. Patsa be 43. Orana (Homard) 44. Foza (crabe) 45. Concombr e de mer

USAID 108

(Dingadingana, Zanga) 46. Angisy (calmar) 47. Orita (pieuvre) 48. Tekateka, huître,… 49. Sokatra an- dranomasina 50. Algues 51. Hafa [FARITO] 52. Hafa [FARITO] 53. Hafa [FARITO] 54. Hafa [FARITO]

POK3: Nandritry ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019), niompy ve ianareo? 1. Eny / 2. Tsia • POK4

Nandritry ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019), inona avy ireo biby fiompinareo? Biby fiompy Miompy […] Firy taona no Haben’ny Isany @ izao Venty Isan’ny biby Isan’ny biby Isan’ny biby Totalim- bidy (PA03) ve ianao? nanaovanao io tranom- biby fotoana izao ampiasaina fiompy fiompy fiompy ny biby (CULT3) asa fiompiana io? (en m2) (HARV3) (UNIT3) nohanina nampiasaina namidy fiompy (YEARSCUL3) (OPSIZE3) (CONSUM3) ankoatry ny (SELL3) namidy 1. Eny sakafo (Ariary) 2 Tsia (natao (TOTSELL3) fanomezana, …) (QOTH3) 70. Omby tête (Bovin) 71. Kisoa tête (Porcin) 72. Ondry tête (Ovin) 73. Osy tête (Caprin)

109 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

74. Akoho tête amam-borona (Volailles) 75. Trondro kg ompiana

POK4: Nandritry ny 12 volana farany (Septambra 2018 – Aogositra 2019), inona avy kosa ireo vokatry ny fiompiana? 1. Eny / 2. Tsia • POK5 Vokatry ny Mamokatra Firy taona no Haben’ny Fatra Venty Fatra Fatra Fatra Totalim- bidy fiompiana […] ve ianao? nanaovanao toerana novokarina ampiasaina nohanina nampiasaina namidy ny vokatra (PA04) (CULT4) an’io? fiompiana (HARV4) (CONSUM4) ankoatry ny (SELL4) namidy 1. Eny (YEARSCUL4) (en ares) (UNIT4) sakafo (natao (Ariary) 2 Tsia (OPSIZE) fanomezana, …) (TOTSELL4) (QOTH4) 80. Ronono Litatra velona 81. Atody Isa

82. Tantely Litatra

83. Hafa (Farito)

USAID 110

8.2.5.2. VOLA AZO AVY @ FIZAHAN-TANY (ECOTOURISME)

POK5: Nandritry ny 12 volana farany, nanao ireto asa aman-draharaha mifandraika @ fizahan-tany ireto ve ianao na ny olona ato an-tokantranonao? 1. Eny / 2. Tsia • POK6

[HO AN’NY ASA AMAN-DRAHARAHA MIFANDRAIKA @ ECOTOUR =ENY] Asa aman -draharaha mifandraika @ fizahan- tany Eny/Tsia Vola azo (Ariary) (ECOTOUR) (ECOINC) Manao asan-tànana mba amidy 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------

Mandray mpizahan-tany 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------

Manao guide 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------

Eco-lodge na asa fandraisam-bahiny hafa: -Miasa @ trano fandraisam-bahiny 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------Mpahandro sakafo ho an’ny mpizahan-tany 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------Mpanotra (massages) ho an’ny mpizahan-tany 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------Mpitondra entana 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------Asa fandraisam-bahiny hafa [FARITO] 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------Hafa [FARITO] 1. Eny / 2.Tsia ------

8.2.6. VOLA AZO AVY @ ASA AMAN-DRAHARAHA HAFA POK6: Nandritry ny 12 volana farany, nanao ireto asa aman-draharaha izay tanisaina manaraka ireto ve ianao na ny olona ato an-tokantranonao? 1. Eny / 2. Tsia • CONFCROP Asa aman -draharaha hafa (ankoatry ny fizahan- tany) 1. Eny / 2. Tsia Vola azo (tombom- barotra) (LIVE1) (Ariary) (LIVE1INC) Mareyeur Collecteur Varotra/ Fandraharahana ara-barotra Fitaterana Fitrandrahana harena an-kibon'ny tany Fitrandrahana vato, fasika, … Asa tànana (artisan) Asa raikitra (emploi permanent) Asa an-tselika/ asa antsan’andro/ sarak’antsaha Vola fanampiana avy @ fianakaviana na namana na tetik’asa (transfert monétaire) Hafa (Farito)

USAID 111

8.2.6.1. TEKNIKA FAMBOLENA

CONFCROP: Milaza fambolena telo izay natao itadiavam-bola be indrindra nataonareo? 1. SPECULATION 1 2. SPECULATION 2 3. SPECULATION 3

TECHREG1: Inona avy ireo teknikam-pambolena ampiasainareo mba hahatsara ny vokatra [SPECULATION 1] ? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Mampiasa masomboly nohatsaraina 2. Manisy zezika 3. Voly tsy afangaro (Monoculture) 4. Fanaovana Tavy (Culture itinérante sur défriche-brûlis) 5. Fambolena ampiarahina @ voly hafa (Cultures associées) [HAZAVAO] ______6. Fambolena miaraka @ voly hazo (Agroforesterie) [HAZAVAO] ______7. Fambolena tsy manimba tontolo iainana (Agriculture de conservation) [HAZAVAO] ______8. Eo @ fitaovam-pambolena ampiasaina (Equipements utilisés) [HAZAVAO] ______9. Eo @ fikojakojana ny voly (Entretien) [HAZAVAO] ______10. Eo @ fitehirizana ny vokatra (Technique de conservation de la récolte) [HAZAVAO] ______11. Eo @ sehatry ny fanodinana ny vokatra (Transformation) [HAZAVAO] ______12. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA TECHREG1 = 12 TECHREGOTH1: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’: ______

CROPFIND1: Ahoana avy no nahalalanao ireo teknikam-pambolena ireo? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. t@ alalan’ny fijerena sy fakana tahaka ny ataon’ny hafa 2. t@ alalan’ny fikambanan’ny mpamokatra izay misy ahy 3. t@ alalan’ny fiofanana nentin’ireo fikambanana mihatsehatra @ ny fampandrosoana 4. t@ alalan’ny fiofanana nomen’ireo fikambanana na orin’asa izay mividy ny vokatra 5. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA CROPFINDOTH1 = 5 CROPFINDOTH1: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’______

CROPPROD1: Nanao ahoana ny fivoaran’ny habetsaky ny vokatra niakatra t@ taon-dasa? 1. Nitombo 2. Tsy niova 3. Nihena 4. Misalasala

USAID 112

CROPFACT1: Araka ny hevitrao, inona ny antony nahatonga an’izany? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Teknika fambolena natao mifandraika @ tokony ho izy 2. Mihena ny tsiron’ny tany 3. Fampiasana diso tafahoatra ny harena voajanahary 4. Tsara ny toetr’andro (orana, hafanana, tsy simban’ny cyclone, sns.) 5. Vokadratsin’ny fiovaovan’ny toetr’andro 6. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA CROPFACTOTH1 = 6 CROPFACTOTH1: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’ ______

ANONTANIANA RAHA CROPPROD1 = 3 na 4 ADOPTPROD1: Inona izany ny teknika hafa nataonao ho fanatsarana io vokatra io? [OPEN-ENDED]

8.2.6.2. FIAHIANA ARA-TSAKAFO

MEAT: Misy olona ato an-tokantrano ve mihaza? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA MEAT = 1 BUSH: Inona avy ireo karazana biby na vorona hazainareo atao sakafo indrindra indrindra? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Ganagana dia 2. Akanga 3. Trandraka /Sokona 4. Lambo 5. Maky /Gidro /Varika (Lémurien) 6. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA BUSH = 6 OTHBUSH: Inona ilay haza “Hafa” ______

SEAFOOD: Misy olona ato an-tokantrano ve manjono na manarato? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA SEAFOOD = 1 SEAMAIN: Inona avy ireo hazandrano jonoina na aratoinareo atao sakafo indrindra indrindra? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Trondro 2. Patsa be (crevette) 3. Orana (Homard) 4. Foza /Foza be (crabe) 5. Angisy (calmar) 6. Orita (pieuvre)

113 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

7. Tekateka, huître,… 8. Sokatra an-dranomasina 9. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA SEAMAIN = 9 OTHSEAMAIN: Inona ireo hazandrano “Hafa” ireo: ______

FOODCROPS: Inona avy ireo kazana fambolena nataonareo atao sakafo indrindra indrindra? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Vary 2. Mangahazo 3. Katsaka 4. Oviala 5. Vomanga/bageda/bele 6. Akondro/akondro lahy (plantains) 7. Ambarivatry/antsotry/ambatry (Pois d’Angole) 8. Ovy 9. Kabaro 10. Voanjobory (Pois du Bambara) 11. Tsaramaso 12. Tsiasisa 13. Lojy/Voanemba 14. Lentille 15. Voanjo lava 16. Anana 17. Tsy misy•MANKANESA ANY @ NOFOODMONTH 18. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA FOODCROPS = 18 OTHFOODCROPS: Inona ireo fambolena “Hafa” ireo: ______

ENOUGHFOOD: Ampy nohaninareo mandavan-taona ve ny vokatra niakatra t@ taon- dasa? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA ENOUGHFOOD = 2 NOFOODMONTH: Volana inona avy ianareo no nitrangana tsy fahampiana ara-tsakafo tao anatin’ny taona? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 14. Janoary 19. Jona 23. Oktobra 15. Febroary 20. Jolay 24. Novambra 16. Martsa 21. Aogositra 25. Desambra 17. Aprily 22. Septambra 26. Mandritry ny taona 18. May • 27. Tsy misy. ••MANKANESA ANY @ PROORG

ANONTANIANA RAHA ENOUGHFOOD = 2 HOWSECURE: Inona avy no nataonareo t@ ireo volana ireo nihatrehana izany tsy fahampiana ara-tsakafo izany? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny)

USAID 114

1. Nihaza 2. Nioty zavamaniry fihinana tany an’ala 3. Nihaza biby kely fihinana toy ny valala, voatandroka, voangory, zanadandy, … 4. Nanjono/ nanarato 5. Nividy sakafo 6. Nisambotra sakafo 7. Nanao asa tanamaro atakalo sakafo (VCT) 8. Niantehitra t@ fanampiana ara-tsakafo avy @ fianakaviana 9. Nahazo fanampiana ara-tsakafo maimaimpoana avy @ fanjakana na ONG na ireo tetik’asa samihafa 10. Nahena ny fatran’ny sakafo andrahona 11. Nahena ny sakafo hohanin’ny olon-dehibe 12. Nahena ny isan’ny fotoana fisakafoanana isan’andro 13. Nifindra monina mandritry ny fotoana voafetra mba hitady asa na vola 14. Naka tao @ vokatra notehirizina t@ sompitra iombonana teto an-tanàna 15. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA HOWSECURE = 15 OTHSECURE: Farito ilay “Hafa”: ______

ANONTANIANA RAHA HOWSECURE = 5 HOWBUY: Inona avy ny nataonareo ahazoana vola nahafahana nividy ireo sakafo ireo? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Nihaza 2. Nanjono/ Nanarato 3. Nikapa sy nivarotra kitay 4. Nikapa hazo hanaovana saribao 5. Nikapa hazo hanaovana hazo momba ny tao an-trano na asa vaventy (hazo fisaka, madrier, bois rond, bois carré,…) 6. Nikapa hazo hampiasaina @ zavatra hafa ankoatra ireo efa voalaza eo ambony ireo (lakana, fanaka, …) 7. Nivarotra fananana tao an-tokantrano (biby fiompy,…) 8. Nioty vokatra nalaina tany an’ala toy ny tantely, olatra, zana-dandy, voatandroka, valala, voankazo an’ala, sns. 9. Nivarotra voly fanondrana (lavanila, jirofo, kafe, dipoavatra,…) 10. Nivarotra vokatra toy ny tsaramaso, voanjo lava, … 11. Naka vola mialoha t@ ireo mpanangom-bokatra 12. Nanao asa an-tselika / asa sarak’antsaha / asa antsan’andro 13. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA HOWBUY = 13 OTHHOWBUY: Inona ilay loharanom-bola “Hafa” nividianana sakafo: ______

8.2.6.3. ASA ANATY FIKAMBANAN’NY MPAMOKATRA (ASSOCIATION DE PRODUCTEURS)

115 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PROORG: Ianao na misy olona ato an-tokantranonao ve mpikambana anatin’ireny fikambanan’ny mpamokatra na mpanjono ireny? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA PROORG = 1 ORGNAME: Inona no anaran’ilay fikambanana?

ANONTANIANA RAHA PROORG = 1 PROFUNC: Isaky ny inona no mivory ny mpikambana? 1. Isan-kerinan’andro, isam-bolana, isan-telovolana 2. Isaky ny enim-bolana, isan-taona 3. Mivory tsindraindray (tsy voafaritra ny fotoam-pivoriana) 4. Tsy misy fivoriana mihitsy

ANONTANIANA RAHA PROORG = 1 PROCHAL: Inona avy ireo karazana olana nosedrainareo tao anatin’izany fikambanana izany? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny)? 1. Tsy fisian’ny tsena azo antoka ivarotana ireo vokatra 2. Tsy fisian’ny fanohanana avy @ ireo mpitondra ety an-toerana 3. Tsy fahampian’ny fahalalana sy fahaiza-manao eo @ sehatry ny fitrandrahana, fanodinana, famarotana, sns. 4. Tsy fahampian’ny lafiny ara-bola mba hanitarana ny fandraharahana 5. Tsy fahazotoan’ny mpikambana 6. Tsy fisian’ny fangaraharana sy ny fandraisana andraikitra 7. Tsy fahalalana ny zavamisy mahakasika ny tsena sy ny vidin-javatra 8. Fiparitahan’ny toerana misy ireo vokatra 9. Faharatsian’ny fotodrafitr’asa ivezivezena 10. Tsy fisian’ny tambazotran-tserasera sy fifandraisana mba ahafahana mahalala sy manome fahafaham-po ny tinady 11. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA PROCHAL = 11 OTHPROCHAL: Inona ireo olana “Hafa” ______

8.2.6.4. FANANANA ARA-BOLA

INCOME: Nandritry ny 5 taona farany, nanao ahoana ny fivoaran’ny vola niditra tao an- tokantranonao? 1. Nitombo 2. Tsy niova 3. Nihena

INCSOURCE: Nandritry ny 5 taona farany, nanao ahoana ny fivoaran’ny isan’ny loharanom-bola tao an-tokantrano? 1. Nitombo 2. Tsy niova 3. Nihena

USAID 116

LOAN: Efa nindram-bola t@ mpamatsy vola madinika/ banky na mpampindram-bola hafa ve ianao? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA LOAN = 1 LOANTYPE: Taiza avy ianareo no efa nihindram-bola? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Banky 2. Mpampindram-bola madinika ara-dalàna 3. Nitrosa entana t@ mpivarotra / Koperativa/ olon-kafa 4. Nahazo vola mialoha t@ mpanangom-bokatra (toy ny RAMEX) 5. Mpampindram-bola madinika tsy ara-dàlana (Groupes d’épargne informels) 6. Mpampanjana-bola eo an-toerana (usurier) 7. Fianakaviana/ Namana 8. Fikambanana ara-pivavahana /Fikambanana eto an-toerana 9. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA LOANTYPE = 9 LOANOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’: ______

ANONTANIANA RAHA LOAN = 1 LOANAMT: Ohatrinona izao ny vola nindraminao farany? ______Ariary

ANONTANIANA RAHA LOAN = 1 FINCOM: Mora ve sa sarotra ho anao ny namerina io vola nindramina io? 1. Tena mora 2. Mora 3. Sarotra 4. Tena sarotra 5. Tsy mahakasika ahy

ANONTANIANA RAHA LOAN = 2 FINCOM2: Inona no tena sakana nahatonga ny tokantranonao tsy nihindram-bola? 1. Sarotra ny mamerina azy ara-potoana 2. Sarotra ny mameno ireo fepetra takiana @ fihindramam-bola (antotan-taratasy, antoka,…) 3. Tsy mahafa-po ny fomba famerenana ilay vola (tahan’ny zana-bola, …) 4. Tsy misy antony hindramana vola

ANONTANIANA RAHA LOAN=2 OU LOANTYPE<>(1, 2) WANTLOAN: Mikasa ny hanao fihindramam-bola @ ireny mpampindram-bola madinika ara-dalàna ireny ve ianao? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

VSL: Misy VSLA/ GVEC ve eto @ fokontany misy aminareo? 1. Eny 2. Tsia •MANKANESA ANY @ INVEST

117 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

ANONTANIANA RAHA VSL = 1 VSLMEM: Mpikambana ao @ io VSLA/ GVEC io ve ianao na ny olona ato an- tokantranonao? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA VSLMEM = 2 JOIN: Afaka miditra ho mpikambana @ ireny VSLA/ GVEC ireny ve ianao na ny olona ato an-tokantranonao? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA VSLMEM = 1 INVEST_M: Isaky ny inona ianareo no mandrotasaka vola @ io VSLA/ GVEC io? 1. Isan-kerinandro 2. Isam-bolana 3. Mihoatra ny iray volana

ANONTANIANA RAHA VSLMEM = 1 INVESTAMT: Ohatrinona isaky ny mandrotasaka ny vola tehirizinareo @ io VSLA/ GVEC io, araka io fotoana voalaza io? ______Ariary

ANONTANIANA RAHA VSLMEM = 1 LOANVSLA: Ohatrinona izao ny vola nindraminao farany tao @ io VSLA/ GVEC io? ______Ariary

INVEST: @ ankapobeny, inona avy ireo olana misakana ny tokantranonao tsy hiditra @ seha-pihariana vaovao mba itomboan’ny vola miditra ao an-tokantrano? 1. Tsy fahampian’ny fahalalana/fahaizana 2. Tsy fisian’ny fampahalalana ny zavamisy @ fisian’ny seha-pihariana vaovao 3. Tsy fisian’ny tambazotram-pifandraisana eo @ serasera 4. Tsy fisian’ny renivola 5. Tsy fahafahana mihidram-bola 6. Tsy fisian’ny fampiofanana arak’asa 7. Tsy fisian’ny tsena hivarotana ny vokatra 8. Tsy fandriam-pahalemana 9. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA INVEST = 9 INVESTOTH: Farito ilay olana “Hafa“: ______

