socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in...

113
Conservation in developing countries A Nosy Hara National Marine Park Case Study Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park An Internship Report Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Professional Science In cooperation with Community Centred Conservation Judith Hartshorn Division of Marine Conservation UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science November 2012 Approved: Committee chair: Associate Professor: Marine Affairs and Policy Judith Hartshorn (MPS, Marine Conservation)

Upload: c3publications

Post on 02-Dec-2015

522 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

DESCRIPTION

This report is the result of an internship conducted with the Madagascar branch of Community Centered Conservation (C3) in Nosy Hara National Marine Park. Madagascar’s Nosy Hara National Marine Park is at a critical conservation crossroads. Stakeholder groups agree on basic conservation premises but disagree on management vehicles and methods. Nosy Hara villagers are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Madagascar National Park management. Residents of the area currently comply with regulations but there is an absence of village participation [and opportunity for participation] in other areas of governance. Villagers feel management has failed to keep promises and does not benefit them. This study investigates socioeconomic conditions, user group interactions, and formal and informal institutions within NHNMP. Results enable exploration of current relationships between park management, park stakeholders and resources in order to help C3 identify sustainable co-management potentials.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Conservation in developing countries

A Nosy Hara National Marine Park Case Study

Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy

Hara National Marine Park

An Internship Report

Submitted to the Faculty

of the University of Miami,

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Professional Science

In cooperation with

Community Centred Conservation

Judith Hartshorn

Division of Marine Conservation

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

November 2012

Approved:

Committee chair:

Associate Professor: Marine Affairs and Policy

Judith Hartshorn (MPS, Marine Conservation)

Page 2: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Conservation in developing countries

A Nosy Hara National Marine Park Case Study

Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy

Hara National Marine Park

University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Supervised by: Dr. Sarah

Meltzoff, Dr. Kenny Broad and Dr. Thomas Steinfatt. Number of pages in text: 105

This report is the result of an internship conducted with the Madagascar branch of Community

Centered Conservation (C3) in Nosy Hara National Marine Park. Madagascar’s Nosy Hara National

Marine Park is at a critical conservation crossroads. Stakeholder groups agree on basic conservation

premises but disagree on management vehicles and methods. Nosy Hara villagers are becoming

increasingly disillusioned with Madagascar National Park management. Residents of the area currently

comply with regulations but there is an absence of village participation [and opportunity for participation]

in other areas of governance. Villagers feel management has failed to keep promises and does not benefit

them. This study investigates socioeconomic conditions, user group interactions, and formal and informal

institutions within NHNMP. Results enable exploration of current relationships between park

management, park stakeholders and resources in order to help C3 identify sustainable co-management

potentials.

Page 3: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Acknowledgements

Many people and organizations played a pivotal role in the facilitation of my internship and this

report. I would like to thank the University of Miami Masters of Professional Science degree program for

the opportunity to partake in a hands-on internship experience as a degree requirement. Without RSMAS

staff, curriculum, and ample opportunities I would have been unequipped for this internship and lack a

supportive springboard. Thanks to Maria Estevenez for all the behind the scenes organizational work and

calm reassurance she provides. Thanks to my Committee members Dr. Thomas Steinfatt and Dr. Kenny

Broad along with my committee chair Dr. Sarah Meltzoff; whom contributed to my project through

supervision and advice as well as motivation and inspiration. Each committee member is involved in

projects that address real life issues and work to make the world a better place. In this regard, I hope to

follow in the footsteps of my committee members. The organization Community Centered Conservation

also deserves recognition, credit and thanks for providing the opportunity for masters students like myself

to be involved in projects in areas such as Madagascar. The C3 internship experience allows C3 to

facilitate its own aid and research projects while simultaneously giving participants invaluable experience

in environmental work in third world countries, better equiping interns for future developmental work.

C3 staff work ardently to make the organization and its internship programs a success. Masotra to Ishmael

Leandre and Raymond Rayhekik, the onsite program officer and assistant. Ishmael and Raymond handle

all the logistics, on site research, and teach students how to be Malagasy. Recognition is also deserved by

Madagascar’s program manager Slyviane Volmpaine, Chris Poonian, C3’s research director and Patricia

Davis C3 president and founder for the guidance, advice and opportunities they provide through their

dedication to improving life in Malagasy communities.

Page 4: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................... 7

1.1 Background information............................................................ 7-9

1.2 Literature review........................................................ ............. 9-12

1.2.1 Socioeconomic monitoring........................................... 9-10

1.2.2.Co-management..........................................................10-12

1.3 Purpose of study................................................................... 13-14

1.3.1 Objectives......................................................... .........14

2.0 Methods and Materials …………………….......................................... 14-18

2.1 Secondary sources................................................................. 14

2.2 Survey Site................................................... ........................ 14-15

2.3 Socioeconomic Household Surveys.......................................... 15-18

2.3.1 Survey Creation.............................................................. 15-16

2.3.2 SocMon Training..............................................................16

.3.3 Sampling Strategy........................................................... 16

2.3.4 Household Survey Data Collection.................................... 17-18

2.4 Co-management focus groups and key informant

interviews..................................................................................19-23

2.4.1 Survey creation............................................................19

2.4.2 Sampling strategy....................................................... 19

2.4.3. Data collection........................................................ 19-23

2.5 Participant observation........................................................... 24

2.6 Socioeconomic household survey analysis............................... 24

2.7 Co-management analysis.........................................................25

3.0 Results ………………………………………................…..................... 25-42

3.1 Socioeconomic household surveys.......................................... 25-33

3.1.1 Demographics............................................................. 25

3.1.2 Economics................................................................. 25-27

3.1.3 Management...............................................................27-32

3.1.4 Resource conditions and perceptions........................... 32-33

3.2 Focus groups and key informant interview result...................... 33-42

3.2.1 Informal institutions..................................................... 33-36

3.2.2 Formal institutions....................................................... 36-39

3.2.3 Stakeholder organizations............................................ 39-42

4.0 Discussion ……………………………………........................................ 42-50

4.1 Socioeconomic conditions..................................................... 42-44

4.2 Co-management................................................................... 44-47

Page 5: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

4.3 Data limitations.................................................................... 48-50

5.0 Conclusion.................................................................................... 50-53

6.0 References Cited …………………………………………...................... 54-56

7.0 Appendices ……………………………………………………………….

Appendix 1: SocMon variables used in survey design.....................57-59

Appendix 2: Socioeonomic household survey.................................60-66

Appendix 3: Co-management focus group and key informant interviews

................................................................................67-76

Appendix 4: Demographic figures................................................. 76-77

Appendix 5: Economic figures and tables....................................... 78-83

Appendix 6: Management tables and figures................................... 84-89

Appendix 7: Resource figures and tables.........................................89-91

Appendix 8: Informal institutions.....................................................92-95

Appendix 9: Formal management....................................................95

Appendix 10: NHNMP stakeholders................................................ 96-98

Appendix 11: Andranovondronia dina...............................................99-105

Page 6: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

List of Tables

Table 1: Types of resource and habitat taboos (Cinner et al. 2007)