8.2.7. FAHATSAPANA IREO FIHETSIKA METY HANIMBA SY IREO VOKATSOA AZO AVY @ TONTOLO IAINANA ECOSYST: Misy zavatra maromaro ireto tanisaiko aminao izay karazana vokatsoa azo avy @ tontolo iainana. Efa nahatsapa ve enao fa ny tontolo iainana (izany hoe ny harena voajanahary, ny ala, ny ranomasina ary ny zavamanan’aina ao aminy, sns) dia manandanja amin’ny…? … fanadiovana ny rano mba ho azo ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia sotroina

USAID 118

… fanomezana rivotra madio ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia … fitazonana ny nofon-tany hamokatra ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia … fiarovana ny tanàna sy ny fananana @ ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia voka-dratsin’ny rivodoza … fanomezana ireo akora fototra ilaina @ ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia fanamboarana … famonin’ ny zavamaniry sy ny voly mba ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia atao sakafo (pollinisation des plantes) … fampihenana sy fifehezana ny fihanaky ny ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia aretina maro isan-karazany … fahazoana ireo akora fototra ilaina @ ￿1Eny / ￿2Tsia fanamboarana fanafody isan-karazany

ECOSLOSS: Tao anatin’ny 12 volana farany, nisy fiantraikany mivantana t@ tokantranonao ve ny fahasimban’ny harena voajanahary manome ireo vokatsoa voalaza teo ireo? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA ECOSLOSS = 1 ECOSIMPACT: Iza @ ireto manaraka ireto no tena mahalaza ny vokatr’izany fahasimbana izany eo @ fiainanan-tokantranonao? 1. Tsy tomombana ny fihariana 2. Tsy fahasalamana 3. Fahaverezan’ny vakoka ara-kolontsaina 4. Tsy filaminana ara-pihetseham-po na ara-tsaina na ara-panahy 5. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA ECOIMPACT = 5 ECOSOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’: ______

THREAT: Araka ny hevitrao, inona avy ireo loza manambana ny tontolo iainana tena manan- danja aty aminareo? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) Marihina etoana fa tsy misy hevitra marina na diso fa tiana ho fantatra ny hevitrao. 1. Fitrandrahana ala tsy ara-dalàna 2. Fanaovana tavy 3. Fihazana tsy ara-dalàna (gidro/maky/varika, sokatra, vorona, trandraka…) 4. Fanondranana tsy ara-dalàna zavamaniry na biby mivelona anaty ala 5. Fampiasana masona harato tsy ara-dalàna 6. Fanjonoana tsy ara-dalàna @ fomba hafa (fanjonoana rehefa mikatona ny fotoam- panjonoana,…) 7. Fiantraikan’ny fiovan’ny toetra’andro (toy ny rivodoza, fiovan’ny fotoam-pambolena, fihenan’ny rano azo ampiasaina, tondra-drano, fiakaran’ny ranomasina) 8. Fanaovana fomba fambolena manimba ny tontolo 9. Fomba hafa manimba ny harena voajanahary

ANONTANIANA RAHA THREAT = 9 THREATOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’: ______

119 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

8.2.8. FITONDRAN-TENA MANOLOANA NY FIAROVANA NY TONTOLO IAINANA

8.2.8.1. FAHALALANA MOMBA NY ASAN’NY CBNRM/LMMA

CBNRM1. Fantatrao ve hoe misy vondron‘olona ifotony mitantana ny ala sy ny harena voajanahary na ny harena an-dranomasina miasa eto aminareo? MPANADIHADY. Vondron’olona toy ny (VOI, COBA) na (LMMA, APGL) raha any an-dranomasina, na koa fifanarahana ara-pitantanana manokana (TGRN, GELOSE, GCF) 1. Eny 2. Tsia •MANKANESA ANY @ KNOWNRM

ANONTANIANA RAHA CBNRM1 = 1 CBNRM2: Inona avy ireo asa aman’andraikitra efa notanterahin’io vondron’olona io? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Fandraisaina fanapahan-kevitra momba ny fitantanana ireo harena voajanahary 2. Fandrindrana ny fahazoana mitrandraka ireo harena voajanahary 3. Fampiharana ny lalàna manan-kery / fahafahana manasazy ny tsy fanarahan-dalàna 4. Fitarihana @ asa fampandrosoana ety an-toerana 5. Fanomezana fahazoan-dàlana mitrandraka ala na manjono 6. Asa fiarovana ny tontolo iainana 7. Fandraisana anjara @ fisafoana sy fanaraha-maso ireo faritra arovana 8. Fanentanana sy serasera 9. Fahazoana loharanom-bola avy @ fiarovana ny tontolo iainana 10. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA CBNRM2 = 10 CBNRM2OTH: Farito ilay “Hafa” ______

8.2.8.2. MOMBA NY COBA/ VOI EO AN-TOERANA

COBA. Ianao ve mpikambana ao @ VOI/ COBA eto an-toerana? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA COBA = 1 COBFUNC: Mbola miasa ve io VOI/ COBA io ankehitriny? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA COBFUNC = 2 WHYSTOP: Inona avy ireo antony nampitsahatra an’io VOI/COBA io tsy niasa intsony? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) Fitantanana (1 à 6); Famokarana (7 à 14) 1. Fitsaharan’ny fanohanana avy @ ONG 2. Tsy fanajan’ny mpikambana ao @ VOI/ COBA ny fitsipi-pifehezana 3. Tsy fahampian’ny fanohanana avy @ ireo mpitondra ety an-toerana 4. Fitantanana tsy mahomby - Tsy fisian’ny fangaraharana sy ny fandraisana andraikitra 5. Tsy fifanarahan-kevitra eo @ fitantanana

USAID 120

6. Kolikoly 7. Tsy fisian’ny fomba famokarana mahomby 8. Tsy fisian’ny tsena azo antoka ivarotana ireo vokatra 9. Tsy fahampian’ny fahalalana sy fahaiza-manao 10. Tsy fahampian’ny lafiny ara-bola mba hanitarana ny fandraharahana 11. Tsy ampy ny fahalalana mahakasika ny tsena sy ny vidin-javatra 12. Fiparitahan’ny toerana misy ireo vokatra 13. Faharatsian’ny fotodrafitr’asa ivezivezena 14. Tsy fisian’ny tambazotran-tserasera sy fifandraisana 15. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA WHYSTOP = 15 WHYSTOPOTH: Farito ilay “Hafa”: ______

ANONTANIANA RAHA COBFUNC = 1 COBAROLE: Sehatra inona no iasan’io COBA/ VOI io: 1. Fiarovana ny tontolo iainana fotsiny ve? 2. Fiarovana ny tontolo iainana miaraka @ asa mikasika ny fambolena, jono, fitrandrahana ala, sns.

ANONTANIANA RAHA COBFUNC = 1 COBCHAL: Inona avy ireo olana efa nosedrainareo tao anatin’io COBA na VOI io? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Tsy fisian’ny tsena azo antoka amarotana ireo vokatra 2. Tsy fahampian’ny fanohanana avy @ ireo mpitondra ety an-toerana 3. Tsy fahampian’ny fahalalana sy fahaiza-manao 4. Tsy fahampian’ny lafiny ara-bola mba hanitarana ny fandraharahana 5. Fitantanana tsy mahomby 6. Tsy ampy ny fahalalana mahakasika ny tsena sy ny vidin-javatra 7. Fiparitahan’ny toerana misy ireo vokatra 8. Faharatsian’ny fotodrafitr’asa ivezivezena 9. Tsy fisian’ny tambazotran-tserasera sy fifandraisana 10. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA COBBCHAL = 10 COBCHALOTH: Farito ilay “Hafa” ______

8.2.8.3. FAHALALANA NY ZO SY ANDRAIKITRY NY CBNRM / LMMA

KNOWNRM: Inona avy ireo heverinao ho tombontsoa tokony ho azo @ fisian’ireny vondron‘olona ifotony ireny? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) MPANADIHADY: Vondron’olona toy ny (VOI, COBA) na (LMMA, APGL) raha any an-dranomasina, na koa fifanarahana ara-pitantanana manokana (TGRN, GELOSE, GCF). 1. Voarindra ny fitrandrahana ireo harena voajanahary 2. Fandraisana anjara @ fitantanana ireo harena voajanahary ety an-toerana 3. Fandraisana anjara an’ireo mponina ety an-toerana @ fanaraha-maso ireo harena voajanahary 4. Fandraisana anjara an’ireo mponina ety an-toerana @ fisafoana 5. Fandraisana anjara @ famahana olana

121 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

6. Fanamafisana ny fampiharana ny lalàna 7. Mihena ireo fandraharahana tsy ara-dalàna 8. Mampiroborobo ny fomba fitantanana tsara ety an-toerana 9. Fahazoana loharanom-bola avy @ fiarovana ny tontolo iainana 10. Afahan’ny taranaka mifandimby misitraka ny harena voajanahary 11. Hafa 12. Tsy fantatro 13. Tsy misy

ANONTANIANA RAHA KNOWNRM = 11 NRMOTH: Farito ilay “Hafa”:______

ANONTANIANA RAHA COBA = 1 SUPPORT: Inona avy ireo anjara biriky nentin’ny tokantranonao ho fanohanana ny asa ataon’ireo vondron‘olona ifotony ireo tety aminareo? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Mandoa latsakemboka @ maha mpikambana 2. Mandoa haba na vola raha haka vokatra ao @ faritra arovana 3. Manaja ny fitsipika sy ny lalàna mifehy an’ilay faritra arovana 4. Manentana ny hafa mba hanaja ny fitsipika sy lalàna mifehy 5. Manatanteraka fambolena hazo 6. Manaja ny vanim-potoana fikatonan’ny jono mba ahafahan’ny trondro manatody su mitombo 7. Miaro ny biby anaty ala 8. Hafa 9. Tsy misy

ANONTANIANA RAHA SUPPORT = 8 SUPPORTOTH: Farito ilay “Hafa”:______

8.2.8.4. FANDRAISANA ANDRAIKITRA EO ANIVON’NY CBNRM/LMMA

Fandraisana andraikitra @ fambolena hazo

TREE: Manana toerana fambolena zanakazo na toerana voavoly hazo toy ny tanin-kininina na hazo fihinam-boa ve ianareo ato an-tokantrano? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Tanin-janakazo (Pépinière) 2. Toerana voavoly hazo 3. Tsia, tsy manana an’ireo voalaza etsy ambony ireo

TREEPLANT: Namboly hazo ve ianao na ny olona ato an-tokantranonao tao anatin’ny 3 taona farany? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA TREEPLANT = 1 WHYPLANT1: Inona avy ireo antony nambolenareo hazo? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Famerenana ny ala (Reboisement/ Réhabilitation)

USAID 122

2. Fahazoana kitay ampiasaina ao an-tokantrano 3. Fahazoana kitay mba amidy 4. Fahazoana hazo hanaovana saribao mba amidy 5. Fahazoana voankazo mba amidy 6. Fahazoana voankazo mba hoanina 7. Fahazoana hazo mba amidy 8. Fahazoana hazo mba ampiasaina ao an-tokantrano (hanamboarana trano, anaovana fanaka,…) 9. Fanatsarana ny nofon-tany / Fiarovana ny nofon-tany tsy ho kaon’ny riaka 10. Fisian’ny alokaloka ho @ fambolena 11. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA WHYPLANT = 11 WHYPLANTOTH1: Farito ilay antony “Hafa”: ______

MANG: Nandray anjara t@ fambolena ala honko (mangroves) ve ianao na ny olona ato an- tokantranonao tao anatin’ny 3 taona farany? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA MANG = 1 WHYPLANT2: Inona avy ireo antony nambolenareo ala honko (mangroves)? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Famerenana ny ala (Reboisement/Réhabilitation) 2. Fahazoana kitay ampiasaina ao an-tokantrano 3. Fahazoana kitay mba amidy 4. Fahazoana hazo hanaovana saribao mba amidy 5. Fahazoana hazo mba amidy 6. Fanatsarana ny nofon-tany / Fiarovana ny nofon-tany tsy ho kaon’ny riaka 7. Fisian’ny toerana fipetrahana sy fanatodizan’ny trondro sy ny foza (ala honko) 8. Fampihenana ny tondra-drano / Fiarovana ny morontsiraka (ala honko) 9. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA WHYPLANT2 = 9 WHYPLANTOTH2: Farito ilay antony “Hafa”: ______

Fanarahana ny lalàna momba ny jono; Tsy fampiasana loatra ireo fomba fanjonoana manimba ny tontolo iainana

ANONTANIANA RAHA SEAFOOD = 1 Ireto fanaontaniana manaraka ireto dia mikasika ny fanjonoana sy fanaratoana hazandrano. Izay olona ato an-tokantrano mahay ny asa fanjonoana no tokony hamaly ireo fanontaniana ireo. FSPEC: Inona avy ireo karazana hazandrano jonoinareo? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Trondro 2. Mollusques (tekateka, huître,…) 3. Céphalopodes (angisy, orita,…) 4. Crustacées (orana, foza, patsa be) 5. Echinodermes (oursins, concombres de mer) 6. Algues 7. Sokatra an-dranomasina

123 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PROGRAMMER: ASK NEXT SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOR EACH OPTION SELECTED IN FSPEC. FMON1: Volana inona avy no manjono na manarato hazandrano ianareo? 14. Janoary 19. Jona 23. Oktobra 15. Febroary 20. Jolay 24. Novembra 16. Martsa 21. Aogositra 25. Desambra 17. Aprily 22. Septambra 26. Mandava 18. May taona

FDATE1: Fantatrao ve ny vanim-potoana fikatonan’ny jono aty aminareo? 1. Eny → Azo lazaina ve io vanim-potoana io? ______(FCLOSEDATE1) 2. Tsia

FTECH1: Inona avy ireo fitaovana entinareo manjono na manarato? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Lakana 2. Filet maillant 3. Jarifa/filet ZZ 4. Haratobe/tarikaky (senne) 5. Filet moustiquaire 6. Palangy/tsopoka (palangrotte) 7. Fintana 8. Nasse casier 9. Engin à crabe 10. Pièges de fond marin 11. Fandrika/barrages (valakira) 12. Voloso na foeno (harpon) 13. Masque 14. Fusil de pêche 15. Hazo (bâton) 16. Mitsipona eny @ loharike (récif) 17. Famamoana trondro

PROGRAMMER: REPEAT FMON, FDATE, FTECH FOR EACH OPTION SELECTED IN FSPEC NETOBS: MPANADIHADY. JEREO ARY MARIHO IREO KARAZANA FITAOVAM- PANJONOANA HITANAO EO AN-TOKONTANY. (Marihina daholo izay hita) 1. Harato, Jarifa (filet maillant) 2. Haratobe/Tarikaky (Senne) 3. Filet moustiquaire 4. Tsy misy an’ireo voalaza ireo

Fambolena sy fiompiana tsy misy fandoroana tanety na fanapahana ala

CLEAR: Nandritry ny 5 taona farany, nanajary tany mba ahafahana manitatra ny tany fambolena sy fiompiana ve ianareo? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA CLEAR = 1

USAID 124

CLEARTYPE: Inona avy ireo karazana toerana noajarianareo mba hambolena? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Ala 2. Tanimboly avela maka aina (en jachère) / savoka 3. Ala honko (mangrove) 4. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA CLEARTYPE = 4 CLRTYPEOTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“ ______

ANONTANIANA RAHA CLEAR = 1 PACLEAR: Aiza ianareo matetika no manajary tany? 1. Faritra arovana – Ala fady 2. Tany tantanin’ny VOI (Transfert de gestion) 3. Tany avela maka aina (en jachère) ivelan’ny faritra arovana/ivelan’ny faritra tantanan’ny VOI 4. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA PACLEAR = 4 PACLEAROTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

CLRMORE: Ao anatin’ny 12 volana ho avy, mikasa ny hanajary tany mba hambolena ve ianareo? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA CLRMORE = 1 WHYCLR: Inona avy ireo antony manosika ny tokantranonao mbola hanajary tany mba hambolena? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Hanitatra ny fambolena mba hanana vokatra amidy 2. Hanitatra ny fambolena mba hanana vokatra atao sakafo 3. Hamboly voly isan-karazany 4. Tsy mamokatra intsony ny tany nambolena taloha 5. Mba hampitomboina ny haben’ny tany ambolena 6. Mba hisorohana ny fakan’ny olon-kafa ny tany 7. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA WHYCLR = 7 WHYCLROTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

ANONTANIANA RAHA CLRMORE = 1 WHERECLRMORE: Aiza avy ianareo no mikasa hanajary tany? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Ala 2. Tanimboly tsy ambolena (en jachère) 3. Ala honko (mangrove) 4. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA WHERECLRMORE = 4 WHERECLRMOREOTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

125 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

ANONTANIANA RAHA CLRMORE = 1 PACLEAR2: Ireo tany kasainao hajariana ireo ve ao anaty faritra arovana sa anisan’ireny tany tantanan’ny VOI ireny? 1. Eny 2. Tsia 3. Tsy fantatro

USEAWARE: Fantatrao ve ireo lamina mikasika ny fananan-tany misy aty aminareo? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA USEAWARE = 1 LANDAWARE: Inona avy ireo kazana lamina mikasika ny fananan-tany fantatrao? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Fanomezana ny tany araka ny lalànan’ny fandovana 2. Fandrindrana ny fanajariana ny tany miaraka @ VOI (tany tantanin’ny VOI) 3. Fandrindrana ny fanajariana ny tany araka ny Drafitra ho fampandrosoana ny Kaominina na Drafitra fanajariana ny tany (Plan d’Occupation Foncière PLOF) 4. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA LANDAWARE = 4 LANDAWAREOTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

RIGHTCLEAR: Manana zo hanajary faritra vaovao eny @ toerana rakotra ala ve ny tokantranonao? 1. Eny 2. Tsia 3. Tsy fantatro 4. Hafa/ Arakaraka

ANONTANIANA RAHA RIGHTCLEAR = 4 RIGHTCLEAROTH: Afaka hazavainao ve azafady ______

PERMICLEAR: Inona avy no ataonao raha te hahazo fahazoan-dalàna hanajary savoka ianao? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Mametraka fangatahana any @ filohan’ny VOI (raha ao anatin’ny transfert de gestion) na @ sefo fokontany (raha ivelan’ny transfert de gestion) 2. Mandefa fangatahana any @ sampandraharaha misahana ny ala eny anivon’ny distrika (cantonnement forestier) 3. Manantona ny sampandraharaha misahana ny ala eny anivon’ny distrika mba hanamarina ny fanajariana hatao 4. Mandoro sy manara-maso ny afo (mise à feu contrôlé) 5. Tsy fantatra 6. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA PERMICLEAR = 6 PERMICLEAROTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

USAID 126

Fahafahana maka harena voajanahary

RESTRICT: Tao anatin’ny 12 volana farany, nanahirana ve ny fandehanana tany an’ala (na ranomasina) mba ahazoana ireo harena voajanahary izay iankinan’ny fiainan-tokantrano toy ny sakafo, zavamaniry fanao fanafody, hazo fanaovana trano na fanaka, kitay, sns.? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA RESTRICT =1 NOACCESS. Inona avy ireo harena voajanahary tany an’ala (na anaty rano) izay nanahirana ny maka azy? Vokatra Nanahirana Inona ilay olana @ fahazoana Ahoana ny lanjan’izany eo @ (PA07_Produit) ny maka azy ireo? fiainanareo? 1. Eny (ACCESSDIFF) (ACCESSLIV) 2. Tsia 1. Lavitra ny toerana fakana 1. Tena manan- danja an’ireo 2. Eo ho eo ihany 2. Tsy misy intsony ireo zavatra 3. Tsy manan- danja loatra ireo 4. Tena tsy manan -danja 3. Tsy azo idirana ilay toerana mihitsy 98. Hafa (Farito) 11. Tantely 12. Olatra 13. Zana-dandy, valala, biby kely samihafa 14. Voankazo an’ala 15. Haza 16. Zava-maniry fanao fanafody 17. Kitay 18. Hazo atao saribao 19. Trondro 20. Hafa [FARITO]

Fomba fizakana tany

LANDHOLD: Firy ny isan’ny tany (tanety, tanimboly, tanimbary,…) anananareo? ______Raha tsy misy → MANKANESA ANY @ LT1

PA: Misy @ izy ireo ve ao anaty faritra arovana na anisan’ny faritra tantanan’ny VOI? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Eny ao anaty faritra arovana 2. Eny anisan’ny faritra tantanan’ny VOI 3. Tsia

LABEL: Hanontany anao momba ireo tany tsirairay avy ireo aho, atomboka @ izay akaiky indrindra dia miha manalavitra.

127 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

ARES1: Firy ares ny haben’io tany io? ______

OWNERSHIP1: Inona ny taratasy manamarina ny fanananao io tany io? Izy io ve… (TANISAINA IRETO MANARAKA IRETO) 1. Tanim-panjakana 2. Tany misy boky titra na kadasitra 3. Tany misy karatany 4. Tany misy taratasy vita teny @ Kaominina na Délégué 5. Tany misy taratasy ankoatra ireo voalaza eo ambony ireo 6. Tany tsy misy taratasy 7. Tsy fantatra

PROGRAMMER: REPEAT QUESTIONS IN HECTARES, OWNERSHIP FOR EACH PLOT.

TITLE: Ahoana ny lanjan’izany manana tany misy boky titra/ kadasitra na karatany izany aminao? 1. Tena manan-danja 2. Eo ho eo ihany 3. Tsy manan-danja loatra 4. Tsy manan-danja mihitsy 5. Tsy fantatra

ANONTANIANA RAHA OWNERSHIP1<> 2 or 3 DOCCHAL: Amin’ireo tany izay tsy hanananao taratasy ara-dalàna (titra, kadasitra, karatany), inona avy ireo sakana tsy ahazoanao izany taratasy izany? (Marihina daholo izay mifandraika @ valinteny) 1. Lavitra be ny biraon’ny fananan-tany 2. Tsy hananako ireo taratasy ilaina 3. Tsy fantatro ireo dingana arahina @ fanatanterahina izany 4. Ela loatra ny fe-potoana fikarakarana ny taratasin-tany 5. Lafo loatra ny vola ilaina entina manao izany 6. Tsy fantatr’ireo mpiasan’ny fananan-tany ny fomba hikarakarana ny taratasin’ny taniko 7. Tsy manan-danja amiko ny fananana ireo taratasin-tany ara-dalàna ireo 8. Hafa 9. Tsy voakasika

ANONTANIANA RAHA DOCCHAL = 8 DOCCHALOTH: Farito ilay ‘’Hafa’’: ______

Fomba fijery mikasika ny fizakan-tany

LT1: Ato anatin’ny 5 taona ho avy, mieritreritra ve ianao fa mety hisy olon-kafa hikasa haka tsy am-pierana ireo taninao na tany ampiasainao ireo? 1. Eny 2. Tsia 3. Tsy fantatro 4. Tsy voakasika

USAID 128

ANONTANIANA RAHA LT1 = 1 LT2: Araka ny hevitrao, mety hitranga ve izany ao anatin’ny 5 taona ho avy? 1. Tsy hitranga mihitsy izany (impossible) 2. Mety hitranga fa tsy azo inoana loatra 3. Mety hitranga 4. Tena hitranga / mitranga mihitsy ary izany @ izao fotoana izao 5. Tsy fantatro

ANONTANIANA RAHA LT2 = 2 or 3 LT3: Iza no eritreretinao mety haka ireo taninao? 1. Fanjakana 2. Mpampiasa vola vahiny 3. Mpampiasa vola Malagasy (ivelan’ny tananà) 4. Olona eto an-tananà 5. Tompon-tany tsy eto an-toerana / Olona mitaky ny tany 6. Fianakaviana lavitra 7. Vahiny tonga hipetraka ety 8. Hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA LT3 = 8 OTHLT3: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

ANONTANIANA RAHA LT2 = 2 or 3 LT4: Iza @ ireto antony manaraka ireto no eritreretinao fa mety hahatonga an’izany? (Alaharo 1 ka h@ 4, ka ny 1 no antony lehibe indrindra ary ny 4 no kely indrindra) 1. Adi-tany na fanalana @ tany (nisy taloha na @ izao fotoana) 2. Tsy ampy ny antotan-taratasy momba ilay tany 3. Tapitra ny fe-potoana nifanarahana @ fampiasana ilay tany (ohatra fe-potoana fanofana) 4. Efa olana mianjady @ hafa eto an-tanàna ny fakana tany Ampidiro ny laharana: ______

ANONTANIANA RAHA LT1=1 ARY LT2 = (1, 2, 3) LT5: Raha oharina t@ taon-dasa, mitombo ve sa mihena sa tsy miova ny fahafahan’ny olona haka ny taninao? 1. Mitombo 2. Mihena 3. Tsy miova 4. Tsy fantatro

PLTCEN: Efa nandray anjara t@ asa fanamarinana sy firaketana an-tsoratra ny faritry ny taninao ve ianao? 3. Eny 4. Tsia

Fampiharana ny lalana: fahavononana hilaza ireo fandikan-dalana mikasika ny tontolo iainana (laharana maitso)

ANONTANIANA RAHA CBNRM1 = 1

129 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

SURV: Mandray anjara@ ireny vondron’olona manaramaso sy mitatitra ireo fomba fanaon’ny olona ka manimba ny tontolo iainana ireny ve ianao (toy ny fiasafoana atao ho fanarahamaso ny doro ala na doro tanety)? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

HOT1: Fantatrao ve fa misy laharana maitso tsiambaratelo, azo iantsoana mivantana sady tsy andoavam-bola, ahafahanao mitatitra ny tsy fanarahan-dalàna mikasika ny fitrandrahana harena voajanahary? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA HOT1 = 1 HOT2: Efa nampiasa io laharana maitso io ve ianao na ny olona ato an-tokantranonao mba hitanterana tranga tsy fanarahan-dalàna momba ny harena voajanahary? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

HOT 3: Raha toa ka mahita na vavolombelona @ fisiana tsy fanarahan-dalàna momba ny harena voajanahary ianao, holazainao @ ilay laharana maitso ve izany? 1. Eny 2. Tsia

ANONTANIANA RAHA HOT3 = 2 HOT4: Fa nahoana? (MPANADIHADY: TSY VAKIANA, MARIHINA DAHOLO IZAY MIFANDRAIKA @ VALINTENY) 1. Tsy fantatro ny lalàna mifehy ny harena voajanahary 2. Tsy haiko ny fomba hitaterana ny zavamisy 3. Tsy andraikitro izany 4. Matahotra ny vokany aho raha fantatry ny olona fa izaho no nitatitra ilay tranga misy 5. Tsy heveriko ho “heloka bevava” ny tsy fanarahan-dalàna na fitsipka mifehy ny harena voajanahary 6. Tsy te hampiditra olona @ fahasahiranana aho 7. Tsy mahatoky ny manam-pahefana aho hoe hanisy tohiny @ tatitra izay nataoko 8. Antony hafa

ANONTANIANA RAHA HOT4 = 8 HOT4OTH: Farito ilay “Hafa“______

END. Misaotra anao namaly ny fanontaniana.

USAID 130

8.3. ANNEX 3: RESULTS SUMMARIES BY VARIABLE

GENDER_RES: INTERVIEWER: SELECT RESPONDENT GENDER Gender Total MamaBay Menabe

Male 56.22 56.95 54.55

Female 43.78 43.05 45.45

HEAD_RES: Are you the head of the household? Head Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 69.24 67.82 72.49

No 30.76 32.18 27.51

READ_RES: Can you read some text? Read Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 73.37 80.01 58.28

No 26.63 19.99 41.72

WRITE_RES: Can you write a letter? Write Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 72.69 79.31 57.65

No 27.31 20.69 42.35

EDUCATION_RES: What is the highest level of education you completed? Education Total MamaBay Menabe

None 25.09 18.49 40.10

Primary 44.60 50.81 30.48

Secondaryfirstcycle 21.38 22.96 17.78

Secondarysecondcycle 7.18 6.13 9.57

131 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Higher 1.75 1.61 2.07

MARITAL_RES: What is your current marital status? Marital Total MamaBay Menabe

Single 1.93 2.35 0.96

Married 83.93 85.97 79.29

Divorced/separated 9.90 7.93 14.36

Widow(er) 4.25 3.75 5.39

MIGRATE_RES: How long have you lived in this community? Migrate Total MamaBay Menabe

__Years(Range1-99) 27.50 23.16 37.36

Sincebirth 71.52 75.83 61.71

Lessthanoneyear 0.99 1.01 0.94

MIGETHNIC_RES. What is your ethnicity? migethnic Total MamaBay Menabe

Antaifasy 0.12 0.41

Antaisaka 2.87 0.67 7.87

Antemoro 1.63 1.51 1.89

Antandroy 3.88 12.69

Antanosy 0.99 0.34 2.47

Bara 0.58 1.89

Betsileo 3.73 0.31 11.50

USAID 132

Betsimisaraka 48.01 69.05 0.15

MaOtherly 1.36 4.47

Merina 1.92 0.35 5.50

Sakalava 12.63 0.31 40.64

Sihanaka 0.48 0.69

Tanala 0.41 1.35

Tsimihety 18.62 26.76 0.12

Vezo 2.05 6.70

Other 0.72 2.36

GENDER_HHD: What is the gender of the head of household? gender_hhd Total MamaBay Menabe

Male 86.97 89.14 82.05

Female 13.03 10.86 17.95

READ_HHD: Can he/she read some text? read_hhd Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 80.35 85.60 66.39

No 19.65 14.40 33.61

WRITE_HHD: Can he/she write a letter? write_hhd Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 80.19 85.60 65.80

No 19.81 14.40 34.20

133 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

EDUCATION_HHD: What is the highest level of education he/she completed? education_hhd Total MamaBay Menabe

None 18.69 13.74 31.88

Primary 41.74 45.47 31.82

Secondaryfirstcycle 27.72 31.55 17.52

Secondarysecondcycle 7.49 5.35 13.18

Higher 3.95 3.89 4.13

Don'tknow 0.40 1.47

MARITAL_HHD: What is his current marital status? marital_hhd Total MamaBay Menabe

Married 100.00 100.00 100.00

MIGRATE_HHD: How long has he/she lived in this community? migrate_hhd Total MamaBay Menabe

__Years(Range1-99) 12.91 8.98 23.38

Sincebirth 86.24 90.49 74.92

Lessthanoneyear 0.85 0.53 1.71

ROOFDWELL: INTERVIEWER: OBSERVE THE STRUCTURE OF THE DWELLING – ASK ONLY IF UNCERTAIN ROOFDWELL Total MamaBay Menabe

Thatch/Palm/Leaves 28.16 25.72 33.71

MotteGrass 13.47 5.11 32.47

WoodenBoards 2.02 2.91 .

Sheet 56.15 66.07 33.57

USAID 134

Tile 0.08 . 0.25

Other 0.12 0.18 .

MATWALLS: INTERVIEWER: OBSERVE THE STRUCTURE OF THE DWELLING – ASK ONLY IF UNCERTAIN MATTWALLS Total MamaBay Menabe

Thatch/palm/leaves 27.83 32.54 17.12

Mud(Torchi) 27.94 14.88 57.62

WoodenBoards 30.30 36.42 16.40

Sheet 6.77 9.69 0.12

Cement 2.54 1.21 5.55

Brickandmortar 3.87 4.20 3.11

Other 0.77 1.07 0.08

MAINLIT: What is the main source of lighting in your house? MAINLIT Total MamaBay Menabe

Oillamp 11.97 10.63 15.01

ADAPS 17.54 6.84 41.87

Solarpanel 52.79 72.86 7.15

Candle 1.07 1.21 0.76

Electricity 9.10 6.48 15.04

Other 7.53 1.98 20.16

MAINCOOK: What is the main source of cooking energy used by your household? MAINCOOK Total MamaBay Menabe

Firewood 86.99 92.00 75.60

135 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Charcoal 0.19 0.16 0.24

Electricity 12.60 7.51 24.16

Other 0.22 0.32 .

WATER: What is the main source of drinking water for your household? WATER Total MamaBay Menabe

Borehole/Protecteddugwell 16.92 19.14 11.88

ProtectedSpring 1.23 1.64 0.31

Unprotecteddugwell 20.06 13.93 33.99

Unprotectedspring 8.00 8.64 6.54

Rainwater collection

Bottled water

Cartwithsmalltank/drum 0.11 . 0.36

Tanker truck

Surfacewater(river,dam,lake,pond,stream,canal,irrigationchannel) 43.52 53.76 20.25

Publictap/standpost 6.29 2.24 15.51

Pipeddrinkingwatersupplyatthehousehold 3.63 0.64 10.44

Other 0.22 . 0.73

Total improved 28.07 23.66 38.14

Total unimproved 71.91 76.33 61.87

WATERAVAIL: In the past 12 months, have there been any changes in the availability of drinking water for your household? WATERAVAIL Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 30.02 22.59 46.90

No 69.98 77.41 53.10

USAID 136

WATERCHANGE: How would you describe this change? WATERCHANGE Total MamaBay Menabe

Availabilityimprovedgreatly 3.09 1.44 4.89

Availabilityimprovedslightly 16.21 14.47 18.11

Availabilitydecreasedgreatly 72.20 79.33 64.38

WATERQUAL. In the past 12 months, have there been any changes in the quality of the drinking water your household uses? WATERQUAL1 Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 35.97 34.82 38.58

No 64.03 65.18 61.42

WATERQUAL2: How would you describe this change in quality? WATERQUAL2 Total MamaBay Menabe

Qualityimprovedgreatly 3.03 1.08 7.03

Qualityimprovedslightly 19.59 15.92 27.12

Qualitydecreasedgreatly 51.82 54.41 46.50

BASICNEC: Which of these items do you think are basic necessities, things that everyone should be able to have and no one should have to go without?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

BASICNEC1 Bed/Mattress 99.85 100.00 99.51

BASICNEC2 Table 99.08 99.85 97.32

BASICNEC3 Chaise 99.14 100.00 97.18

137 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

BASICNEC4 Lamp/floor lamp 95.50 97.39 91.21

BASICNEC5 Fan 57.46 69.08 31.05

BASICNEC6 Marmite 99.95 99.93 100.00

BASICNEC7 Mobile Phone 99.15 99.21 99.02

BASICNEC8 Radio 99.19 99.72 97.99

BASICNEC9 Hifi or sound system 71.64 86.72 37.37

BASICNEC10 Video recorder / CDDVD Player 76.87 91.55 43.51

BASICNEC11 Television 78.06 92.28 45.73

BASICNEC12 Satellite Dish / Decoder 69.49 84.63 35.08

BASICNEC13 Desktop or Laptop 52.39 64.46 24.95

BASICNEC14 Refrigerator / Freezer Chest 53.48 65.70 25.68

BASICNEC15 Sewing machine 78.76 84.17 66.46

BASICNEC16 Jewelry 80.69 83.94 73.29

BASICNEC17 Generator / Solar panel 91.90 97.35 79.50

BASICNEC18 Bicycle 76.82 77.66 74.91

BASICNEC19 Motorcycle / Motorbike 76.05 87.58 49.83

BASICNEC20 Truck/Van or pickup 55.08 61.44 40.62

BASICNEC21 Cart 66.30 57.75 85.75

BASICNEC22 Plow (engine or animal propelled) 71.53 65.99 84.12

BASICNEC23 Harrow 47.36 51.46 38.04

BASICNEC24 Weeder 64.25 60.58 72.59

BASICNEC25 Tractor / Farm vehicle (e.g. Tiller) 60.68 61.58 58.62

BASICNEC26 Pirogue/Canoe 50.34 52.97 44.36

BASICNEC27 Fishing line 51.56 52.16 50.19

BASICNEC28 Fish net 49.89 50.15 49.29

USAID 138

BASICNEC29 Palangre/ Palangrotte 15.45 15.99 14.23

BASICNEC30 Nasse casier/ Engin à crabe 15.89 15.51 16.76

BASICNEC31 Spear for fishing, rifle for hunting 18.36 20.68 13.09

HHHAVE: Which of these items does your household have? (These would need to be in working condition)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

hhhave1 Bed/Mattress 91.22 96.17 79.97

hhhave2 Table 84.77 88.68 75.89

hhhave3 Chaise 74.22 81.57 57.51

hhhave4 Lamp/floor lamp 69.87 69.65 70.37

hhhave5 Fan 6.20 6.63 5.23

hhhave6 Marmite 99.50 99.28 100.00

hhhave7 Mobile Phone 62.63 64.46 58.46

hhhave8 Radio 53.84 57.49 45.55

hhhave9 Hifi or sound system 24.09 29.44 11.93

hhhave10 Video recorder / CDDVD Player 29.08 34.72 16.27

hhhave11 Television 22.39 25.02 16.42

hhhave12 Satellite Dish / Decoder 11.05 11.73 9.50

hhhave13 Desktop or Laptop 2.79 2.25 4.02

hhhave14 Refrigerator / Freezer Chest 3.75 3.23 4.93

hhhave15 Sewing machine 12.88 14.08 10.13

hhhave16 Jewelry 26.39 25.89 27.54

hhhave17 Generator / Solar panel 58.62 72.60 26.84

hhhave18 Bicycle 13.38 15.09 9.49

hhhave19 Motorcycle / Motorbike 10.04 13.00 3.30

139 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

hhhave20 Truck/Van or pickup 0.59 0.60 0.58

hhhave21 Cart 10.81 3.96 26.38

hhhave22 Plow (engine or animal propelled) 11.57 10.48 14.06

hhhave23 Harrow 0.59 0.48 0.86

hhhave24 Weeder 12.89 12.47 13.84

hhhave25 Tractor / Farm vehicle (e.g. Tiller) 1.33 1.14 1.78

hhhave26 Pirogue/Canoe 9.30 7.78 12.74

hhhave27 Fishing line 13.18 9.57 21.39

hhhave28 Fish net 7.91 7.02 9.94

hhhave29 Palangre/ Palangrotte 0.65 0.38 1.25

hhhave30 Nasse casier/ Engin à crabe 1.93 2.10 1.54

hhhave31 Spear for fishing, rifle for hunting 1.87 1.97 1.62

HEALTHACC. When your family member gets sick, do you have access to healthcare services?