Table 2: Village Distribution of Household Surveys

Table 3: Key informant descriptions

Table 4: Focus group descriptions

Table 5: Stakeholder groups present in surveyed villages

Table 6: Examples of NHNMP regulations that have potential to be re-worked as fady

List of Figures

Figure 1: Nosy Hara National Marine Park boundaries

Figure 2:The Mangaoka commune villages research was facilitated in

Figure 3: C3 staff Raymond Rahendriry and intern Jane Shirley conduct a household survey with an

Antongoanaomby couple

Figure 4: Ampasindava focus group with respected community elders

FIgure 5: Ambararata focus group with young sea cucumber divers

Figure 6: Key informant interview with MNP on-site secretary Clara

Figure 7: Women and children beach seining with a mosquito net in Ampasindava

Figure 8: Village meeting in Ampasindava held to discuss a formalized marine dina

FIgure 9: MNP donated pirogue in Ankingamelco

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: SocMon variables utilized

Appendix 2: Socioeconomic household surveys

Appendix 3: Malagasy and English focus group and key informant interviews

Appendix 4: Demographic figures

Appendix 5: Economic FIgures and Tables

Appendix 6: Management Tables and Figures

Appendix 7: Resource figures and tables

Appendix 8: Informal institutions

Appendix 9: Formal management

Appendix 10: NHNMP stakeholders

Appendix 11: Andranovondronia dina

Page 7: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

1.0 Introduction

From April 4th to July 4th, 2012 I interned with the Madagascar branch of Community Centered

Conservation (C3). During this internship I facilitated socioeconomic research, investigated local formal

and informal government structures, assisted in community development and learned to live like a

Malagasy. I gained invaluable insight into the relationships between natural ecosystems, management and

humans that dictate conservation in developing countries. Information attained through my project will

help determine future C3 initiatives in the area and (ideally) assist Nosy Hara National Marine Park

stakeholders in evolving efforts working towards sustainable conservation.

1.1 Background information

Community Centered Conservation is a non-profit non-governmental organization focusing on

the relationships communities in developing countries hold with the natural environment. C3’s mission is

“To develop conservation efforts worldwide by building the capacity of local individuals and institutions

through grass-roots research and training initiatives.” C3’s vision is [helping to achieve] “a planet where

future generations thrive in harmony with their environment.” C3 is part of the growing body of

conservation researchers, scientists and developmental aid groups that realize that environmental

conservation cannot achieve sustainability without the support and participation of local populations

dependent on environmental resources. C3 works to empower local communities in the developing

regions of Madagascar and Indian Ocean islands, the Philippines, Micronesia, Fiji and other South Pacific

Islands, to play a leading role in the management of their environmental resources.

Madagascar is a Community Centered Conservation focus as community-based conservation

initiatives are integral to broad conservation efforts in Madagascar. Rural Malagasy depend almost

exclusively on natural capital like crops, minerals, or animals for sustenance (INSTAT, 2005). As a result

Madagascar's natural primary habitat experience losses greater than 70%. The high dependence of

Malagasy on natural resources necessitates incorporation of resource users in conservation management

structures. C3 works to assist in the preservation of Madagascar's ecosystems through fostering increased

opportunity and participation of local resource users in management through developmental projects,

resources and training.

C3 Madagascar’s current conservation focus is Nosy Hara National Marine Park (NHNMP).

NHNMP surrounds the 12 islands that make up the Nosy Hara archipelago (FIgure 1). Nosy Hara coral

reefs host 332 of 340 coral species found in the Western Indian Ocean, qualifying Nosy Hara as a WWF

designated coral marine ecoregion. The area is also important to several megafauna species including

Green and Hawksbill turtles, whales and dolphins. Many of the park’s human residents rely on fishing as

their primary occupation (WWF,2007).

Page 8: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure 1: Nosy Hara National Marine Park boundaries (MNP source, 2012)

In 2004 the Madagascar national association for the management of protected areas (ANGAP)

and the world wildlife federation (WWF) began validation of Nosy Hara National Marine Park (J.

Fermin, MNP vice director, personal communication, June, 2012). Original park objectives were to

“Represent and conserve the biodiversity and ecological goods and services of the Nosy Hara

Archipelago Conservation Area in perpetuity, and promote sustainable use in order to meet local

community needs and contribute to national and regional economic development strategies” (WWF,

2007). Ongoing political turmoil within Madagascar resulted in constant agency reorganization which in

turn created various setbacks for the park. Temporary protection status was achieved in 2006 when

Page 9: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

ANGAP became Madagascar National Parks (MNP). MNP officially validated NHNMP as a marine park

in 2009 but the change has yet to be noted on a global scale. Park management is experiencing ongoing

transition. WWF spearheaded creation and original management with a contingency of assistance being

Madagascar agencies would eventually be responsible for management of the park. The currently

occuring final stages of the managerial transition from WWF to MNP is a pivotal time for the park.

Obstacles including staff, funding, village conditions, and government support have prevented MNP

realization of original objectives. Current park conditions and attitudes indicate a real need to build

community acceptance of MNP and get community-based management in place (C. Poonian, C3

research director, personal communication, 2011). My project through C3 focuses on local

socioeconomic conditions, formal and informal institutions, stakeholder groups and organizations in order

to help C3 identify ways to strengthen community aspects of conservation management.

1.2 Literature review

It is widely recognized that marine resources are not adequatly managed exclusively from a

biophysical perspective. Socioeconomic conditions, community attitudes, and uses of marine resources

affect coastal marine ecosystems and management. Marine resource management simultaneously

produces far-reaching implications regarding the well-being of local communities. Consequently,

successful biological conservation and ecosystem management require a human dimension (Colding and

Folke, 2001).

1.2.1 Socioeconomic monitoring

Modern conservation initiatives in tropical developing countries often face difficulty achieving

positive outcomes. Part of this failure can be attributed to top down conservation planning conducted

without taking local socioeconomic factors into account (Allison and Horemans, 2006). Researchers are

realizing that conservation must consider prior practices, central to the lives of locals, who are most

affected by conservation. Conservation plans that prohibit locals from using traditional income sources,

without providing alternatives, ultimately prove harmful to the environment, the local people, and

relationships between management and locals (Bawa, 2006). Madagascar's large rural population depends

almost exclusively on natural capital (UNDP, 2010). Consequently understanding and empowering

resource dependent populations to play active roles in conservation management is a necessary aspect of

conservation success.

Tangible conservation gains due to understanding local socioeconomic factors have been

achieved on conservation stages. A conservation program in Thailand integrated 28 hornbill poachers into

hornbill monitoring programs. This produced a 39 percent increase in the number of nests containing

fledglings (Poonswad et. al., 2005). This initiative illustrates the use of socioeconomic analysis to identify

conservation threats (poachers), why these threats exist (poaching provides income) and turn these threats

into benefits (provide poachers income through monitoring).