HEALTHACC Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 97.31 96.56 99.02

No 0.91 0.87 0.98

Other 1.78 2.57 .

USAID 140

SELLFOOD: Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), what are the main foods produced by the household? (Select all that apply)

SELLFOOD: Agriculture

Variable Food Region Percentage Number of Size of Quantity Quantity Quantity Unit Price Quantity Total Crop or years of Operation Harvested Consumed for other sold amount of Product of Participation cultivation in Acres use sales in HARV (Kg) CONSUM SELL (CULTI = 1) PUSELL Ariary YEARSCUL OPSIZE QOTH TOTSELL pa01_1 Vanilla Total 37.53 10.95 73.48 24.66 0.44 0.00 179915.00 26.22 4718104.00

pa01_1 MamaBaie 54.04 10.95 73.48 24.66 0.44 0.00 179915.00 26.22 4718104.00 pa01_2 Cloves Total 16.37 17.25 85.87 48.18 0.00 0.00 14933.00 52.35 781778.00

pa01_2 MamaBaie 23.57 17.25 85.87 48.18 0.00 0.00 14933.00 52.35 781778.00 pa01_3 Cacao Total 0.05 16.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

pa01_3 MamaBaie 0.08 16.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 pa01_4 Coffee Total 16.52 17.91 42.28 31.52 12.50 0.53 3205.21 27.69 88741.00

pa01_4 MamaBaie 23.79 17.91 42.28 31.52 12.50 0.53 3205.21 3205.21 88741.00 pa01_6 Rice Total 70.51 18.69 56.14 855.19 675.41 52.82 193.85 646.20 125264.00

pa01_6 MamaBaie 85.72 18.80 45.46 776.85 690.12 41.19 103.91 471.24 48968.00

pa01_6 Menabe 35.92 18.10 114.08 1280.26 595.61 115.91 681.83 790.89 539253.00 pa01_7 Cassava Total 39.06 13.89 35.70 387.95 236.02 10.26 173.89 404.09 70266.00

pa01_7 MamaBaie 39.19 13.03 13.81 208.97 167.35 10.58 128.84 176.43 22731.00

pa01_7 Menabe 38.77 15.88 86.01 799.29 393.84 9.51 277.42 647.07 179509.00 pa01_8 Maize Total 13.48 14.26 70.55 348.83 175.75 12.38 279.91 404.11 113113.00

pa01_8 MamaBaie 4.97 11.38 13.74 37.26 26.26 3.16 442.05 30.51 13485.00

pa01_8 Menabe 32.82 15.25 90.11 456.08 227.21 15.55 224.09 657.80 147407.00 pa01_9 Yams Total 9.26 10.83 10.41 172.08 157.65 6.72 66.47 126.26 8391.96 (farmed)

USAID 141

pa01_9 MamaBaie 13.33 10.83 10.41 172.08 157.65 6.72 66.47 126.26 8391.96 pa01_10 Yams Total 1.48 0.00 0.00 200.29 178.59 0.00 206.55 147.70 30506.00 (wild collected)

pa01_10 MamaBaie 1.02 0.00 0.00 204.07 204.07 0.00 0.00 0.00

pa01_10 Menabe 2.51 0.00 0.00 196.78 154.97 0.00 398.08 147.70 58795.00

SELLFOOD: Agriculture (Continued) Variable Food Region Percentage Number of Size of Quantity Quantity Quantity Unit Price Quantity sold Total amount Crop or of years of Operation Harvested Consumed for other of sales in PUSELL SELL Product Participation cultivation in Acres use Ariary HARV CONSUM (CULTI = 1) YEARSCUL OPSIZE QOTH TOTSELL pa01_11 Sweet Total 13.77 14.52 32.87 330.63 197.87 7.37 214.09 354.95 75990.00 potato pa01_11 MamaBaie 7.15 9.21 2.17 72.06 59.32 0.00 169.02 122.93 20778.00

pa01_11 Menabe 28.82 17.52 50.20 476.57 276.07 11.54 239.53 447.35 107152.00 pa01_12 Peanuts Total 8.77 11.30 140.54 956.05 40.32 121.12 1324.87 877.68 1162815.00

pa01_12 MamaBaie 2.02 8.19 19.37 55.36 19.15 5.63 1139.06 65.26 74339.00

pa01_12 Menabe 24.13 11.89 163.58 1127.35 44.34 143.08 1360.21 1007.07 1369826.00 pa01_13 Dried Total 7.69 13.74 21.12 63.79 21.45 5.92 1548.28 65.32 101138.00 beans

pa01_13 MamaBaie 10.30 14.17 20.74 65.39 22.56 6.26 1586.29 65.40 103751.00

pa01_13 Menabe 1.76 7.90 26.17 42.50 6.75 1.33 1042.56 63.65 66360.00 pa01_14 Cape pea Total 5.74 19.12 80.20 360.90 59.02 46.44 1282.44 386.88 496149.00

pa01_14 Menabe 18.79 19.12 80.20 360.90 59.02 46.44 1282.44 386.88 496149.00 pa01_15 Mung Bean Total 1.32 17.96 153.49 1097.01 4.16 33.47 729.50 1082.55 789717.00

pa01_15 Menabe 4.31 17.96 153.49 1097.01 4.16 33.47 729.50 1082.55 789717.00 pa01_16 Lojy/ Total 5.28 17.76 54.27 309.15 94.96 28.20 695.82 213.40 148492.00 Voanemba pa01_16 MamaBaie 0.47 16.11 1.32 27.51 23.70 1.32 1069.60 7.00 7487.17

pa01_16 Menabe 16.20 17.87 57.76 327.72 99.66 29.97 671.19 235.09 157787.00

USAID 142

pa01_17 Black eyes Total 0.04 25.00 50.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 600.00 600000.00

pa01_17 Menabe 0.12 25.00 50.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 600.00 600000.00 pa01_19 Potatoes Total 0.87 3.68 1.14 93.84 85.58 0.21 134.03 45.95 6159.13

pa01_19 MamaBaie 1.25 3.68 1.14 93.84 85.58 0.21 134.03 45.95 6159.13 pa01_20 Other Total 14.41 10.31 57.17 417.35 193.26 10.62 895.91 153.55 137564.00

pa01_20 MamaBaie 13.81 9.87 61.79 359.81 187.43 14.90 973.80 135.70 132142.00

pa01_20 Menabe 15.77 11.18 47.96 531.88 204.85 2.10 740.85 200.25 148358.00 pa01_21 Other Total 3.74 11.39 39.76 265.21 74.24 5.23 963.19 130.70 125894.00 pa01_21 MamaBaie 2.27 11.60 55.62 5.64 68.84 8.61 1268.75 91.42 115987.00 pa01_21 Menabe 7.07 11.23 28.20 7.33 78.17 2.76 740.60 179.73 133111.00

SELLFOOD: Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), how was the production from fishing? Variable Seafood Region Percentage of Number of Quantity Quantity Quantity Unit Price Quantity sold Total amount Product Participation years of Harvested Consumed for other of sales in SELL fishing use PUSELL Ariary (CULTI = 1) HARV CONSUM YEARSCUL QOTH TOTSELL

pa02_40 Fish Total 13.98 13.05 109.63 7.46 0.29 2851.35 75.92 216463.00

pa02_40 MamaBaie 7.52 9.08 26.31 2.47 0.33 5248.41 28.65 150360.00

pa02_40 Menabe 28.66 15.42 159.33 10.44 0.27 1421.32 180.04 255899.00 pa02_41 Shark fin Total 0.07 7.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 2000.00 80.00 160000.00

pa02_41 Menabe 0.24 7.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 2000.00 80.00 160000.00 pa02_42 Shrimp Total 1.61 11.48 101.60 2.29 0.00 5181.46 101.24 524551.00

pa02_42 Menabe 5.26 11.48 101.60 2.29 0.00 5181.46 101.24 524551.00 pa02_43 Lobster Total 0.64 14.18 13.75 1.19 0.00 7667.50 9.84 75439.00

pa02_43 MamaBaie 0.81 15.11 3.92 1.34 0.00 8205.00 5.43 44541.00

pa02_43 Menabe 0.24 7.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 3500.00 90.00 315000.00 pa02_44 Mud Crab Total 1.27 9.12 25.97 1.30 0.00 3867.93 22.55 87223.00

143 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

pa02_44 MamaBaie 0.34 4.00 2.48 1.43 0.00 5217.18 2.00 10434.00

pa02_44 Menabe 3.37 10.29 31.36 1.26 0.00 3558.56 29.46 104830.00 pa02_45 Sea Total 0.12 11.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 40000.00 4.00 160000.00 cucumber

pa02_45 MamaBaie 0.18 11.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 40000.00 4.00 160000.00 pa02_47 Octopus Total 0.39 15.53 5.55 2.68 0.00 1913.68 9.00 17223.00

pa02_47 MamaBaie 0.56 15.53 5.55 2.68 0.00 1913.68 9.00 17223.00 pa02_48 Bivalve Total 0.12 15.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Molluscs

pa02_48 MamaBaie 0.18 15.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 pa02_51 Other Total 0.20 14.08 60.37 7.52 0.00 5315.88 44.12 234529.00

pa02_51 Menabe 0.66 14.08 60.37 7.52 0.00 5315.88 44.12 234529.00

SELLFOOD: Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), how was the livestock production? Variable Livestock Region Percentage Number of Size of Unit of Qty Actual Quantity Quantity Unit Price Quantity Total of years of Operation harvested numbers Consumed for sold amount of PUSELL Participation practice in m2 other sales in HARVUNIT HARV CONSUM use SELL Ariary (CULTI = 1) YEARSCUL OPSIZE QOTH TOTSELL pa03_70 Cattle Total 31.71 14.58 593.69 Head 7.00 0.15 0.02 279477.00 2.04 569188.00 pa03_70 MamaBaie 32.61 14.30 815.51 Head 5.35 0.10 0.01 285021.00 1.61 457890.00 pa03_70 Menabe 29.66 15.28 39.10 Head 11.12 0.28 0.06 265617.00 3.19 847453.00 pa03_71 Porcine Total 7.68 6.50 14.75 Head 4.31 0.26 0.02 171154.00 6.23 1066741.00 pa03_71 MamaBaie 4.80 5.41 14.61 Head 3.67 0.32 0.02 121074.00 3.75 454202.00 pa03_71 Menabe 14.22 7.35 14.86 Head 4.81 0.21 0.02 209618.00 7.33 1537209.00 pa03_72 Ovine Total 0.43 2.42 9.75 Head 3.32 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 pa03_72 MamaBaie 0.57 2.53 9.73 Head 3.12 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

USAID 144

pa03_72 Menabe 0.10 1.00 10.00 Head 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 pa03_73 Goat Total 3.64 12.50 19.01 Head 14.35 0.93 0.02 33474.00 7.36 246507.00 pa03_73 MamaBaie 0.83 3.59 3.94 Head 5.79 0.61 0.00 21732.00 6.00 130392.00 pa03_73 Menabe 10.02 14.19 21.86 Head 15.97 0.99 0.02 35696.00 7.52 268485.00 pa03_74 Poultry Total 64.31 12.25 60.44 Head 13.03 6.04 0.31 7634.69 11.05 84358.00 pa03_74 MamaBaie 65.54 12.33 82.71 Head 12.81 6.11 0.29 7780.10 10.31 80220.00 pa03_74 Menabe 61.50 12.05 6.47 Head 13.56 5.88 0.35 7282.36 12.96 94385.00 pa03_75 Fish Total 0.67 2.97 174.33 kg 0.00 19.08 0.00 312.50 100.00 31250.00 farming pa03_75 MamaBaie 0.97 2.97 174.33 kg 0.00 19.08 0.00 312.50 100.00 31250.00 pa03_76 Rabbit Total 0.05 1.00 1.00 Head 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 pa03_76 Menabe 0.16 1.00 1.00 Head 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Over the last 12 months (Sept 2018 to Aug 2019), how was the production from breeding?

Variable Production Region Percentage Number of Size of Unit of Qty Quantity Quantity Quantity Unit Price Quantity Total from years of Operation harvested Harvested Consumed for sold amount of of Breeding practice in acres other sales in Participation HARVUNIT HARV CONSUM use SELL Ariary YEARSCUL OPSIZE PUSELL QOTH TOTSELL

pa04_80 Milk Total 1.24 13.11 N/A Liter 388.52 85.98 38.88 1156.12 628.21 726287.00

pa04_80 MamaBaie 0.48 8.21 N/A Liter 331.40 60.07 0.00 1723.31 583.91 1006257.00

pa04_80 Menabe 2.96 14.92 N/A Liter 409.69 95.58 53.29 945.88 658.13 622508.00

pa04_81 Eggs Total 11.10 13.12 N/A Number 132.97 29.30 84.71 185.78 78.88 14655.00

pa04_81 MamaBaie 13.20 13.37 N/A Number 146.58 29.91 102.53 201.45 62.43 12576.00

145 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

pa04_81 Menabe 6.31 11.93 N/A Number 68.25 26.38 0.00 111.28 220.52 24540.00 pa04_82 Honey Total 0.03 10.00 N/A Liter 20.00 2.00 1.00 15000.00 17.00 255000.00 pa04_82 Menabe 0.10 10.00 N/A Liter 20.00 2.00 1.00 15000.00 17.00 255000.00 pa04_83 Other Total 0.13 20.00 N/A 20.00 0.00 5.00 20000.00 15.00 300000.00 pa04_83 MamaBaie 0.19 20.00 N/A 20.00 0.00 5.00 20000.00 15.00 300000.00

Fish: OPSIZE2 _ 40 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_40 Frequency Row Percent Total Lagoon 23 13.9088 Reef 12 9.6222 Au Large 20 13.1925 Mangrove 1 0.6798 Fresh water 100 62.5967 Total 156 100 MaMaBay Lagoon 10 22.2913 Reef 12 25.7512 Au Large 7 17.0221 Mangrove 0 . Fresh water 18 34.9354 Total 47 100 Menabe Lagoon 13 8.908 Reef 0 . Au Large 13 10.9078 Mangrove 1 1.0853 Fresh water 82 79.0989 Total 109 100

USAID 146

Shark fin: OPSIZE2_ 41 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_41 Frequency Row Percent Total Au Large 1 100 Total 1 100 Menabe Au Large 1 100 Total 1 100

Shrimp: OPSIZE2_42 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_42 Frequency Row Percent Total Lagoon 12 44.7373 Reef 1 5.9098 Au Large 6 27.0927 Mangrove 4 18.3602 Fresh water 2 3.8999 Total 25 100 Menabe Lagoon 12 44.7373 Reef 1 5.9098 Au Large 6 27.0927 Mangrove 4 18.3602 Fresh water 2 3.8999 Total 25 100

Lobster: OPSIZE2_43 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_43 Frequency Row Percent Total Reef 2 41.5295 Au Large 1 11.424 Fresh water 4 47.0465 Total 7 100 MaMaBay Reef 2 46.8857 Au Large 0 . Fresh water 4 53.1143 Total 6 100 Menabe Reef 0 . Au Large 1 100

147 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Fresh water 0 . Total 1 100

Mud Crab: OPSIZE2 _ 44 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_44 Frequency Row Percent Total Lagoon 2 8.1813 Reef 1 9.7312 Mangrove 16 73.1664 Fresh water 1 8.921 Total 20 100 MaMaBay Lagoon 0 . Reef 1 52.1718 Mangrove 0 . Fresh water 1 47.8282 Total 2 100 Menabe Lagoon 2 10.0572 Reef 0 . Mangrove 16 89.9428 Fresh water 0 . Total 18 100

Sea cucumber: OPSIZE2_45 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_45 Frequency Row Percent Total Reef 1 100 Total 1 100 MaMaBay Reef 1 100 Total 1 100

Octopus: OPSIZE2 _ 47 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_47 Frequency Row Percent Total Lagoon 1 36.2107 Reef 2 63.7893 Total 3 100 MaMaBay Lagoon 1 36.2107 Reef 2 63.7893

USAID 148

Total 3 100

Bivalve Molluscs: OPSIZE2 _ 48 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_48 Frequency Row Percent Total Lagoon 1 100 Total 1 100 MaMaBay Lagoon 1 100 Total 1 100

Other: OPSIZE2 _ 51 ZD_ZONE OPSIZE2_51 Frequency Row Percent Total Lagoon 2 73.7752 Mangrove 1 26.2248 Total 3 100 Menabe Lagoon 2 73.7752 Mangrove 1 26.2248 Total 3 100

149 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

ECOTOUR: In the last year, did you participate in any of the following eco-tourism activities?

ecotour Total MamaBay Menabe

TravailentantqueGuide 100.00 100.00 100.00

LIVE1. In the past 12 months, has any member of the household worked in any of the following industries?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

live1_1 Fishmonger 5.37 4.43 7.26

live1_2 Collector 6.21 7.94 2.73

live1_3 Commerce/business 36.87 38.49 33.61

live1_4 Transportation 5.43 2.55 11.23

live1_5 Mining 0.45 0.14 1.09

live1_6 Extraction of stones, sands, … 0.90 1.34 .

live1_7 Craft or artisanal 12.68 14.67 8.67 techniques/processing

live1_8 Permanent labour 8.67 8.96 8.08

live1_9 Temporary labour 41.70 38.41 48.33

live1_10 Monetary transfer received 4.67 4.01 6.00

live1_11 Other 1 (Specify) 10.10 6.49 17.38

TECHREG1: What crop management techniques have you adopted to optimize production of [INSERT CROP/ACTIVITY 1]? (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

TECHREG11 Better quality seeds 9.12 9.61 7.64

TECHREG12 Fertilization 5.11 3.46 10.13

150 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

TECHREG13 Monoculture 15.06 7.75 37.27

TECHREG14 Slash and burn 0.11 0.10 0.16

TECHREG15 Companion planting (PLEASE DESCRIBE) 37.81 45.45 14.57 ______

TECHREG16 Agroforestry (PLEASE DESCRIBE) 12.24 16.27 . ______

TECHREG17 Conservation agriculture (PLEASE . . . DESCRIBE) ______

TECHREG18 Equipment used (PLEASE DESCRIBE) 2.54 0.22 9.61 ______

TECHREG19 Maintenance (PLEASE DESCRIBE) 53.12 53.37 52.35 ______

TECHREG110 Harvest conservation techniques (PLEASE 2.26 2.85 0.46 DESCRIBE) ______

TECHREG111 Processing methods (PLEASE DESCRIBE) 0.36 0.12 1.07 ______

TECHREG198 Other 11.00 8.46 18.71

CROPFIND1: How did you find out about this crop management technique? (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

Through observation and imitation of my CROPFIND11 95.62 98.08 88.13 peers

Through a producer organization of which I CROPFIND12 0.57 0.23 1.61 am member

Through training provided by a development CROPFIND13 1.18 1.18 1.18 organization

Through training provided by a private CROPFIND14 company or organization that buys the 0.25 0.10 0.68 harvest

CROPFIND198 Other 4.23 0.87 14.44

CROPPROD1: How has the productivity of [CROP/ACTIVITY 1] changed in the last year?

151 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

CROPPROD1 Total MamaBay Menabe

Increase 14.82 15.45 12.90

Stable 23.67 24.78 20.28

Indecline 45.48 39.13 64.78

Uncertain 16.03 20.63 2.05

CROPFACT1: According to you, what is the cause of this?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

CROPFACT11 Appropriate crop management technique 22.79 28.39 9.00

CROPFACT12 Decreased soil productivity 12.27 10.54 16.54

CROPFACT13 Overexploitation of resources 0.62 0.70 0.44

CROPFACT14 Favorable climate (rainfall, temperature, 15.61 19.12 6.98 less/no cyclone impact, etc.)

CROPFACT15 Negative effect of climate change 59.63 50.90 81.15

CROPFACT198 Other 24.10 27.06 16.80

MEAT: Does anyone in this household hunt for wild meat to eat or sell?

MEAT Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 1.92 1.45 2.99

No 98.08 98.55 97.01

BUSH: What are the main bushmeats collected by the household to eat? (Not for sale) (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

bush1 Duck 2.55 . 5.36

USAID 152

bush2 Guinea fowl 40.33 5.93 78.27

bush3 Tenrec 56.08 60.28 51.46

bush4 Wild boar (fr: sanglier) 11.83 . 24.87

bush5 Lemur 3.11 5.93 .

bush198 Other 29.62 39.72 18.47

SEAFOOD: Does anyone in this household fish for seafood to eat or sell?

SEAFOOD Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 15.05 7.78 31.59

No 84.95 92.22 68.41

SEAMAIN: What are the main seafoods fished by the household to eat? (Not for sale) (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

seamain1 Fish 92.86 96.65 90.74

seamain2 Shrimp 9.81 . 15.31

seamain3 Lobster 4.22 10.42 0.75

seamain4 Crab 8.77 4.37 11.23

seamain5 Squid . . .

seamain6 Octopus 2.57 7.15 .

seamain7 Bivalve molluscs 0.82 2.28 .

seamain8 Sea turtles . . .

seamain98 Other 2.50 2.28 2.62

FOODCROPS: What are the main food crops produced by the household for food to eat? (Not for sale) (Select all that apply)

153 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

foodcrops1 Rice 71.90 86.41 38.90

foodcrops2 Cassava 39.60 40.43 37.72

foodcrops3 Maize 14.14 6.82 30.77

foodcrops4 Yams (cultivated) 8.81 12.68 .

foodcrops5 Sweet potatoes 13.96 6.96 29.86

foodcrops6 Bananas/plantains 8.77 12.62 .

foodcrops7 Pigeon peas . . .

foodcrops8 Irish Potato 1.20 1.73 .

foodcrops9 Cape pea (fr: pois du Cape, mg: kabaro) 2.02 . 6.60

foodcrops10 Pois du Bambara 0.06 . 0.20

foodcrops11 Beans 4.34 6.03 0.50

foodcrops12 Mung beans (Tsiasisa) 0.15 . 0.50

foodcrops13 Lojy/ Voanemba 2.91 0.39 8.62

foodcrops14 Lentil . . .

foodcrops15 Peanuts 1.56 0.80 3.29

foodcrops16 Leafy vegetables 7.66 10.75 0.62

foodcrops17 None 16.19 11.79 26.19

foodcrops98 Other 5.10 5.85 3.39

ENOUGHFOOD: Did you harvest enough food last year to feed your family throughout the year? (September 2018-August 2019)

ENOUGHFOOD Total MamaBay Menabe

Yes 22.14 25.91 11.88

No 77.86 74.09 88.12

USAID 154

NOFOODMONTH: During which month(s) did you run out of food last year (September 2018-August 2019)? (Select all that apply)

ASK IF ENOUGHFOOD=2

HOWSECURE: How did you secure food for your household? (Select all that apply)

Entered values are for “yes.”

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

HOWSECURE1 Hunted bushmeat 0.56 0.14 1.47

HOWSECURE2 Foraged edible wild plants 6.34 0.84 18.43

HOWSECURE3 Collected grubs / insects . . .

HOWSECURE4 Fishing 4.78 2.61 9.55

HOWSECURE5 Purchased food 87.22 88.23 85.02

HOWSECURE6 Borrowed food 6.50 5.12 9.54

HOWSECURE7 Exchanged labor with food . . .

HOWSECURE8 Relied on my relatives to share food 1.99 2.81 0.17

HOWSECURE9 Received free food from government, . . . NGO or other relief program

HOWSECURE10 Consumed less 21.66 21.52 21.97

HOWSECURE11 Consumed less for adults 3.14 2.12 5.37

HOWSECURE12 Skipped meals 2.57 0.96 6.13

HOWSECURE13 Migrated to find job and/or money 0.07 . 0.21

HOWSECURE14 Took from stored food products in 0.16 0.23 . Community-based granary

HOWSECURE98 Other 4.25 4.15 4.48

HOWBUY: How did you get the income to purchase food? (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

155 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

HOWBUY1 Hunting 0.27 . 0.89

HOWBUY2 Fishing 8.31 5.28 15.23

HOWBUY3 Cutting and selling firewood 0.37 . 1.21

HOWBUY4 Cutting wood to make charcoal 1.92 0.30 5.60

HOWBUY5 Cutting wood for construction 0.06 . 0.20

HOWBUY6 Cutting trees for other purposes 0.35 0.51 .

HOWBUY7 Sale of household assets (such as livestock) 17.26 7.48 39.58

HOWBUY8 Harvesting and sale of Non-Timber Forest Products (honey, mushrooms, caterpillars, 0.91 0.39 2.11 other insects (e.g. locusts), wild fruits, bushmeat…)

HOWBUY9 Sale cash crops (vanilla, cloves, coffee, 33.05 47.45 0.20 pepper…)

HOWBUY10 Sale food crops (peanut, beans…) 15.51 8.40 31.75

HOWBUY11 Cash advance from the collectors 1.46 1.91 0.44

HOWBUY12 Employed for temporary work 37.66 36.95 39.28

HOWBUY98 Other 26.12 30.46 16.23

PROORG: Are you a member of a producer organization?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PROORG Yes 11.53 14.34 5.15

PROORG No 88.47 85.66 94.85

PROFUNC: How often do members of this producer organization meet regularly?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PROFUNC Weekly, monthly, quarterly 44.20 44.38 43.04

PROFUNC Semi-annually, annually 29.51 32.19 12.56

USAID 156

PROFUNC Less often (not regularly) 24.47 22.84 34.76

PROFUNC No meeting 1.83 0.59 9.64

PROCHAL: What challenges have you encountered in your producer organization? (Select all that apply)? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PROCHAL1 Lack of reliable markets 17.79 13.80 43.02

PROCHAL2 Weak local leadership support 11.02 8.57 26.46

Lack of knowledge and expertise for PROCHAL3 6.31 4.88 15.38 extraction, processing, marketing, etc.

Weak financial base to scale up PROCHAL4 20.93 19.98 27.01 business

PROCHAL5 Lack of interest from members 15.75 17.26 6.22

Transparency and accountability PROCHAL6 15.22 15.69 12.29 issues

PROCHAL7 Poor market information 4.73 4.74 4.68

PROCHAL8 Spatial distribution and density 0.00 0.00 0.00

PROCHAL9 Poor infrastructure for access 3.64 2.99 7.78

Lack of basic communication network PROCHAL10 (radio, telephone, etc.) to successfully 9.73 9.72 9.80 hear and respond to buyers demands

PROCHAL98 Other 46.87 51.44 18.00

INCOME: Over the past 5 years, has your income increased, decreased or stayed the same over time?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

INCOME Increased 20.41 24.86 10.27

INCOME Stayed the same 34.79 40.98 20.71

INCOME Decreased 44.80 34.15 69.02

157 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

INCSOURCE: Over the past 5 years, has the number of income sources for your household increased, decreased or stayed the same over time?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

INCSOURCE Increased 15.20 19.33 5.82

INCSOURCE Stayed the same 61.09 62.15 58.69

INCSOURCE Decreased 23.71 18.52 35.49

LOAN: Do you currently access loans from any micro-financing institutions/Bank or other source of loans?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

LOAN Yes 14.02 11.44 19.89

LOAN No 85.98 88.56 80.11

LOANTYPE: What type(s) of loan(s) do you have? (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

LOANTYPE1 Commercial bank 6.05 7.32 4.40

LOANTYPE2 Microfinance Institution 29.80 18.76 44.24

Got goods in advance to pay back later from LOANTYPE3 1.22 0.97 1.54 a shop/ Cooperative/ someone else

Get cash advance from RAMEX (or other LOANTYPE4 18.21 30.66 1.93 buyer)

LOANTYPE5 Informal Savings groups 0.00 0.00 0.00

LOANTYPE6 Money lender in community 5.78 8.57 2.14

LOANTYPE7 Family/friends that you had to pay back 37.90 32.26 45.27

LOANTYPE8 Religious/Community based institution 0.21 . 0.49

LOANTYPE98 Other 2.35 4.14 .

USAID 158

FINCOM: Using the following scale, from ‘Very easy to Very difficult’, tell me how easy or difficult is it for you to keep up with financial commitments? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

FINCOM Very Easy 6.71 5.34 8.52

FINCOM Easy 37.30 45.17 27.00

FINCOM Difficult 32.81 30.08 36.39

FINCOM Very difficult 23.17 19.42 28.09

FINCOM2: What is the main obstacle that prevent you from applying for loans?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

FINCOM2 Difficulty to reimburse on time 55.09 54.23 57.25

FINCOM2 Difficulty to meet the conditions to get loans 22.58 21.65 24.93

Unsatisfactory reimbursement conditions (interest FINCOM2 3.41 4.09 1.71 rate…)

FINCOM2 No need to apply for loans 18.91 20.03 16.11

WANTLOAN: Do you wish to apply for loans from any formal micro-financing institutions?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

WANTLOAN Yes 28.28 28.24 28.39

WANTLOAN No 71.72 71.76 71.61

VSL: Are there Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA) in your [village]?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

VSL Yes 7.15 9.50 1.79

VSL No 92.85 90.50 98.21

VSLMEM: Are you a member of the VSLA?

159 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

VSLMEM Yes 34.51 36.62 8.96

VSLMEM No 65.49 63.38 91.04

JOIN: Do you wish to join such groups?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

JOIN Yes 99.37 100.00 94.07

JOIN No 0.63 . 5.93

INVEST_M: How often do you save / invest / put money away with VSLA

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

INVEST_M Weekly 70.11 71.53 .

INVEST_M Monthly 11.98 10.20 100.00

INVEST_M More than one month 17.91 18.27 .

INVEST: In general, what problems do you face in investing in new opportunities to make money?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

INVEST1 Lack of knowledge/skills 40.59 38.11 46.24

Lack of information about investing INVEST2 19.21 18.37 21.09 opportunities

INVEST3 Lack of means of communication 3.03 3.05 2.97

INVEST4 Lack of capital 62.58 61.43 65.19

INVEST5 Lack of access to credit 4.81 4.67 5.12

Lack of business training INVEST6 7.60 8.44 5.70 opportunities

INVEST7 Lack of markets 3.99 4.51 2.83

USAID 160

INVEST8 Security challenges 4.80 2.88 9.18

INVEST98 Other 18.12 23.35 6.24

ECOSYST: The following list shows some examples of benefits arising from nature that are also known as ecosystem services. Before today, were you aware that nature can be essential to…?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

ECOSYST1 …filter water to keep it clean and safe 96.96 96.11 98.90

ECOSYST2 …provide clean air 98.63 98.36 99.27

ECOSYST3 …keep soil fertile and productive 92.95 97.64 82.28

…protect communities and property from storm ECOSYST4 82.02 89.04 66.04 impacts

…provide raw materials for making and building ECOSYST5 93.26 98.01 82.45 things

ECOSYST6 …pollinate plants and crops to produce food 82.91 96.15 52.80

ECOSYST7 …reduce or control the spread of many diseases 78.66 88.41 56.50

ECOSYST8 …provide raw materials for most medicines 94.08 97.78 85.65

ECOSLOSS: In the last 12 months, have you been directly affected by the loss of an ecosystem service that would normally be provided by nature? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

ECOSLOSS Yes 77.46 71.05 92.05

ECOSLOSS No 22.54 28.95 7.95

ECOSIMPACT: Which ONE of the options below MOST closely matches the way that this loss affected you? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

ECOSIMPACT Economic well-being 70.74 61.29 87.33

ECOSIMPACT Medical health 25.26 33.68 10.47

161 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

ECOSIMPACT Cultural heritage 0.39 0.50 0.20

Emotional, psychological, or spiritual ECOSIMPACT 0.93 1.27 0.35 well-being

ECOSIMPACT Other 2.67 3.26 1.65

THREAT: In your opinion, what are the biggest threats to the ecosystem in your community? (Select all that apply) There are no right or wrong questions, we would like to know what you think. Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

THREAT1 Illegal logging 49.47 39.59 71.92

THREAT2 Slash & burn agriculture 49.95 51.80 45.75

THREAT3 Poaching (lemurs, tortoises, birds, tenrecs…) 6.36 6.12 6.91

THREAT4 Wildlife trafficking 4.85 6.27 1.60

THREAT5 Illegal fishing by using beach seine net 6.82 4.53 12.03

THREAT6 Illegal fishing in other ways (closed season, 4.86 2.24 10.81 non-respect of minimum size) Climate change impacts (such as cyclones, THREAT7 changes to growing seasons, reduced water 41.22 44.86 32.93 availability, flooding, tidal surge)

THREAT8 Unsustainable farming practices 6.75 4.87 11.00

THREAT98 Other unsustainable resource use 20.11 22.63 14.39

CBNRM1. Do you know if a CBNRM group is operating where you live? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

CBNRM1 Yes 30.62 30.37 31.19

CBNRM1 No 69.37 69.62 68.80

CBNRM2. Can you tell us what CBNRM activities are occurring? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

CBNRM21 Natural resource management decisions 34.94 39.96 23.83

CBNRM22 Managing access to resources 33.53 35.62 28.91

USAID 162

CBNRM23 Law enforcement 23.17 18.98 32.43

CBNRM24 Showing development leadership at 6.96 7.72 5.27 community level CBNRM25 Providing log/ fishing permits 18.09 17.46 19.47

CBNRM26 Conservation activities 63.76 60.42 71.13

CBNRM27 Participation in patrolling 23.56 24.41 21.68

CBNRM28 Outreach and communication 22.83 11.41 48.11

CBNRM29 Raising revenues from conservation 4.66 6.77 .