Page 10: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

C3 bases socioeconomic research off guidelines provided by the Socioeconomic Monitoring

Initiative for Coastal Management (SocMon) (Malleret et. al., 2006). SocMon enhances coastal managers

understanding of socioeconomic conditions increasing their ability to incorporate socioeconomic context

into coastal management programs. The act of incorporating findings is central to socioeconomic

monitoring which should not be an end in itself rather a means to improve or evaluate management

(Malleret et. al., 2006).

1.2.2 Co-management

Top-down approaches to MPAs common to modern conservation initiatives in developing

countries are repeatedly proving unsustainable. These conservation failures stem from failure to

incorporate primary stakeholder groups such as local resource users (Colding, 2001). Recent studies

illustrate the necessity of co-management. Gutiérrez et. al. (2011) explored 130 fisheries in 44 countries,

including Madagascar, finding co-management to be the only realistic conservation method for artisanal

fisheries. Co-management exists when all stakeholder groups work together towards improving marine

regulations and conditions (Gutiérrez et. al., 2011).

Management occurs through regulating institutions. Institutions are rules and norms that structure

human interaction, including enforcement characteristics and sanctioning bodies (North, 1990, 1994).

Formal institutions are composed of written rules, laws and constitutions. These institutions are associated

with developed structures of industrialized nations (North, 1990, 1994). Informal institutions consist of

norms of behavior and cultural, spiritual and traditional conventions (North, 1990, 94). These institutions

are [generally] self-imposed, self-regulated, and self-enforced through mechanisms such as kinship ties,

emic beliefs of automatic sanctions, and social conventions. Informal village leaders also determine

consequences for violators of informal institutions (Colding and Folke, 2001). Many indigenous people

traditionally manage resources through informal institutions (McClanahan et. al., 2006; Cinner, 2005;

Berkes, 2008). Although the acknowledgement of potential traditional resource management in

conservation is growing traditional informal institutions are often ignored by modern conservation

managers (Cinner et. al. 2007).

Madagascar was historically governed through informal institutions. The pre-colonial era’s

arrival of the French and formal management structures has not diminished the influence of informal

institutions in Madagascar. The current dual government is comprised of formal and informal institutions

(Rakotoson and Tanner, 2006).

Madagascar's collectivist culture contains traditional social codes that govern communities’

relationships between themselves and with outsiders (Cinner, 2008). Known in Madagascar as dina, these

social codes coexist with modern law even when not formally recognized. Today almost 75% of

Malagasy population lives in the countryside and is affected by dina (Rakotoson and Tanner, 2006).

Lalaina Rakotoson, in her paper Community-based governance of coastal zone and marine

resources in Madagascar, refers to formal and informal institutions as the “legal” and “legitimate”

respectively (Rakotoson and Tanner, 2006). Legal efforts need legitimate popular support to ensure

Page 11: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

enforcement and compliance at all levels. To achieve this support, official laws need to recognize and

respect local customs. The national government of Madagascar is working to address the need to increase

village support of formal laws through integration of the legal (formal rule) and legitimate (informal

village institutions) through formalizing village dina. Merging modern formal government structures with

traditional informal village governance produces a hybrid management involving national and local

stakeholders (Rakotoson, 2006). The 1996 establishment of Law 96025 allows authority transfer to local

communities to manage their natural resources. In essence this law authorizes local rule-making processes

of dina to establish resource norms the community upholds and is measured by.

Another type of informal institution prevalent throughout Madagascar are fady (taboos), strong

social prohibitions relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred or forbidden

(Lambek, 1992; Ruud, 1960). Though many studies describe Malagasy taboos and their importance in

establishing social roles (Lambek 1992, 1998; Walsh 2002), few have examined potential roles in

conservation (Cinner, 2008).

Resource and habitat taboos (RHT) guide human conduct toward the natural environment (Table

1) (Ludwig 1983; Colding and Folke, 2001). Studies in Indonesia and New Guinea show that traditional

RHT regulating access to resources [can] act as conservation methods (Cinner et. al., 2007).

Socioeconomic surveys examining RHT of the five Madagascar marine protected areas (MPA) were

conducted in 2007. At the time of these surveys Nosy Hara was not an MPA. Fady was found to be the

main type of informal institution affecting coastal and marine resources in Madagascar's MPAs (Cinner

et. al., 2008).

Table 1: Types of resource and habitat taboos (Cinner et. al., 2007)

Page 12: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

However a Nosy Ve case study illustrates fady do not need to be specifically RHT to affect the

success of conservation initiatives. Through law #96025 the community of Nosy Ve, an island in southern

Madagascar, established a recognized natural resource regulating dina (Rakotoson and Tanner, 2006).

The first five of twelve articles that compose Nosy Ve's dina validate traditional fady regarding human

behavior necessary to respect their ancestors. These fady rang from prohibiting dogs or pigs on the island

to prohibiting outsiders on the island at night. The following seven fady consist of national marine laws

prohibiting hunting dolphins, sea turtles, and use of poison as a fishing method. Although the first five

fady outlined by the community’s dina do not directly manage resources, their inclusion, which takes into

account local customs and traditions, validates the following marine focused articles in a legitimate sense

(Rakotoson, Tanner 2006). The potential to strengthen formal conservation management through

incorporation of informal structures of fady and dina is present throughout Madagascar.

1.3 Purpose of study

1. To gain understanding of current socioeconomic conditions experienced by Nosy Hara National Marine

Park villagers through SocMon household surveys. Data collected will be used by C3 to help identify

community strengths and weaknesses and design development projects accordingly with the broad goal of

conservation success through participation in mind.

2.To assist C3 in determining current and potential community co-management within Nosy Hara

National Marine Park. Current knowledge of traditional government structures demonstrate their

potential in bottom-up management approaches that work to facilitate changes at the community and local

government levels (Foale et. al., 2011). Stakeholder participation is key to conservation success. Focus

groups and key informant interviews investigate local informal and formal management and stakeholder

groups. Information gained can be used to work to strengthen co-management by identifying

management strength and weaknesses, exploring local informal rules and their conservation possibilities,

and examining the current and potential voices of stakeholder groups.

1.3.1 Project objectives

1. Design and conduct socioeconomic surveys, key informant interviews and focus groups in Nosy Hara

National Marine Park

2. Contribute to C3's ongoing socioeconomic assessment of NHNMP through preliminary data analysis

using frequency distributions and cross sectional analysis

4. Provide basic recommendations on improving co-management in Nosy Hara National Marine Park

5. Experience the realities of conservation in developing countries

Page 13: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

2.0 Methods and materials

2.1 Secondary sources

Literature review using search engine tools such as web of science and university libraries was

conducted prior to internship fulfillment. Madagascar NGO and government organizations were contacted

for supplemental documents.

2.2 Survey site: Mangaoka Commune: Antsiranana II: Diana region: Madagascar

Nosy Hara National Marine Park (NHNMP) is located within the Antsiranana II district of the

Diana Region (MEF, 2009). This district is composed of the rural area surrounding the city of

Antsiranana, the capital of the Diana Region also known as Diego Suarez. Although Nosy Hara National

Marine Park is only 36 km from Antsiranana's center, travel to the area can take hours as roads, transport

dependability (taxi brousse, zebu cart, foot, bicycle) and externalities such as weather conditions are all

volatile.