CBNRM298 Other 3.16 4.39 0.43

COBA. Are you member of the COBA in this area? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

COBA Yes 25.68 31.19 13.49

COBA No 74.32 68.81 86.51

COBFUNC: Is the COBA still functioning? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

COBFUNC Yes 97.97 98.21 96.76

COBFUNC No 2.03 1.79 3.24

WHYSTOP: Why did it stop functioning? (Check all the apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

WHYSTOP1 Withdrawal of support by NGO 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP2 Non-respect of rules by COBA 0.00 0.00 0.00 members

WHYSTOP3 Weak local leadership support 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP4 Poor governance- participation, 26.06 . 100.00 transparency and accountability

WHYSTOP5 Conflict in the organization 0.00 0.00 0.00

163 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

WHYSTOP6 Corruption 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP7 Lack of effective production methods 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP8 Lack of reliable markets 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP9 Lack of knowledge and expertise 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP10 Weak financial base to scale up 0.00 0.00 0.00 business

WHYSTOP11 Poor market information 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP12 Spatial distribution and density 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP13 Poor road access 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHYSTOP14 Lack of basic communication network 73.94 100.00 .

WHYSTOP98 Other 36.97 50.00 .

COBAROLE: Is the COBA involved in: Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

COBAROLE Conservation alone 29.12 28.40 32.84

Conservation and production (agriculture, fisheries, COBAROLE 70.88 71.60 67.16 forestry etc.).

COBCHAL: What challenges have you encountered in your COBA? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

COBCHAL1 Lack of reliable markets 4.83 5.76 .

COBCHAL2 Weak local leadership support 20.69 17.76 35.93

COBCHAL3 Lack of knowledge and expertise 14.89 7.13 55.17

Weak financial base to scale up COBCHAL4 9.45 11.27 . business

COBCHAL5 Poor governance 17.43 17.76 15.73

COBCHAL6 Poor market information 4.56 5.44 .

COBCHAL7 Spatial distribution and density 0.00 0.00 0.00

USAID 164

COBCHAL8 Poor road access 6.78 8.08 .

COBCHAL9 Lack of basic communication 13.54 13.11 15.73 network COBCHAL98 Other 48.20 53.53 20.52

KNOWNRM: What do you think are the benefits of CBNRM/LMMA activities in your village? (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

Access to natural resource is KNOWNRM1 24.01 25.09 21.57 regulated

KNOWNRM2 Local involvement in resource 15.67 18.43 9.41 management

KNOWNRM3 Local people participating in control 9.96 9.81 10.31 of resources

KNOWNRM4 Local participation in patrolling 6.32 7.17 4.40

KNOWNRM5 Conflict resolution opportunity 4.96 6.56 1.33

KNOWNRM6 Strengthened law enforcement 10.56 10.13 11.55

KNOWNRM7 Reduced illegal activities 9.88 10.01 9.58

KNOWNRM8 Promoting good leadership at 4.87 5.93 2.46 community level

KNOWNRM9 Raising revenues from conservation 4.69 6.23 1.17

Opportunity for resources to be KNOWNRM10 21.18 18.76 26.67 available for the future

KNOWNRM11 Don’t know 42.71 41.38 45.73

KNOWNRM12 No benefits 2.64 2.22 3.61

KNOWNRM98 Other 5.01 6.83 0.86

SUPPORT: How do you support CBNRM / LMMA in your community? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

165 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

SUPPORT1 Pay a membership fee 50.49 55.79 23.40

SUPPORT2 Pay a fee for collecting products within the 6.21 7.42 . management transfer or fisheries area

SUPPORT3 Respect regulations 32.49 27.55 57.75

SUPPORT4 Ask the others to respect regulations 32.61 26.90 61.79

SUPPORT5 Planting trees 36.74 39.97 20.21

SUPPORT6 Respect seasonal or local closures allowing 4.32 3.75 7.28 fish to grow

SUPPORT7 Protect wild animals 9.75 10.11 7.94

SUPPORT8 No support 16.22 16.29 15.89

SUPPORT98 Other 6.81 8.14 .

TREE: Do you or any member of your household have a tree nursery or woodlot (plantation)? (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

TREE1 Tree nursery 0.28 0.40 .

TREE2 Woodlot (plantation) 23.90 32.62 4.08

TREE3 No, none of the above 76.04 67.30 95.92

TREEPLANT: Have you or members of your household planted any tree (s) in the past 3 years?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

TREEPLANT Yes 24.54 26.83 19.34

TREEPLANT No 75.46 73.17 80.66

WHYPLANT: Why did you plant trees? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

WHYPLANT11 Reforestation / restoration 57.95 50.60 81.14

WHYPLANT12 Firewood for own use 19.47 25.65 .

USAID 166

WHYPLANT13 Firewood for sale 3.54 4.66 .

WHYPLANT14 Charcoal for sale 2.06 2.38 1.03

WHYPLANT15 Fruits for sale 8.53 9.33 5.99

WHYPLANT16 Fruits to eat 17.79 17.00 20.28

WHYPLANT17 Timber for sale 7.09 9.34 .

WHYPLANT18 Timber for own use 18.69 22.67 6.13

WHYPLANT19 Soil improvement / erosion control 22.16 24.28 15.47

WHYPLANT110 Shade for agriculture 13.74 17.08 3.21

WHYPLANT198 Other 7.93 8.41 6.44

MANG: Has any member of your household replanted mangroves in the past 3 years? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

MANG Yes 1.41 . 4.63

MANG No 98.59 100.00 95.37

WHYPLANT2: Why did you plant mangroves? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

WHYPLANT21 Reforestation / restoration 82.31 . 82.31

WHYPLANT22 Firewood for own use 0.00 . 0.00

WHYPLANT23 Firewood for sale 0.00 . 0.00

WHYPLANT24 Timber for sale 0.00 . 0.00

WHYPLANT25 Timber for own use 0.00 . 0.00

WHYPLANT26 Soil improvement / erosion control 15.39 . 15.39

Habitat for fish and crabs WHYPLANT27 49.07 . 49.07 (mangroves)

Reduce flooding / coastal defense WHYPLANT28 13.06 . 13.06 (mangroves)

167 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

WHYPLANT298 Other 0.00 . 0.00

FSPEC: Which types of seafood do you catch, either to eat or to sell? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

FSPEC_1 Fish 95.17 96.61 94.35

FSPEC_2 Molluscs (bivalves) 0.84 2.31 .

FSPEC_3 Cephalopods (squid, octopus) 2.64 7.23 .

FSPEC_4 Crustaceans (lobster, crab, shrimp) 13.81 12.84 14.37

Echinoderms (urchins, sea FSPEC_5 0.84 2.31 . cucumbers)

Seaweeds (green, red or brown FSPEC_6* 0.00 0.00 0.00 algae)

FSPEC_7* Sea turtles 0.00 0.00 0.00

FMON1: Which months of the year do you fish or harvest for these seafood? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

FMON11 January 40.12 38.02 41.47

FMON12 February 49.32 31.65 60.65

FMON13 March 60.34 33.97 77.24

FMON14 April 57.66 52.95 60.68

FMON15 May 57.49 59.64 56.11

FMON16 June 49.71 51.59 48.50

FMON17 July 50.22 59.39 44.34

FMON18 August 47.67 60.57 39.39

FMON19 September 47.09 69.12 32.97

FMON110 October 47.37 71.28 32.05

FMON111 November 44.14 64.79 30.90

USAID 168

FMON112 December 30.69 53.74 15.92

FMON113 All year round 12.30 9.69 13.98

FTECH1: Which tools/techniques do you use for fishing? Select all that apply. Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

FTECH11 Pirogue 48.79 54.77 44.96

FTECH12 Monofilament net 37.89 41.18 35.78

FTECH13 Jarifa 2.49 1.90 2.87

FTECH14 Beach seine 7.64 9.71 6.31

FTECH15 Mosquito net 11.43 2.37 17.23

FTECH16 Palangrotte 2.12 2.04 2.18

FTECH17 Line & hook 41.40 30.44 48.42

FTECH18 Nasse 3.59 8.39 0.52

FTECH19 Engin à crabe 3.82 3.80 3.84

FTECH110 Seabed traps 0.00 0.00 0.00

FTECH111 Trapes/fences (valakira) 0.00 0.00 0.00

FTECH112 Spearfishing 5.48 8.26 3.71

FTECH113 Masque 2.23 5.71 .

FTECH114 Rifle for hunting 3.15 8.06 .

FTECH115 Stick 2.58 1.74 3.12

FTECH116 Reef gleaning 0.74 1.90 .

FTECH117 Poison 0.94 . 1.54

NOACCESS. What forest products do you have difficulty accessing? [Percent who responded Yes] Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PA07_Produit_1 Honey 1.24 1.31 1.10

169 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PA07_Produit_2* Mushrooms 0.00 0.00 0.00

PA07_Produit_3 Caterpillars, locusts or other insects 0.38 0.55 .

PA07_Produit_4 Wild fruits 6.36 5.63 7.90

PA07_Produit_5 Bushmeat 5.46 4.95 6.53

PA07_Produit_6 Medicinal plants 0.38 0.55 .

PA07_Produit_7 Firewood 61.66 71.86 40.13

PA07_Produit_8 Charcoal 5.54 2.53 11.89

PA07_Produit_9 Fish 7.42 3.90 14.84

PA07_Produit_10 Other 25.21 22.95 29.97

ACCESSDIFF. What is the nature of the access issues [all products]?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

ACCESSDIFF Area is now further away 41.36 32.76 59.82

ACCESSDIFF Products no longer available for harvest 23.94 25.65 20.25

ACCESSDIFF Area blocked off 20.01 27.39 4.17

ACCESSDIFF Other 14.70 14.20 15.76

ACCESSLIV. How important are these to your livelihood [all products]?

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

ACCESSLIV Very important 66.21 53.94 92.54

ACCESSLIV Somewhat important 25.72 34.36 7.17

ACCESSLIV Not very important 7.74 11.21 0.29

ACCESSLIV Not at all important 0.33 0.49 .

OWNERSHIP1: What is the ownership arrangement for this plot? Is it…

USAID 170

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

ownership1 State owned land 0.91 0.12 3.53

ownership1 Titled land 3.82 3.61 4.52

ownership1 Certified Land 4.68 3.16 9.80

Non-titled privately-owned land with ownership1 8.68 8.59 8.97 formal documents

Non-titled privately-owned land with ownership1 24.22 28.33 10.45 simple documents

ownership1 No documents 57.41 56.08 61.88

ownership1 Don't know 0.28 0.10 0.85

NETOBS: INTERVIEWER: OBSERVE AND SELECT THE TYPES OF FISHNET MESH IN THE HOUSEHOLD BACKYARD. (Select all that you observe) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

NETOBS1 Harato, Jarifa (net, gill-net) 22.56 43.68 10.73

NETOBS2 Haratobe/Tarikaky (seine net) 0.00 0.00 0.00

NETOBS3 Mosquito net 6.94 1.42 10.03

NETOBS4 None of these above 70.50 54.89 79.23

CLEAR: Over the past five years, did you clear land to allow for more cultivation/livestock? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

CLEAR Yes 16.51 17.76 13.67

CLEAR No 83.49 82.24 86.33

CLEARTYPE: What kind of land did you clear for cultivation? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

CLEARTYPE1 Forest (ala) 8.96 7.61 12.95

CLEARTYPE2 Fallow agricultural land / savoka 87.35 90.39 78.35

171 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

CLEARTYPE3 Mangrove (Delta region) 0.00 0.00 0.00

CLEARTYPE98 Other 5.70 4.68 8.70

PACLEAR: Where do you usually clear land? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PACLEAR Protected area (alafady in local language) 0.32 . 1.26

PACLEAR Transfert de gestion 1.98 0.85 5.31

PACLEAR Fallow land outside the PA/transfert de gestion 93.54 95.49 87.80

PACLEAR Other 4.16 3.66 5.63

CLRMORE: In the next 12 months, do you intend to clear land for cultivation? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

CLRMORE Yes 24.23 25.33 21.73

CLRMORE No 75.77 74.67 78.27

WHYCLR: Why do you plan on clearing more land for cultivation? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

WHYCLR1 To grow more crops to sell 64.29 60.27 74.92

WHYCLR2 To grow more crops to consume 67.45 64.39 75.56

WHYCLR3 To grow different types of crops 12.34 12.23 12.64

The land I was cultivating in the past is no WHYCLR4 11.34 5.75 26.15 longer productive

WHYCLR5 To increase the size of my plot of land 23.33 20.61 30.56

WHYCLR6 To prevent others claiming or acquiring it 0.59 0.82 .

WHYCLR98 Other 2.27 2.96 0.44

WHERECLRMORE: Where do you plan to clear land? (Select all that apply)

USAID 172

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

WHERECLRMORE1 Forest 10.08 11.01 7.62

WHERECLRMORE2 Fallow agricultural land 87.60 86.23 91.26

WHERECLRMORE3 Mangrove (Delta region) 0.00 0.00 0.00

WHERECLRMORE98 Other 3.80 4.80 1.13

PACLEAR2: Is the land you plan to clear in a protected area or transfert de gestion? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PACLEAR2 Yes 4.87 6.12 1.56

PACLEAR2 No 81.69 75.94 96.91

PACLEAR2 Don't know 13.44 17.94 1.53

USEAWARE: Are you aware of any land use planning process in your community? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

USEAWARE Yes 43.32 45.06 39.37

USEAWARE No 56.68 54.94 60.63

LANDAWARE: What types of land use planning are you aware of? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

Attribution of lands by customary LANDAWARE1 47.70 60.52 14.31 inheritance rules

Land use planning by the VOI (in the LANDAWARE2 13.72 14.40 11.95 transfert de gestion)

Communal land use planning (in a LANDAWARE3 Schéma d’Aménagement Communal (SAC) 64.86 56.47 86.68 or Plan d’Occupation Foncière (PLOF)

LANDAWARE98 Other 8.26 9.67 4.58

173 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

RIGHTCLEAR: Do you have the right to clear new forest land? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

RIGHTCLEAR Yes 28.52 28.77 27.95

RIGHTCLEAR No 52.43 51.00 55.68

RIGHTCLEAR Don't know 18.03 18.75 16.37

RIGHTCLEAR Other/it depends 1.03 1.48 .

PERMICLEAR: What do you do when you request a permit for clearing fallow/savoka/monka land? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PERMICLEAR1 Submit the request to the COBA 24.77 28.11 17.17 president or the fokontany chief

PERMICLEAR2 Send the request to the forest 23.97 28.80 12.98 district The forest district verifies the land PERMICLEAR3 20.29 21.55 17.43 area and the firewall

PERMICLEAR4 Controlled burn 2.56 3.58 0.24

PERMICLEAR5 I don’t know 38.22 29.35 58.38

PERMICLEAR98 Other 7.03 6.75 7.67

RESTRICT: In the past year, have you experienced difficulty accessing forest areas that you rely on for food, medicine, building materials, firewood or other products? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

RESTRICT Yes 27.88 27.24 29.34

RESTRICT No 72.12 72.76 70.66

PA: Does any of this land overlap with a Protected Area or a transfert de gestion (VOI)? (Select all that apply)

Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

PA Yes, protected area 0.25 0.18 0.44

USAID 174

PA Yes, transfert de gestion des ressources naturelles 1.87 2.03 1.42

PA No 97.88 97.79 98.14

TITLE: How important is it for you to have a land title or a certificate/karatany? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

TITLE Very Important 75.10 81.00 59.04

TITLE Somewhat important 14.72 13.36 18.42

TITLE Not very important 4.66 2.39 10.80

TITLE Not important at all 2.68 . 9.96

TITLE Don’t know 2.85 3.24 1.78

DOCCHAL: For the pieces of lands for which you do not own any formal document, what are the obstacles that prevent you from acquiring it? (Select all that apply) Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

DOCCHAL1 11.87 12.80 9.34 The land office is too far away DOCCHAL2 I don’t have all the required 13.78 13.40 14.82 documents DOCCHAL3 26.52 25.59 29.03 I don’t know the registration process DOCCHAL4 6.06 5.93 6.42 The process takes too much time DOCCHAL5 It is very costly to get formal 29.70 30.43 27.73 document DOCCHAL6 Staff in the land office did not know 0.56 . 2.07 how to process the registration DOCCHAL7 I don’t think it’s important to have a 3.75 3.30 4.97 formal land certificate DOCCHAL8 17.94 12.87 31.73 Not applicable DOCCHAL98 Other 21.82 27.54 6.30

LT1: In the next five years, do you think it’s possible that someone could try to take one of your parcels from you without your permission? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

175 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

LT1 Yes 14.48 15.90 11.25

LT1 No 64.62 65.94 61.61

LT1 Don’t know 10.37 12.24 6.11

LT1 Not applicable 10.53 5.91 21.03

LT2: How likely do you think it is that someone would try to take one of your parcels from you in the next 5 years? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

LT2 Impossible 1.47 . 6.21

LT2 Possible but unlikely 22.72 27.00 8.96

LT2 Somewhat likely 66.60 65.16 71.23

LT2 Very likely/It is happening now 8.43 6.83 13.60

LT2 Don't know 0.77 1.01 .