In Madagascar villages are organized into communes. The four communes relevant to NHNMP

are Andranofanjava, Mahalina, Andranovondronina, and Mangaoka (MEF, 2009). These communes are

heavily dependent on natural resources. Due to time, transportation, and money constraints, my data

collection for this project was only feasible in Mangaoka. Mangaoka commune contains the villages of

Bobatolagna, Ampasindava, Ankingameloka, Antanamandriry, Anjavy, Ambararata, Antongoanaomby,

Andranomavo, Mananara, Matsaborimaiky, and Ambovobe. My data collection took place in the outlying

Mangaoka villages of Ambararata, Antongoanaomby, Antanamandriry, Ambolimagnariny, Ampasindava,

Anjavy, and Ankingameloka (Figure 2). Data from previously conducted SocMon key informant

interviews facilitated in Mangaoko, Amapsindava, Bobatolana, Ambararata and Ankingameloka earlier

in 2012 by C3 interns and staff was used. Limited data on Andranofanjava, Mahalina, and

Andranovondronina was collected from secondary sources including Madagascar National Park offices,

and national census information available online.

Page 14: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure 2: The Mangaoka commune villages research was facilitated in

Two data collection trips from Diego Suarez to the Nosy Hara National Marine Park field site

were made. Trip 1 took place from April 22nd to May 15th and Trip 2 from June 8 -18th. The

Madagascar National Park hut located in Ampasindava served as home base during time spent in the

field. The data collection team consisted of myself, the two native Malagasy C3 staff Ishmael Leandre,

program officer, and Raymond Raherindray, program assistant, and Jane Shirley, English intern.

Transportation between villages was on foot with all villages located within a 7 km radius of

Ampasindava.

2.3 Socioeconomic household surveys

2.3.1 Survey creation

Socioeconomic household surveys were performed by the C3 team in the villages of

Ampasindava, Ankingameloka, Antanamandriry, Ambararata, Ambolomagnary, Anjavy, and

Antongoanaomby. I was responsible for designing the household surveys. Surveys follow the SocMon

socioeconomic household survey format and content with variables geared to produce quantitative data on

socioeconomic conditions present in the villages post Madagascar National Park management (Appendix

1: SocMon variables utilized). Surveys met approval by C3 research director Chris Poonian, and

University of Miami professors Dr. Kenneth Broad, Dr. Thomas Steinfatt, and Dr. Sarah Meltzoff. Prior

to field departure the surveys were translated into Malagasy (Appendix 2: English and Malagasy

Page 15: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

household surveys). Fifty English copies and two Malagasy copies of each survey were printed using a

local university printing business.

2.3.2 SocMon training

Ishmael and Raymond, the two Malagasy C3 program staff, are trained and experienced in

SocMon data collection methods used by C3. Formal SocMon training for interns was not a logistic

reality due to time and funding constraints. To familiarize themselves with SocMon collection methods

interns read the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) Manual and the Global

Socioeconomic Monitoring Initiative for Coastal Management (SocMon) West Indian Ocean Manual.

Ishmael presented a powerpoint regarding SocMon data collection methods in Nosy Hara National

Marine Park and any questions and concerns were addressed.

2.3.3 Sampling strategy

The possibility of random sampling methods was discussed with intern program leader Ishmael

Leandre. From knowledge and experience Ishmael felt random sampling in Nosy Hara villages was not

practical. In general village size and way of life of rural Malagasy are not compatible with random

sampling. There are no addresses or straight lines of houses suitable to predetermining random samples.

People work directly to live and eat and often do not have time for surveys. The villages in the Nosy Hara

area depend on the sea for a major part of their livelihoods. Sea conditions determine work schedules and

as we were in Nosy Hara during prime fishing season, household heads were often absent. These factors

determined our interview strategy to be questioning any willing and able villagers that met our

qualifications of household head or income contributing household members. Often interview

arrangements made the day before fell through as favorable fishing conditions arose or a family member

fell sick. Traveling to neighboring villages was hit or miss as we had no way, save walking, to let

villagers know we were coming or to know if villagers would be available to speak with us. We made

sure to respect local customs while being open and friendly to facilitate maximum surveys. Each day we

would walk throughout the daily designated village and survey as many qualifying villagers as possible.

2.3.4 Household survey data collection

Community Centered Conservation (C3) has been doing work in Nosy Hara National Marine

Park for years resulting in familiarity and acceptance of C3 among villagers. It is essential for C3 to

maintain positive relationship with the NHNMP community.

A major factor in keeping positive relations is the care native Malagasy C3 staff and interns take

in following local customs and traditions. Immediately upon arrival in each village Raymond and Ishmael

sought out the village Fokotany chief, the informally elected official responsible for the village, whom

according to Malagasy tradition must give approval to all visitors and their intentions before they are

allowed to stay in the village. Raymond and Ishmael spoke with the Fokotany chief of each of the

Page 16: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

villages we visited. During this meeting C3 petitioned the Fokotany chief for permission to reside in their

village as temporary members, conduct research, and to host marine education events.

Village relations are further strengthened through C3 community assistance initiatives.

Raymond and Ishmael used the meeting with each village Fokotany chief to explain and ask permission

for a new health initiative for the communities. The Fokotany chiefs were all very happy with this

initiative and subsequent meetings with the mayor of the Mangaoko commune and all Fokotany chiefs

were held to discuss specific logistics, qualifications, timelines, and ways to keep corruption out of the

program.

The last step before actual data collection was a sit down staff/intern meeting to discuss the

household surveys, focus groups and key informant interviews. The meaning of each question and the

answers the surveys aimed to generate were explained. This served as a practice run and proactively

cleared any confusion that may have arisen due to cultural, linguistic or education differences.

The first household survey was performed by program officer Ishmael while C3 program

assistant Raymond observed and interns Jane Shirley and myself recorded information. Subsequent

surveys were performed by teams consisting of one native Malagasy C3 staff member and one C3 English

speaking intern. Each morning we walked together to the village of the day and split up to find villagers

to survey. Teams were equipped with Malagasy and English survey copies, clipboard, pen, camera, and

GPS device. Before a survey commenced a general explanation of the research as well as description of

the new PSI/C3 healthcare initiative was given. Questions were asked in Malagasy's Sakalava dialect with

answers directly translated and recorded in English. Questions and tangents that were related to interview

topics were welcomed, interviewers promoted a natural flow of topics and conversation. Interviews were

generally performed outside but upon invitation took place inside village homes (Figure 3). Interviews

generally lasted around an hour. In total 38 household surveys were performed (Table 2).

Page 17: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure 3: C3 staff Raymond Rahendriry and intern Jane Shirley conduct household survey with

Antongoanaomby couple

Table 2: Village Distribution of Household Surveys

SocMon Village

# of Household Surveys Performed

Ambararata 6

Ambolomagnary

3

Ampasindava 18

Anjavy 1

Ankingameloka

6

Antanamandriry

1

Antongoanaomby

3

Page 18: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

2.4 Co-management focus groups and key informant interviews

2.4.1 Survey creation

Nosy Hara National Marine Park is a new park whose management juggles conservation goals

while attempting to preserve and ideally improve socioeconomic conditions of park villages. This is no

easy feat as different stakeholder groups adjust to the changes imposed by management. Focus groups and

key informant interviews on the subjects of informal institutions, formal institutions and stakeholder

organizations were facilitated in order to evaluate relationships between villagers and management. These

topics were taken from qualitative SocMon key informant and focus group templates and adjusted to

relate specifically to the Nosy Hara National Marine Park area. Surveys met approval by C3 research

director Chris Poonian. Prior to field departure surveys were translated into Malagasy and Malagasy and

English versions were printed (Appendix 3: Malagasy and English focus group and key informant

interviews).

2.4.2 Sampling strategy

Focus group and key informant interviews were ideally conducted with villagers who participate

in management or an activity park management regulates. We decided against sampling techniques like

snowball sampling due to logistics and preventing bias. Often people in the area held very strong attitudes

towards park management and we wanted to prevent potential snowballing bias as people might only

refer like-minded individuals. We decided convenience sampling of people active in some aspect of the

park would be the most viable sampling procedure.

2.4.3 Data collection

Data collection through focus groups and key informant interviews occurred after permission was

granted from the village Fokotany chief. C3 staff and interns discussed and familiarized themselves with

the questionnaires, and a few household surveys had been completed in the village. Unlike household

surveys arrangements were generally prearranged by Ishmael and Raymond on previous village trips, at

the weekly market, during daily village activities, or at the time of socioeconomic interviews.

Focus groups were facilitated by Raymond and Ishmael in Sakalava, the prominent dialect of the

area. Answers were directly translated and recorded in English by Jane or myself with the other taking

pictures of the event. To begin Ishmael, Raymond, Jane and I all introduced ourselves in Malagasy.

Ishmael and Raymond explained the research as well as upcoming C3 health initiative that would soon be

benefiting villagers. During this time Jane and I set out soda pop and biscuits that participants received for

their time. After questions had been answered the focus groups commenced. Ideally groups answered

questions on each of the three topics of informal institutions, formal institutions, and stakeholder groups.

If the group started to get uncomfortable, restless, or bored interviews were cut short or altered. Focus

groups usually lasted about an hour. Interviewers generally stuck to the questions/format of the printed

Malagasy and English focus groups questions but allowed conversation and answers to flow and altered

questions at their discretion. When groups did not understand or know the answer to a question Raymond

Page 19: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

or Ishmael would try to explain it through general examples or prompts and if no reaction or opinion

resulted they moved on to the next question. Focus groups were generally conducted in open public areas

and often people would come in and out of the groups. Children and women sat on the outskirts and

occasionally voiced their opinions. The quiet, private focus group setting envisioned by westerners was

definitely not the case. Pushing for such a setting would have been rude and strange to the villager’s

collective culture. The meetings ended when we thanked the villagers for their time and then shared

casual conversation and pictures (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4: Ampasindava focus group with respected community elders

Page 20: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure 5: Ambararata focus group with young sea cucumber divers

Key informant interviews were sometimes conducted with all four interviewers present and

sometimes by teams consisting of a native Malagasy program officer and an English-speaking intern. Key

informants generally received soda pop for their time. Interviews started with introductions and a

summary of the new C3 health program. Key Informants then answered questions in Malagasy about

informal institutions, formal institutions and stakeholder groups present in their village. Answers were

directly translated and recorded in English. The surveys provided guideline questions however the

interview was conducted to promote conversation flow and often new topics arose. If interviewees began

to show signs of disinterest or restlessness the interviews were cut short. Interviews were concluded with

thanks and some casual conversation (Figure 6).

Page 21: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure 6: Key informant interview with MNP on-site secretary Clara

Focus groups were generally younger groups of people that might be more comfortable talking in

a group. Ideal key informants were older, long-time residents, or highly active in the park. As focus group

and key informant surveys were similar we generally avoided people participating in both groups. In the

case of key informants participating in focus groups the surveys were used more as guidelines and new

questions and topics that generated conversation flow were prompted. Key informants included sea

cucumber divers, village park employees, Fokotany chiefs, and old respected community members. Focus

groups occurred with sea cucumber divers, fishermen and respected community elders. However real life

conditions often resulted in difficulties pinning down "ideal" candidates as sea cucumber divers were

often on diving trips and park employees were often showing researchers around or traveling to other

communities. Consequently, interviews were also performed with groups of farmers, or wives of

fishermen. In total 9 key informant interviews (Table 3) and 6 focus groups were performed (Table 4).

This data was used alongside 40 general SocMon key informant interviews previously conducted by C3

in analysis.

Page 22: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Table 3: Key informant descriptions

Key

informant

Key

informant

description

Home village Informal

institutions

Formal

institutions

Stakeholder

groups and

organizations

Dada Village elder,

long time

resident,

shaman,

worked in sea

for all of his

live, active in

community

affairs

Ampasindava X X X

Ambararata

Fokotany

chief

Fokotany

chief, farmer,

sea cucumber

diver, MNP

informant

Ambararata X X X

Tolide Respected

community

member,

established

diver

Ampasindava X X X

Local farmer older resident

farmer

Anjavy X - X

Mama Mena

B

Wife of MNP

property

guardian, life

time village

resident

Ampasindava X X X

Raymond Young sea

cucumber

diver, life time

village resident

Ankingamelco X X X

Clara MNP

secretary,

college

educated, born

in

Ampasindava

Ampasindava X X X

Page 23: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Claudis MNP

appointed

community

sector chief of

Nosy Hara

South

Ampasindava X X -

Fermen MNP vice

director of

NHNMP

Diego Suarez - X -

Table 4: Focus group descriptions

Focus group Village Informal

institutions

Formal

institutions

Stakeholder

groups and

organizations

6 wives of

fishermen

Ankingamelco X - -

5 farmers Ambolimagnariny X - X

5 farmers Antongoanaomby X X X

4 respected

community

elders whom

work in the sea

Ampasindava X X X

Fokotany chief

and 4 young

farmers/sea

cucumber

divers

Ambararata X X -

5 sea cucumber

divers

Ankingamelco X X

2.5 Observations

Participant and non-participant observation played large roles in my internship. Whenever

possible I participated in daily life activities such as digging up clams with women villagers, beach

Page 24: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

seining with children (FIgure 7) or pounding rock into red dust used for dyes with gigantic mortar and

pestles. Non-participant observation provided significant insight into local village meetings, boat

building, sea cucumber preparation and sales to Chinese importers. Fishing and diving were not often

observed firsthand as they took place far out at sea among the islands of Nosy Hara.

Figure 7: Women and children beach seining with a mosquito net in Ampasindava

2.6 Socioeconomic household survey analysis

Basic preliminary analysis of socioeconomic data uses cross sectional analysis and frequency

distributions. Variables are analyzed for the entire village group with certain variables broken down into

land and sea based village groups. Villages are categorized as land or sea based on proximity to ocean as

well as major income sources. Ankingameloka and Ampasindava are directly on the coast and derive the

majority of their primary income sources from the sea. Antanamandriry, Anjavy, Ambarata,

Atongoanaomby and Ambolimagnariny are land locked and depend heavily on farming as a primary

income source. This split provides better indications of conditions in the various villages. Findings are

used to draw general conclusion on village demographics, economics, management and resource

conditions, uses and attitudes.