LT3: Who do you think would try to take your parcels? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

LT3 Government 6.60 5.42 9.83

LT3 Foreign investor 1.34 . 5.01

LT3 Malagasy investor(from outside the village) 3.74 1.67 9.39

LT3 Someone inside the village 34.87 33.36 38.99

LT3 Absentee owner/land claimants 5.08 2.88 11.06

LT3 Extended family 21.21 27.30 4.62

LT3 New arrival 6.61 3.38 15.42

LT3 Other 20.55 25.99 5.70

LT4: Which if any of the following are reasons why you think this could happen? Please rank from the most important reason to the least important reason. Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

USAID 176

First Place Rank

Ongoing or past disputes or LT4_RANG_1 33.60 39.38 17.84 expropriation

LT4_RANG_1 Lack of documents 34.99 32.28 42.38

LT4_RANG_1 21.94 17.46 34.14 Length of agreement (lease will expire) LT4_RANG_1 Problems experienced by others in the 9.47 10.87 5.65 community Second Place Rank

Ongoing or past disputes or LT4_RANG_2 33.34 23.35 60.60 expropriation

LT4_RANG_2 Lack of documents 33.56 39.28 17.99

LT4_RANG_2 27.37 31.13 17.14 Length of agreement (lease will expire) LT4_RANG_2 Problems experienced by others in the 5.72 6.25 4.27 community Third Place Rank

Ongoing or past disputes or LT4_RANG_3 7.88 7.59 8.64 expropriation

LT4_RANG_3 Lack of documents 11.49 9.01 18.28

LT4_RANG_3 24.38 24.02 25.35 Length of agreement (lease will expire) LT4_RANG_3 Problems experienced by others in the 56.25 59.38 47.73 community Fourth Place Rank

Ongoing or past disputes or LT4_RANG_4 25.18 29.68 12.92 expropriation

LT4_RANG_4 Lack of documents 19.95 19.44 21.35

LT4_RANG_4 26.31 27.39 23.38 Length of agreement (lease will expire) LT4_RANG_4 Problems experienced by others in the 28.56 23.50 42.35 community

PLTCEN: Have you ever participated in any activity to confirm and document the boundaries of your parcels? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

177 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PLTCEN Yes 28.81 27.08 33.50

PLTCEN No 71.19 72.92 66.50

SURV: Do you participate in any organized groups to keep watch for and report any activities that are damaging to the environment (such as forest or bush fire surveillance patrols)? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

SURV Yes 31.30 34.90 23.34

SURV No 68.70 65.10 76.66

HOT1: Are you aware that there is a confidential hotline for reporting when someone does not comply with laws or rules related to natural resources? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

HOT1 Yes 9.48 6.52 16.23

HOT1 No 90.52 93.48 83.77

HOT2: Have you ever used the hotline to report a case where laws related to natural resources were not followed? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

HOT2 Yes 11.99 7.69 15.92

HOT2 No 88.01 92.31 84.08

HOT 3: If you witnessed someone not complying with laws related to natural resources, would you ever report it to the hotline? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

HOT3 Yes 61.00 62.48 57.62

HOT3 No 39.00 37.52 42.38

HOT4. Why would you never report it to the hotline [multi-select]? Variable Variable Categories Total MamaBay Menabe

HOT41 I do not know what the regulations are 14.74 9.12 26.06

USAID 178

HOT42 I do not know how to make a report 38.43 43.17 28.89

HOT43 It is not my responsibility 25.14 22.85 29.77

HOT44 I fear the consequences if someone found out 33.78 27.09 47.25 I made the report

HOT45 I do not consider breaking these 3.30 1.30 7.33 rules/regulations to be “real crimes”

HOT46 I do not want to get anyone in trouble 11.41 12.67 8.89

HOT47 I do not trust officials to follow up on my 8.02 6.09 11.90 report

HOT498 Other 8.49 10.77 3.89

8.4. ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF BASELINE CCP SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS This annex summarizes the findings of the semi-structured interviews. Verbatim feedback has been combined and is broken out by region.

8.4.1. MAMABAY REGION

8.4.1.1. ANALANJIROFO SUBREGION Local economic activities and livelihoods

What are the primary The local population lives off of agriculture and fishing. Cash crops (vanilla, livelihood activities that cloves) and rice cultivation are the most common. In coastal areas, members of your community households also engage in fishing and related activities (fish mongering, engage in? etc.). Small business operations, poultry farming and logging are also among the main activities.

What are the main For the cultivation of vanilla, which holds an important role as a product constraints and opportunities of speculation, there are many constraints: theft of vanilla, lack of mastery for developing income- of production and processing techniques (like the preparation of green generating activities for vanilla beans), lowered production due to climate change, insect pests producers/fishermen? (voampanetotra) and the price controls by collectors and intermediaries. But the quality of vanilla in the region is good.

With regards to food crops, particularly rice, there is insufficient water for irrigation. The cultivation area is limited even though the population size continues to increase. The adoption of modern cultivation techniques should be considered to improve yields.

With regards to fishing, one of the challenges is that locals do not have sufficient means to obtain fishing equipment. Fishing areas are hampered

179 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

by a lack of suitable fishing gear (engine, life jacket, nets). Other constraints include the use of non-compliant fishing gear and the presence of large fishing boats. In addition, the lack of equipment for the conservation and preparation of fishery products forces fishermen to sell their product at relatively low prices. The establishment of the LMMAs has also limited the fishing areas.

Finally, mangrove harvesting to provide wood for construction purposes and the practice of backfilling the mangrove areas also jeopardizes this fishing area.

What activities does the Fishing is the main activity related to the sea and occurring around marine population engage in related protected areas. Forest-related activities include logging wood for to forests, seas, and construction purposes as well as for furniture that is made with precious protected areas? woods (rosewood, nanto, etc.). Forest exploitation also allows the cutting of wood for charcoal, firewood and building canoes (pirogue).

Forest clearing in protected areas for the cultivation of vanilla and cloves allows the population to expand their insufficient farming areas.

In the past two years, what A drop in agricultural production, especially rice, has been observed due changes have you observed in to the negative effect of climate change and the insufficient land area for these activities? Why? cultivation. As a result of this, the population has been clearing the forest for the extension of their vanilla and clove cultivation because the land they have is insufficient and the price of vanilla incentivizes this.

In addition, people who cut and sell charcoal and firewood move to forest areas to meet demand. Logging increases during the lean season (“hungry gap” or période de soudure) due to the lack of other income sources. Weak agricultural production also pushes the population to engage in more fishing activities. The importance of the people who fish means that fishing production has declined for those who cannot afford to fish far offshore. And the fishing gear is not in compliance, including the use of seine nets (Ramikaoko nets). But in areas with a formal fishermen's association, illegal fishing activities have decreased.

In your opinion, what are the Fishing takes place in protected marine areas, especially in areas where impacts of these activities on the LMMA system is not in place or formal fishermen's associations do protected areas? not exist. The practice of illegal fishing activities reduces the availability of fish near the coast and forces people to go offshore.

Forest destruction results from logging to make charcoal, which has been growing more and more, and also from the cultivation of vanilla. Moreover, vanilla is an ombrophilous (shade-loving) crop that grows favorably in the forest. This creates tensions between forest officials and those engaged in charcoal production. Forest areas decrease in size and what we are seeing most of all is savoka (secondary vegetation that grows back after forest is cleared). This in turn affects the climate due to insufficient rain and some wild animals no longer exist.

USAID 180

Are there actors from For fishing activities, it is the communities themselves and the population outside the community who in neighboring areas who participate. As for logging, there are migrants participate in these activities? who participate in logging (Betsileo) and charcoal (Tatsimo: people from the southern part of Analanjirofo). Other migrants also arrive in the city of Mananara to practice carpentry.

In your locality, how is access In localities with a VOI, access to forest resources is regulated by means to forest resources (including of an authorization from the VOI. These organizations also target cutting clearing) and/or marine permits (to be issued in advance). The practice of illegal cutting is subject resources regulated? to fines. But access to protected areas is prohibited.

As for fishing in protected marine areas, only authorized equipment is permitted in areas where fishing is authorized. The fishermen's associations oversee these fishing activities. At the “Nosy Atafana” marine reserve, fishermen must have their fishing equipment checked before they begin and their catch verified before they depart. Only fishermen residing for at least three months in the Fokontany of Sahasoa, Menatany, and Ivontaka can engage in fishing in that area.

To what extent are the With regards to fishing, it is the associations in charge of the LMMAs regulations respected by the which ensure that regulations are enforced. If they fail to solve the community, by the VOI problem, the matter is escalated to the Commune, then to the District. (COBA/LMMA), by economic actors, and local authorities? In terms of forest resources, VOIs enforce regulations and apply the dina (local norms or laws) for those who violate them. Cases that are not resolved at the VOI level are brought to the level of the forest administration or cantonment (cantonnement forestier). At this level, the head of the forest cantonment investigates the matter, seizes illegal products, and refers the case to the courts.

But in general, everything depends on the behavior of those responsible. If they do not enforce the regulations and engage in corruption, then the community will take advantage and exploit the natural resources in an illegal manner.

In the past few years, have There was one case where those who complied with the regulations did you observed any conflicts at not support the illegal practices and decided to inform the authorities. the community level over the The case was then referred to the courts. use and exploitation of natural resources? If so, There was another case in Antanambao Mandrisy where an individual was please describe. How was the arrested for theft in the protected areas. The dina was applied but the conflict resolved? individual did not pay the related fines. The case was brought to Mananara and the individual was imprisoned.

The COBA president in some localities asked the people who cultivated vanilla and cloves in the protected areas to leave and made them [agree to] a letter of commitment not to clear the protected areas anymore.

181 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

In the case of non-compliant fishing gear (Ramikaoka nets), the fishermen's association could not resolve the problem and reported the matter to the authorities in charge of fishing. But there has been no follow-up.

Basic health services at the Fokontany- level or at the nearest health services center

What basic health services In terms of health services, local communities benefit from the services do you benefit from at the offered by the ACs (agent communautaire or community workers) and the Fokontany-level or at the CSBs (Centre de santé de base or Basic Health Centers) which deal with nearest health services non-serious illnesses. Otherwise, they are forced to go to the Commune center? level for serious illnesses and to the District level for surgery.

Who provides the services? Services are provided by ACs and midwives—they provide public services. But there are also independent nurses and doctors.

Under what conditions are At the AC and CSB level, consultations are free, but there is a charge for these services provided? medication. For maternity services, the service has a cost, but it is affordable. At the basic and district-level health centers, services have a cost even though it is a public service.

How would you rate the In general, the services provided are satisfactory, but health care staff are quality of these services? often absent. The opportunity to have a consultation may be limited by the level/rank of the person (AC, doctor).

In some cases, the level of satisfaction depends on a patient’s ability to pay for the services provided.

Are these services accessible Public health services are generally accessible by the population without to all members of the distinction. But in cases where there is a cost associated, one must have community? the necessary financial means.

Are community members Community members come to health centers even if their illness is not sufficiently aware or willing serious. Especially since awareness campaigns have been made by the ACs to use these services? Why and the CoSan (Comité de Santé or Health Committee) to encourage or why not? people to go to health care centers in the event of illness.

Local awareness and responsibility with regards to sustainable development

In the past 5 years, how has Unauthorized logging has increased with the demand for construction, the use of forest/marine especially during the hungry season. Forest clearing for the cultivation of resources changed in your vanilla and cloves has increased because the available cultivated land is community? insufficient, and the price of these products is attractive. But access to protected areas has decreased with the actions of the VOI. What are the pressures and factors that influence Due to the harmful effects of climate change, agricultural yields have resource exploitation? decreased. This has forced people to turn to fishing. The demographic pressure on fishing activities decreases the available catch near the shore and forces fishermen to go far offshore.

USAID 182

What conditions are The pathways that contribute to sustainable resource use include: necessary for resource use Awareness of the protection of protected areas, reforestation, the use of to be sustainable? fishing equipment that comply with regulations, and the existence of other income-generating activities.

What actions have already It's about raising awareness of reforestation and enforcing the regulations been taken by members of surrounding the offenses that are committed. The VOI is engaging in the community and by the reforestation activities with the participation of the community and VOI (COBA/LMMA) to shifting the practice of cultivation in protected areas. preserve the exploitation of these natural resources to The fines due for illegal fishing in the LMMA have doubled (before, the fine meet the needs of present for the first offense was Ar 50,000 and Ar 100,000 for the second; but and future generations? now the fine for the first offense is Ar 100,000). Formal fishermen's associations educate fishermen to use fishing gear that meets standards and prosecute those who use illegal fishing gear.

What are the challenges and It’s important to raise the community’s awareness of the importance of opportunities for VOIs preserving natural resources through awareness/sensitization sessions. (COBA/LMMA) to address This will decrease the offenses committed. Regulations should be and engage with the enforced without any double standards. The issuance of cutting permits responsibilities of natural should also be limited. resource management? The VOI do not have sufficient means to carry out patrols in order to eradicate illegal activities in the forest.

In your opinion, what are the The first is to raise awareness and have the population take ownership of necessary conditions so that the management of marine or land protected areas. Next, the community the preservation of the should be able to trust and have faith in the authorities. It is also environment, including the necessary to train the members of the VOI and to give them the establishment of protected necessary means to carry out their activities for the preservation of areas, may bring benefits to natural resources. your community and future generations?

What solutions do you The establishment of associations allows for the sharing of experiences propose for the socio- and helps members receive support and assistance. economic development of your community in harmony The Management Transfer Policy (transfert de gestion) for natural with the preservation of resources should occur in areas where VOI/COBAs do not yet exist. natural resources? The development of vanilla value chains which limits the practice of slash- and-burn (tavy) and has reduced bush fires (vanilla does not tolerate fire). But agricultural activities should take place outside of the protected areas.

Improvement of fishing activities with support to obtain equipment that meets standards. Support for the development of other revenue- generating activities, especially during the lean season.

In short, conservation projects should be in harmony with development projects.

183 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

8.4.1.2. SAVA SUBREGION

Local economic activities and livelihoods

What are the primary The vast majority of the local population lives on cash crops such as livelihood activities that vanilla and cloves. The communities also grow food crops such as rice, but members of your community these are mainly subsistence crops—not intended for sale, and beans. engage in?

What are the main For cash crops such as vanilla, local people have reported land shortages, constraints and disease, theft, and the existence of speculators as the main constraints. In opportunities for developing addition, regulations relating to the cultivation and marketing of vanilla are income-generating activities not respected. for producers/fishermen? The same is true for food crops, which are also affected by disease.

The tavy affects the households’ agricultural activities because they see this practice as the main cause of the lack of rainfall and the sweltering heat in the region.

In addition, the majority of farmers are under-equipped in terms of agricultural equipment and inputs (including phytosanitary treatments to prevent diseases).

What activities does the The activities are mainly limited to the collection of wood for the building population engage in related of planks, square wooden beams, and posts. Some households also to forests, seas and cultivate vanilla in the forest or clear it for growing rice. protected areas?

In the past two years, what At the Andapa district level, it appears that anthropogenic pressures on changes have you observed natural resources have decreased significantly as households use other in these activities? Why? materials such as cement and rubble for their construction activities.

In your opinion, what are the Not only is the surface area of the forests decreasing, but the distance to impacts of these activities on travel to access the forests is increasing. Moreover, wild animals are protected areas? greatly threatened.

Are there actors from There are no specific actors involved in these activities. Charcoal outside the community who producers from certain Fokontany collect wood, but only sporadically. participate in these activities?

In your locality, how is In general, access to forest resources requires an access permit issued by access to forest resources the local VOIs or by the head of the forest cantonment. Otherwise, forest (including clearing) and/or clearing is prohibited, specifically for large trees. marine resources regulated?

To what extent are the Enforcing the regulations is quite difficult because on the one hand, there regulations respected by the is corruption, and on the other hand, there are community ties between community, by the VOI the offender and the members of the VOI. In reality, cutting permits are (COBA/LMMA), by also used to mask the applicant’s ultimate goal of growing vanilla in the

USAID 184

economic actors and local forests. Lastly, the lack of monitoring activities encourages people to authorities? break the rules.

In the past few years, have The conflicts that arise have to do with people overshooting the cutting you observed any conflicts at surface authorized by the VOI and also relate to land tenure issues. In the community level over general, the forest cantonment intervenes to stop the cuts. Offenders can the use and exploitation of be forced to apply for a new permit, or be arrested and brought to natural resources? If so, prison. please describe. How was the conflict resolved? In the case of the land dispute, this was land where once a forest grew, but it was devastated by a cyclone. Since then people have grown vanilla there. Without formal property rights for these people, the land in question was subject to a dispute and was taken over by a native of the locality with the support of the Fonkontany chief and his deputy. The conflict could not be resolved.

Basic health services at the Fokontany -level or at the nearest health services center

What basic health services These are basic health services, such as consultations and patient care. do you benefit from at the Fokontany-level or at the nearest health services center?

Who provides the services? Services are generally provided by a doctor and a midwife at the level of each CSB II. There are certain localities where services are provided by independent doctors.

Under what conditions are In general, people face two types of constraints in accessing services. On these services provided? the one hand, there is the distance between the locality and the nearest health center, and then there is the cost and availability of medication.

How would you rate the The services are generally quite satisfactory. quality of these services?

Are these services accessible Services can be accessed by all local populations. to all members of the community?

Are community members For the municipalities of Ambalabe and Andampy in the Antalaha district, sufficiently aware or willing raising awareness of health access issues among residents is quite difficult to use these services? Why because these communities are quite isolated. or why not?

Local awareness and responsibility with regards to sustainable development

In the past five years, how For the district of Andapa, natural resource use has decreased with has the use of forest/marine alternatives such as heavy materials (concrete blocks, cement, iron) for resources changed in your construction activities. The practice of tavy has also decreased with the community? introduction of VOIs.

185 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

What are the pressures and However, in other places, rice cultivation on tanety (high and fairly factors that influence level ground) is not sustainable. They quickly deplete the soil, forcing the resource exploitation? peasants to look for other land to cultivate. This involves clearing new areas of forest. What conditions are necessary for resource use To preserve sustainability, forest committees should be set up. At the to be sustainable? fokontany level, ensure periodic patrols and carry out information campaigns on forest regulations.

What actions have already The activities mainly include campaigns to raise awareness of forest been taken by members of preservation and reforestation. the community and by the VOI (COBA/LMMA) to The VOI also ensures compliance with regulations such as the prohibition preserve the exploitation of of tavy, the issuing of permits and the carrying out of regular monitoring. these natural resources to meet the needs of present and future generations?

What are the challenges and The challenges relate mainly to reforestation campaigns. opportunities for VOIs (COBA/LMMA) to address and engage with the responsibilities of natural resource management?