2.7 Co-management analysis

Focus groups and key informant interviews produce qualitative information regarding formal and

informal institutions present in Nosy Hara National Marine Park and stakeholder groups and

Page 25: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

organizations. Results allow conclusions on the presence of formal and informal institutions and

stakeholder groups in the park to be made from which general recommendations on ways co-management

can improve are made.

3.0 Results

3.1 Household socioeconomic surveys

3.1.1 Population demographics

Village demographics show household share common characteristics. There is an absence of a

majority ethnic group in the area. Most villagers associate more closely with the Nosy Hara National Park

area than that of their ancestors, adapting local traditions and fadys. The majority, 89.5 % of villagers,

adapt the Sakalava dialect allowing for easy communication between villagers. 97% of interviewees were

permanent residents with 84% living in the Nosy Hara area for ten years or more. The majority of

households have dependent members. Villagers are familiar with each other and a definite sense of

community is present.

See Appendix 4

3.1.2 Household economics

Village economics center around resource extraction as farming, fishing and diving are the three

main livelihoods. Villagers generally depend on more than one livelihood to derive income producing

goods. The number of products depended on per household ranges from one to eight with the average

being 2.5. This is common in rural Madagascar as external factors like droughts and cyclones can

eliminate regular income sources.

The coastal villages of Ampasindava and Ankingamelco depend heavily on the sea. The land

locked villages of Anjavy, Ambararata, Antongoanaomby, Antanamandriry and Ambolomagnary depend

most heavily on farming. However residence does not determine livelihoods and 47% of villagers depend

on both the land and sea for their income.

Before the creation of Nosy Hara National Marine Park villagers had little to no restrictions on

their income providing activities. Implementation of the park resulted in regulation of two of the three

major livelihood providing activities, fishing and diving. According to income sources 73% of households

depend on sea based income sources for some part of their livelihood with over a third of these

households solely dependent on the sea. These households are experiencing new restrictions circa park

creation in 2006 and attempting to adjust.

The transition from an unrestricted [through regulation] economic system to a government

regulated system is ongoing. Most regulations regard access and methods of obtaining resources as

opposed to quantities. Villagers agree with the majority of new regulations and the general concept of

conserving resources. However villagers are left to adjust to new regulations without support of

Madagascar National Parks.

Page 26: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Fishing is commonly executed with large nets. New regulations state that nets may not have mesh

smaller than two fingers. Fishermen do not have issue with the new regulation itself. Fishermen

understand that it is better that small fish, which provide little profit anyway, escape their nets and reach

reproductive maturity. However no assistance was given to fishermen in obtaining legal equipment. Nets

and bobbers can cost 60,000 to 100,000 ariary (30 to 50$ USD), an extremely large sum to ask fishermen

whom already spent money on nets they are no longer allowed to use to pay without assistance.

Diving provides another example of the economic difficulties in complying with new regulations.

Regulations prohibit diving with tanks or hookah as well as taking sea cucumbers smaller than your hand.

Villagers have no issue with the prohibition of tanks. NHNMP residents do not have the resources to tank

dive regardless. Villagers also understand leaving sea cucumbers smaller than your hand. As one diver

said it takes 10 small sea cucumbers to compose a kilo or 2 large ones. It is better to leave the small ones

to feed your belly (provide income) at a later date. However enforcement of the new regulations affects

NHNMP residents economically. Many divers said outside fishermen regularly use tanks with little fear

of punishment from MNP. Ten years ago large sea cucumbers were easily found in 10 meters of water,

easily attainable by free divers. Now residents say all the big sea cucumbers have migrated to waters

deeper than 20 meters, a hardship for the free divers but easy harvesting for outsiders illegally using

tanks. According to new regulations sea cucumbers left in the shallow waters are to small to harvest.

Local divers pockets suffer as they are unable to harvest easily accessible cucumbers and migrant

fishermen who use illegal gear prosper.

The four main income deriving goods in NHNMP are sea cucumber, fish, rice and corn. New

regulations alter access to two of the most substantial income contributors, sea cucumber and fish. Sea

cucumber is a high value good destined for international Asian markets. Fish is a medium value good

either consumed, sold locally or ideally regionally to Diego Suarez. Rice and corn, the two unregulated

goods, are low value mass produced crops consumed and sold to greedy middleman collectors acting on

the behalf of factory owners for the obscenely low price of 200 ariary per kilo. The economic effects of

MNP regulation of sea cucumber and fish are heightened due to alternative low value cash crops already

suffering.

See Appendix 5

3.1.3 Management

The current status of and attitudes held towards management by villagers was investigated

through questions regarding rule knowledge, personal participation levels and satisfaction with

management, and success, failures, problems and solutions with management.

Knowledge of management was found to be occupation specific. Villagers knew the rules for the

work they actively participate in but did not know park rules if they did not pertain specifically to their

income source. Divers know regulations regarding tanks, catch size and no camping in the islands.

Page 27: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Farmers know few marine restrictions but understand informal dina that dictates zebu owners pay for any

destruction of crops their zebu cause.

Results regarding personal enforcement and compliance levels for activities villagers actively

participate in are encouraging. Enforcement and compliance for sea activities among villagers are high

due to pressure from MNP as well as the desire to preserve resources for future generations. Villagers

made sure to express that although they follow fishing and diving regulations compliance and

enforcement of rules among migrant fishermen is an issue. Villagers feel that migrant fishermen either do

not know the rules or deliberately disregard them. Villagers say when confronted migrants scoff and say

they are not worried about being caught by MNP or Peche Maritime. Many villagers said this is because

companies migrant fishermen work for pay off MNP and Peche Maritime. Multiple villagers attested to

reporting migrant fishermen using tanks, seeing the fishermen arrested, and back in the water with the

same equipment within a week. Another issue with enforcement is the location of Peche Maritime and

MNP headquarters in Diego 40 km away. Rule breakers have ample time to leave no take fishing zones or

hide equipment before enforcement arrives, villagers feel it is likely migrant rule breakers are tipped off

through corrupt insiders. Issues of migrant fishermen frustrate the villagers and disenfranchise their trust

in management. Villagers do not understand why management seems to focus their enforcement and

compliance attention on NHNMP inhabitants as they are already following the rules.

Answers to questions regarding household participation and satisfaction with participation in the

areas of decision making, awareness raising, enforcement, compliance, and monitoring yield disturbing

results. In all categories but compliance NO participation composes the highest percentage of answers.

People with active participation have the highest levels of satisfaction with their participation,

surprisingly and sadly, people with no participation also have high levels of satisfaction. This is partially

a result of disinterest of farming villagers in coastal management.

In all areas of management excluding compliance, more than 60% of the populations in farming

based villages have no participation. These villagers tend to be highly satisfied with their level of

participation in coastal management be it high, active or none. This is reflective of the amount of outreach

targeted in the areas. Although these villagers primary livelihood is farming we found that 47% of

households depend on both the land and sea for their livelihoods. Marine resources are utilized in farming

villages as material sources for homes and nutritional additives to diets. All of the Mangkoa area villages

are within close proximity to the sea making them a part of the coastal watershed. The majority of people

from sea-based villages have low satisfaction when they have some to no participation in management

decisions, the most common participation levels. However a surprising amount, about 1/3, of sea villagers

with no participation are highly satisfied with this amount.

Decision-making currently has the lowest number of active village participants. Villagers state

that when MNP first came to the area and proposed the park they met with the people to discuss

conditions, new rules and why creation of a marine park was necessary. Villagers were excited about the

idea of a park and put trust in MNP that the park would benefit them. MNP told the villagers they would

be management partners and that regular meetings would provide villagers the opportunity to voice any

Page 28: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

ideas or concerns regarding the park and management. MNP also made many promises regarding

assistance with improving infrastructure, schools and healthcare. To date little to nothing has been done

regarding these promises.Villagers feel all MNP has done is inflict restrictions and rules without even

offering assistance in transforming fisheries and equipment to be in accordance to new regulations. The

regular meetings promised by MNP have long since stopped and as a result communication pathways

with MNP are unclear. Villagers are able to voice opinions to local villagers hired by MNP or on rare

occasions to MNP officials during visits. However many villagers are nervous to do so on an individual

basis and no complaints go unanswered.

A larger number of villagers play an active role in monitoring than decision-making. Fishermen

and divers realize that they are responsible for their fishing grounds and waters and have, to an extent,

always monitored resources and other resource users. Fishermen and diver reports on turtle sightings play

a role in monitoring the effectiveness of the ban on killing sea turtles. However their is a general lack of

participation in monitoring

While some villagers agree with the basic park management premise of protecting resources,

especially in lieu of preserving resources for future generations, many do not understand park rules or see

connections to the benefits they produce. MNP has done some work raising awareness for the park in the

sea-based villages of Ampasindava and Ankingamelco and with the Fokotany chiefs of other NHNMP

villages. Sadly awareness levels, like decisions making, have very low levels of active participation.

MNP largely ignores villages whose residents primarily rely on farming, making little to no effort in

education and outreach to these areas. As a result no villagers from land-based villages are actively

involved in awareness raising and the majority are highly satisfied with having no participation in this

area. This is somewhat understandable as Malagasy farmers have little excess time or effort, their lives

are focused on their farms. However the reality is that these farmers both indirectly affect and are affected

by NHNMP. All the farms rely on sea products for portions of their nutrition. Farms are located in the

coastal watershed. Deforestation for fields can cause sedimentation and erosion. Farms are generally

located in close proximity to streams and rivers emptying into NHNMP waters. Recent destructive corn

bugs necessitate the use of insecticides. Insecticides are applied at crucial plant cycle periods that often

coincide with heavy rains. No research has been done on whether or not chemicals from these insecticides

are present in unhealthy levels in NHNMP waters. Likely it is not yet a problem as insecticide use is

recent and on a small scale, however, if populations continue to expand and insecticide use increases it

could be a future issue. Some farmers also rely on fishing and diving for secondary and tertiary income

sources, making it important for them to be aware of the park’s rules and goals. The majority of villagers

of sea-based communities are dissatisfied with their low participation in awareness-raising. However a

significant portion have high satisfaction with no participation. MNP has failed to instill the need for

awareness and education on the park amongst villagers.

Enforcement is the second most participated in aspect of management. Fishermen know MNP has

little constant presence in the park. Protocols for reporting infractions are in place and followed. However

residents often feel like enforcement on migrants is futile due to corrupt premade arrangements migrants

Page 29: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

have with MNP. Rules are self-enforced among villagers for fear of large fines, respect for management,

and the desire to preserve resources.

Compliance is the only aspect of management that more people are actively involved in than not.

This is positive as it means local villagers are following NMNP rules imposed to conserve their resources.

Whether or not this is a result of understanding the necessity of rules and regulations or fear of

punishment is unknown. Villagers agree with most of the rules but feel some are unfair. The ban on

killing sea turtles is one such regulation. Villagers have noticed increased numbers of sea turtles since the

ban on killing turtles was implemented and are happy with these results. However the hunting of, killing,

and consumption of sea turtle is an important cultural tradition. Villagers understand the importance of

conserving sea turtles and admit in the past sea turtle populations were dangerously low. Now that

numbers have increased villagers would like to occasionally partake in traditional cultural celebrations

involving hunting and eating sea turtle. Villagers feel MNP is unfair to place total bans on sea turtle.

Compliance of outsiders to rules and regulations contributes to some villagers’ low satisfaction with

compliance. Many villagers stated that outsiders regularly break rules such as diving with tanks and are

rarely caught or punished. Villagers feel MNP, Peche Maritime and outside divers have deals conceived

through bribery. Villagers do not understand why the majority of MNP and Peche maritime efforts

regarding compliance and enforcement are focused on them when they are already complying and the

resources are traditionally theirs. Only one fisherman admitted to not complying with MNP rules. He

uses a net that has mesh smaller than 2 fingers. He says he would be glad to switch to legal gear but

cannot afford to spare the money for a new net. The elderly fisherman says the money he makes from

fishing puts food in his family’s bellies leaving little for extra expenses. He feels that MNP should give

villagers legal gear if they are going to punish villagers for illegal gear. From observation villagers do

comply with most rules such as not using tanks to dive sea cucumber. Scuba and hookah equipment is

expensive and the financial aspects of diving prevent villagers from breaking no tank rules even if fear of

punishment did not. Villagers usually comply with other rules like ban on sea turtle as and closed seasons

as punishment fines are huge. It is unknown whether fishermen and divers follow rules regarding no take

zones and camping in the islands, as MNP does not monitor the areas on a consistent basis.

Although villagers often expressed dissatisfaction with MNP interviewees experienced

difficulties articulating specific problems facing management. The most common answer was I do not

know. Often people whom gave the answer I don't know identified problems with management when

answering more specific questions. Many issues people have with MNP management focus on

enforcement/compliance of outside migrant fishermen to MNP rules and regulations.Villagers feel MNP

is corrupt and looks the other way essentially allowing migrant fishers to deplete resources MNP claims

to conserve. Villagers also feel MNP misrepresented village participation in management. Locals

understand the need for management and were initially excited to work with MNP. However villagers feel

MNP has not incorporated them into the decision-making aspects of management. MNP places

restrictions on them; such as no take zones, net sizes, and not being allowed to camp in the islands

without giving them compensation. The villagers do not like the complete ban on eating sea turtles. They

Page 30: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

understand the need for protection and have noticed sea turtle numbers rebounding greatly however they

feel it is part of their culture to occasionally eat turtle and they would like to be allowed to do so.