In your opinion, what are the For the district of Andapa, the VOI must be well spread out at the necessary conditions so that fokontany level, for example it should cover each sector making up the the preservation of the fokontany. In addition, VOIs must also collaborate with local authorities environment, including the and the various environmental managers. Logging must require a cutting establishment of protected permit, and any logging offense should require the offender to plant 20 areas, may bring benefits to feet of trees for every one foot felled. Finally, people must also respect your community and future the laws that are in place. These must apply to everyone without generations? distinction.

What solutions do you Farmers must be trained and their skillset strengthened. In addition, there propose for the socio- must be measures to preserve the environment, in particular the carrying economic development of out of environmental education campaigns and raising awareness about your community in harmony forest regulations. The development component must also be addressed, with the preservation of including education and technical training, and access to health services in natural resources? isolated areas.

8.4.1.3. SOFIA SUB-REGION Local economic activities and livelihoods

What are the primary Households in this region depend on agriculture. The rice cultivation that livelihood activities that characterizes the District of North Befandriana is widely practiced by most of the local population. Cash crops such as coffee, and to a lesser

USAID 186

members of your community extent vanilla, are also practiced in this region. Cassava and dried beans engage in? are other common crops. As far as livestock, it is mainly cattle and poultry.

What are the main The main constraint lies in the poor quality of road infrastructure which constraints and opportunities makes access to this District very difficult. This limits the number of for developing income- collectors of agricultural products working in the region. They dictate generating activities for product prices at the producer level. Producers have no choice because producers/fishermen? they are not able to sell their products elsewhere because of the state of the roads. Transporting products is relatively expensive.

Next, lack of rainfall and insufficient water mainly affects rice cultivation in this District. The land area for cultivation has decreased because of the lack of irrigation. Land and water for farming are available, but investments in agricultural infrastructure such as the construction of dams and irrigation canals are needed. The use of traditional production techniques for rice and coffee crops limits yields. Also training in production technique and awareness raising are necessary.

The lack of financial means to obtain agricultural equipment is also one of the constraints for producers. Access to credit from the IMF is one of the possible solutions. Coffee cultivation is increasingly neglected in favor of vanilla. However, the climatic conditions in the forest (fairly low temperatures) do not favor the development of vanilla. It is mainly practiced at the savoka level. Vanilla theft is another problem, especially around populated areas.

What activities does the Activities related to forests and protected areas can be classified into population engage in related three categories. First, the cultivation of cash crops (coffee, vanilla and to forests, seas and cloves) contributes to the clearing of savoka to expand the land for protected areas? cultivation. Beekeeping and hedgehog hunting are among the activities carried out in the forest. In addition, it is used for extensive cattle breeding. People also use the forest to collect wood which will be used to make planks and square wood beams for construction. Finally, the population also takes tree bark for the manufacture of betsa (fermented beverage).

In the past two years, what It all depends on the actions of those in charge of environmental changes have you observed protection. In cases where information and awareness raising have been in these activities? Why? carried out by VOIs, we’ve seen a decrease in illegal activities such as unauthorized logging and gathering in protected areas. With surveillance actions and effective law enforcement, the local population is more fearful of engaging in illegal activities. Fines for these offenses can reach 800,000 MGA. Moreover, there is no more exploitation or harvesting in the noyau dur (Zone of Strict Protection).

But when the actors working for the protection of protected areas are dysfunctional, the population is less likely to respect the rules.

In addition, there has been an increase in the clearing of savoka for the cultivation of vanilla. Indeed, the irrigation problem makes rice cultivation

187 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

difficult, and thanks to the attractive price of vanilla, the locals are inclined to cultivate vanilla at the expense of coffee. This practice requires more land when the share of land acquired as an inheritance is insufficient. As a result of the income from vanilla, there is more demand for construction planks for houses.

In your opinion, what are the Forest reserves are dwindling due to the expansion of the vanilla crop impacts of these activities on through the clearing of savoka or forest. This results in insufficient rain. At protected areas? the same time, logging for construction purposes is moving further and further away.

Are there actors from During the vanilla harvest period, we observe a high number of people outside the community who from outside the community working in vanilla purchasing or collection. participate in these activities?

In your locality, how is At the level of transfert de gestion, one must request a permit from the access to forest resources VOI and pay a duty in order to harvest or access forest resources. There (including clearing) and/or is a ban on exploiting the Zone of Strict Protection and accessing forest marine resources regulated? areas for harvesting non-timber forest products.

To what extent are the The regulations are somewhat respected in localities where information regulations respected by the and awareness-raising activities have been carried out. People are afraid of community, by the VOI being incarcerated or paying a fine if they break the rules because of cases (COBA/LMMA), by experienced by other members of the community. However, this does not economic actors and local prevent illegal practices because forest officials are unable to enforce the authorities? law since they are from the same locality [as the offenders]. And then in places where the population believes that the VOIs are not functional or where awareness is non-existent, the locals exploit forest resources without authorization. In addition, the practices of tavy and bush fires still exist.

In the past few years, have In April 2019, patrols observed unauthorized cutting practices. After being you observed any conflicts at summoned and investigated by the VOI office, the case resulted in the the community level over the payment of a fine of Ar 600,000. use and exploitation of natural resources? If so, Then, in 2016, logging without prior authorization for the construction of please describe. How was planks and boards took place in the areas managed by the VOI. The the conflict resolved? offender obstructed the payment of a fine decided by the VOI office. The case was taken to court but the person was freed after a relatively short time.

Finally, another case of forest clearing for maize cultivation took place in 2015. Officials from the forest cantonment carried out the investigation on the spot during patrols. The person in question was fined Ar 150,000.

Basic health services at the Fokontany -level or at the nearest health services center

What basic health services In terms of basic health services, local communities benefit from the do you benefit from at the services provided by the ACs such as the care of children under 5 and Fokontany-level or at the illnesses (malaria, flu, stomach aches, etc.).

USAID 188

nearest health services There is a CSB II in the Commune’s administrative center (12 km away by center? road). It is mainly for maternal and child health, the vaccination campaign and general medicine.

Who provides the services? Services are provided by ACs, nurses, midwives and doctors at the CSB.

There is also a free medical office, but the consultation and medication have a cost associated.

Under what conditions are In terms of public health services, the consultation is free, but patients these services provided? have to pay for the medication. Health expenses at independent medical offices have a cost.

How would you rate the The care provided by the ACs is limited. At the same time, at the CSB, quality of these services? the doctor or midwife is often absent. There is insufficient medication during the rainy season. In terms of the private medical offices, the services provided are satisfactory, but it is the high cost of the service that is the problem.

Are these services accessible Public health services are provided without distinction for all members of to all members of the the local community. The constraint is the access because you have to community? walk on foot for two hours to get to the CSB II.

Are community members Awareness campaigns are frequently carried out by ACs and fokontany sufficiently aware or willing chiefs. to use these services? Why or why not?

Local awareness and responsibility with regards to sustainable development

In the past five years, how In the last five years, the exploitation of forest resources has been limited has the use of forest/marine after the management transfer (transfert de gestion) to the VOI. Dues must resources changed in your be paid before any harvesting can take place. We have also observed a community? decrease in forest clearing for the cultivation of vanilla because the temperature is relatively low for. It is especially the savoka which lends What are the pressures and itself to vanilla cultivation. Bush fires continue mainly in October and factors that influence November to regenerate grass for cattle. They can spread to the resource exploitation? protected areas.

What conditions are Demographic pressure is also increasing the need for home building necessary for resource use materials. to be sustainable? Some possible solutions to ensure sustainable natural resource use include:

• Raising awareness on issues of reforestation as well as the establishment of a nursery. These are important to meet needs and thus protect protected areas; • Research cooking fuel sources other than firewood and charcoal; • The use of modern production techniques on existing farms;

189 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

• Establishing associations/groups to raise awareness of community activities.

What actions have already For the localities with a VOI, the main actions that have been carried out been taken by members of relate to VOI member accountability, information and awareness-raising the community and by the to comply with the regulations that are in effect; training on the VOI (COBA/LMMA) to regulations; setting up a patrols; issuing permits for logging operations; and preserve the exploitation of reforestation awareness. these natural resources to meet the needs of present It should be noted that a good number of houses are being built with and future generations? stone thanks to the income from vanilla.

What are the challenges and It is above all about raising awareness of reforestation to reduce the opportunities for VOIs exploitation of resources inside the forests; to build a dam for the (COBA/LMMA) to address irrigation of cultivable land in order to reduce the clearing of the forest for and engage with the agricultural practice and to raise awareness for residents to become responsibilities of natural members of the VOI. resource management?

In your opinion, what are the Establishing collaboration between officials and the population in the necessary conditions so that management of natural resources; raising public awareness of compliance the preservation of the with the regulations in effect and strengthening the enforcement of environment, including the regulations by those responsible; fighting corruption; establishing anti-bush establishment of protected fire protocols; and make the population aware of reforestation to meet areas, may bring benefits to their needs. your community and future generations?

What solutions do you We must build a dam with an irrigation system for cultivable land to propose for the socio- reduce the clearing of the forest for agricultural purposes; use modern economic development of cultivation techniques to improve yields; strengthen the enforcement of your community in harmony regulations without distinction; fight against corruption; and raise with the preservation of environmental awareness; reforestation. natural resources?

8.4.2. MENABE REGION Local economic activities and livelihoods

What are the primary The vast majority of the local population make their living from farming, livelihood activities that mainly food crops. Households mainly cultivate rice, cassava, Bambara members of your community nuts, lima beans and corn. Households generally also have livestock, engage in? ranging from large mammals such as zebus and goats, to poultry. For coastal communities, households generally engage in fishing, but mainly for commercial purposes.

What are the main Almost the entire region is affected by the rainfall constraints and constraints and opportunities insufficient water, especially in the commune of Mahabo. The land to for developing income- cultivate is vast and fertile, but most farmers have constraints in terms of

USAID 190

generating activities for their technical know-how and in terms of agricultural equipment. In producers/fishermen? Morondava, people are faced with insufficient agricultural land due to the SUCOMA company which controls most of the arable land. Coupled with this is the inadequacy and uneven distribution of training for farmers. In Marofandilia, Morondava district, some land areas are losing their fertility. In the commune of Beroboka Nord, the ban on clearing forests to cultivate land has led people to migrate elsewhere or return to their areas of origin.

On the other hand, the flow of products remains very problematic for the region. Market infrastructure is poorly developed, and intermediaries take advantage of the situation at the expense of farmers, by buying their products at paltry prices.

In the commune of Belo Sur Tsiribihina, some households transform the land where mangroves grow into land for cultivation. In the Mahabo district, it is migrants from the South who destroy the forests.

In addition, the region still has vast land suitable for peanut crops, especially since farmers are supported by the presence of collectors ready to sell their production. The existence of dams in certain localities such as the commune of Tsaraotana, district of Belo Sur Tsiribihina, preserves the quality of the soil and allows the peasants to cultivate their lands for two seasons.

Finally, although fishing can meet the needs of households, some communities in coastal areas have illegal fishing practices. On the other hand, there is also the presence of large fishing boats that take almost all the fish, forcing fishermen to navigate further out to get fish.

What activities does the In the region, activities related to forests and protected areas are almost population engage in related nonexistent except for fishing and tourism, which is far from being to forests, seas and developed. At the same time, it is activities harmful to the environment protected areas? which prevail. The cultivation of maize, still widely practiced, involves clearing the remaining forests to expand the land for cultivation. The production of charcoal involves the clearing of dried shrubs. In addition, people also exploit the forest for the collection of wood which will be used to make planks and various woods for construction. In coastal areas, mangroves are cleared to produce charcoal and fencing.

In the past two years, what The activities that destroy the environment have increased a lot, for changes have you observed various reasons: inactivity of the VOI as in the case of the town of in these activities? Why? Tsaraotana. In the Morondava district, climatic constraints force households to devote themselves to the production of charcoal because it’s impossible to practice agriculture and so they clear the forests to extend their cultivated land. Forest degradation continues to increase. In the coastal areas, we are seeing the same thing. A large majority of households engage in fishing because of the lack of rain for agriculture. The fishing season is no longer respected. As a result, pressures on the fishery resources are increasing considerably, except for the large fishing

191 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

vessels operating in the region. In certain localities, there are nevertheless positive things: In the commune of Morondava, district of Morondava, the clearing of mangroves has decreased thanks to patrols carried out by the agents of the forest cantonment. In the commune of Ankilivao, Mahabo district, insecurity has decreased significantly, and the same is true for forest clearing.

In your opinion, what are the The forests are destroyed. Itinerant agriculture means that cultivated land impacts of these activities on is abandoned, and that other land is cultivated by clearing forests. protected areas? Furthermore, even if the forests remain intact, environmental goods and services are also reduced: the fish catch decreases and there are no more wild animals to hunt.

In other localities, the presence of active VOIs has had positive impacts on the preservation of forests, especially for the municipality of Befasy, district of Morondava.

Are there actors from It is mainly the migrants and the dahalo (bandits) who participate in these outside the community who activities, particularly for the Mahabo district. Otherwise it is the participate in these activities? communities themselves which participate.

In your locality, how is In the municipalities of Analaiva, Morondava, and Bemanonga, there are no access to forest resources specific regulations. Forest resources are open for anyone to access. (including clearing) and/or marine resources regulated? In other localities where the VOI are active, the regulations exist and are enforced. In the districts of Manja and Belo sur Tsiribihina, one must ask for an authorization from the local VOI to access forest resources. In the event of an offenses, penalties can reach Ar 100,000.

In coastal areas, fishing is governed by a calendar. Except the calendar is not respected by the fishermen.

To what extent are the In the localities where the VOI are active, the regulations are respected by regulations respected by the the local community, in particular, thanks to the carrying out of regular community, by the VOI patrols. In the commune of Befasy, a special police force has been set up (COBA/LMMA), by to carry out patrol activities called KMMFA. Thanks to this, land clearing economic actors and local and hunting have greatly decreased. authorities? However, insecurity seems to limit the enforcement of the regulations, as in the case of Ankilivalo Commune, Mahabo district. In addition, some VOIs are powerless in the face of anthropogenic pressures on forests induced by climatic constraints and insufficient water. This is particularly the case for the commune of Analaiva, Morondava district. Finally, corruption and the fact that the president of the VOI is a migrant are other obstacles preventing the enforcement of the regulations.

In the past few years, have Overall, there had been no conflicts over the exploitation of natural you observed any conflicts at resources at the regional level. However, there are specific cases that have the community level over the affected the town of Befasy. The migrants tried to clear the forest without use and exploitation of a permit with the help of a few natives. The local authorities were able to

USAID 192

natural resources? If so, stop them. In addition, it also appears that the KMMFA forest police are please describe. How was collecting money from the maize producers who supply the STAR. If they the conflict resolved? don't have the money, they give half their production.

Basic health services at the Fokontany -level or at the nearest health services center

What basic health services In terms of health services, local communities benefit from the services do you benefit from at the offered by the CSB1 and 2, as well as the services provided by the ACs. Fokontany-level or at the nearest health services center?

Who provides the services? The services provided are almost all public services.

Under what conditions are Services are mostly free. However, patients have to pay for medication. these services provided?

How would you rate the In general, the services provided are satisfactory. The medical supplies are quality of these services? complete, and the doctors are present at their posts during most of the time. One area where patients are not as satisfied is having to purchase medicine, which is not available at the health centers.

Are these services accessible Public health services are generally accessible by local communities. to all members of the community?

Are community members Awareness campaigns are frequently carried out by ACs and Fokontany sufficiently aware or willing chiefs. It’s not just about encouraging people to go to the CSB to seek to use these services? Why medical advice, but also about educating people about health more or why not? generally.

Local awareness and responsibility with regards to sustainable development

In the past five years, how Over the past five years, there has been a gradual decrease in forest has the use of forest/marine clearing and wild animal hunting, first because the VOIs in place are active resources changed in your in taking charge of forest management; and second because natural community? resources are also decreasing as in the case of game animals.

What are the pressures and However, outlier cases exist in particular in the commune of Befasy, factors that influence district of Morondava, where the hunting of wild animals has considerably resource exploitation? increased. Migration, climatic constraints such as the scarcity of rain and unemployment are all factors that push people to increase pressure on What conditions are natural resources. Marine resources in the coastal zones are not spared by necessary for resource use these factors, and this is not helped by the non-observance of the fishing to be sustainable? calendar by the new migrants.

To address this, some possible solutions include enforcing the regulations that are in effect and strengthening monitoring activities. VOIs must also be revitalized.

193 USAID MADAGASCAR CCP BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FINAL REPORT

What actions have already For the localities equipped with a VOI, the main actions that have been been taken by members of carried out are related to awareness raising, in particular for permits, the community and by the prohibited activities, environmental education and reforestation. Others VOI (COBA/LMMA) to have provided fishing gear that meets standards for coastal areas. preserve the exploitation of these natural resources to meet the needs of present and future generations?

What are the challenges and It is above all about getting people to change their behavior towards opportunities for VOIs nature, making them aware of the importance of the environment, while (COBA/LMMA) to address taking into account existing constraints such as insufficient land. Then and engage with the there are the reforestation activities and the lack of young plants. Despite responsibilities of natural the goodwill of the VOIs, it is also about preventing people from growing resource management? corn in the forests by clearing them.

In your opinion, what are the The main goal is to improve the agricultural sector to reduce pressures on necessary conditions so that natural resources. This means addressing the following: the construction the preservation of the of dams and irrigation systems; farming equipment; cooperation with law environment, including the enforcement in terms of strengthening regulations; control and mastery of establishment of protected migration; establishing VOIs for localities that do not yet have them and areas, may bring benefits to strengthening public security. your community and future generations?

What solutions do you For sustainable socio-economic development, the agricultural sector must propose for the socio- be improved, with the construction of dams and efficient irrigation economic development of systems, and researching partnerships to boost farmers' activities. The your community in harmony availability of water guarantees agricultural productivity and the reduction with the preservation of of anthropogenic pressures on forests. In addition, it is also necessary to natural resources? ensure the flow of agricultural products by improving market channels.

Finally, VOIs must also be reinforced, in particular with the supply of young tree seedlings for reforestation activities.

USAID 194

U.S. Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524 www.usaid.gov/biodiversity