Villagers whom directly benefit from MNP listed no problems with MNP management. The park

directly employees several villagers in sector chief, boat driver, property guardian, and park secretary

positions. MNP also has special relationship with certain boat owners and divers. Those who participate

actively in the park through jobs or as informants do not have complaints with management. Whether

their positive affinity to management results from a heightened understanding, participation and feeling of

ownership towards the park and initiatives or is due to the monetary benefits they receive for their

services is unknown. It is interesting to note that relatives and spouses do not always hold the same views

towards the park. The property guardian and his wife are an example of split household attitudes toward

MNP management. The property guardian is a close relative to NHNMP's head director in MNP’s Diego

office, he is not originally from the Mangaoka commune but his wife is. He received the job as property

guardian solely due to his relationship with the head director. He feels and speaks positively towards

MNP. He has not fished or dove a day in his life and is afraid of the ocean. His wife grew up in

Ampasindava and many of her relatives are divers and fishermen. Although her household income is

provided by MNP the property guardian’s wife dislikes many aspects of MNP management. Other

villagers who do not benefit through monetary payments or physical gifts harbor ill sentiment towards the

park for not distributing benefits equally.

Few villagers were able to list solutions when asked directly. Solutions that were given gear

around MNP working with instead of on top of villagers. If nets with mesh under two fingers are

outlawed the villagers feel MNP should provide them with legal gear. The people want comprise and

interaction from MNP versus rule by a removed iron fist forty km away in Diego. The people say in the

past monthly meetings with MNP enabled them to express concerns, ideas, and issues but these meetings

stopped long ago, cutting off their relationship with MNP. Without the meetings it is difficult to get the

ear of MNP especially for a villager with no education or easy connection to or in Diego.

Sadly when asked what successes coastal management has produced the most common answer by

a landfall was "I don't know" and the second most common answer was "nothing". Sea turtle protection

was the most common success noted by villagers. They see the numbers of sea turtles rebounding and

directly connect it with the MNP regulation that bans them from hunting/eating sea turtle. Other successes

stated by three or less people include protecting the area for future generations, catch size limits for sea

cucumber, mangrove protection, bird protection, gear restrictions, no take zones, MNP enforcement,

surveying and compliance, and the general premises of conservation that MNP promotes.

When asked about management failures the most common answer again was I do not know.

Villagers want MNP and peche to step it up and hold outsiders accountable for their actions. NHNMP

residents also feel that MNP lies and does not fulfill promises. When MNP first came to the area to

discuss the formation of a marine park they held regular village meetings. In exchange for their

cooperation and participation in the new marine park MNP promised the people assistance in critical

areas of freshwater, schools, hospitals and electricity. The people have not received any of these

Page 31: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

promises. When MNP first came to the area it was regulated by different sources. The inside transitions

MNP has faced may be part of the reason these promises have not been fulfilled. Different people made

the promises than are working now. However those working now should proactively address these

promises and do their best to make headway on them. The people feel MNP initially acted as the villagers

and MNP would be a team working together to protect the oceans, which would benefit all dependent on

the ocean. Yet the majority of people do not feel like they play any role in management besides

compliance. Other problems given include the government not compensating for prohibitions, unequal

distribution of benefits from/by MNP management and a basic conflict of interest between MNP

conservation and the people's survival.

Household survey results regarding management express general dissatisfaction with

management. Re-occuring issues focus on compliance of migrant fishermen to rules, lack of interaction,

participation and direct involvement between MNP and villagers, and corruption and broken promises of

MNP.

See Appendix 6

3.1.3 Resources

Household knowledge, perceptions and attitudes towards resources varied. Household

perceptions of resource conditions are important indicators of areas that need improvement, and help to

identify management effects on resources. Households rated the condition of resources as I don’t know,

good, average, bad or the same. I don’t know is an answer to prevent households from guessing on

resources they have no knowledge on. The most common answers across the resource board are I don’t

know and bad. The answer of I don't know reflects village resource knowledge specific to be specific to

income source. The resources in the worst condition are freshwater, roads and sea grasses. Improvements

to roads and freshwater would greatly improve living conditions in the villages. Sea grasses bad condition

was attributed to two main reasons, recent cyclones that tore up beds, and increased sea turtles heavy

feeding levels.

Most villagers were unable to list threats to coastal resources and environments. Few listed more

than one and the most common answer was I do not know. By far the most common threat listed was

cyclones. In the past 10 years the area has been hit by several large cyclones that tore up the reef and

mangroves. The 2004 cyclone Gafilo stands out in villagers’ memory. Many spoke of the mountains of

coral pile up on the beach and the stench of dead organisms that remained for weeks. Other threats listed

were use of illegal and destructive equipment (tanks, ragiragy nets, beach seining), outsiders putting

pressure on resources, people breaking fady and cutting mangrove forest. Very few people identified

humans and their actions as threats. If humans were identified as threats villagers always specified

outsiders as the threat t0 resources and did not believe that they're own actions, or those of NHNMP

villagers threatened resources.

Page 32: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Questions regarding basic ecological concepts showed a variation in marine resource knowledge

among villagers. 33% of household survey respondents either did not know answers regarding coastal and

marine resources or did not give an answer. The majority of those that answered true or false did

understand marine and coastal resource concepts and relationships. This knowledge could be due to

working knowledge gained through experience, through MNP education initiatives or a combination of

both.

The majority of households agree with statements championing community based management,

community responsibility for resources, and preserving resources for future generations. When

community members are questioned about “our” actions they answer from the viewpoint of local villagers

not humans in general. Most community members do not believe their actions affect resources negatively

rather that actions of other, outside parties harm resources. Overall villagers seem to understand the need

for conservation measures and are receptive towards management initiatives If they are community based.

See Appendix 7

3.2 Co-management results

Current management on NHNMP is shaky. Regulations are in place and for the most part

followed however villagers feel oppressed by management rather than empowered. Focus groups and key

informant interviews give insight on relationships between village informal institutions, formal MNP

management and stakeholder and organization groups.

3.2.1 Informal Institutions

Questions on informal institutions reveal influence of dina and fady, measure current use in

governing and managing structures and investigate potential future uses of fady and dina as co-

management tools. Both fady and dina have a presence in the NHNMP region. Not all fady and dina

pertain to marine resources.

There is no current dina applying to coastal resource management in Mangaoka commune

villages. However villagers are starting to apply pressure on Fokotany chiefs and MNP village employees

to form dina. When local fishermen and divers go elsewhere to fish they experience other communes’

dina. In the East coast of Madagascar individual fishermen are charged 10,000 to 20,000 ariary for the

right to fish as well as 50,000 ariary per boat. This money is paid to village Fokotany chiefs whom

[generally] use it to benefit villagers. The issue of migrant fishermen in the Mangaoka commune needs to

be addressed. Currently when migrant fishermen come into Nosy Hara they do not have to pay anything

but are supposed to ask permission to use resources. Migrants are not following this procedure. Without a

dina local Fokotany has no authority to do anything about this evasion. Even park stakeholders are

unclear on processes regarding migrant fishermen. MNP employees state permission needs to be asked of

local Fokotany government whom says outsiders supposedly ask for permission at MNP offices in Diego.

Page 33: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

The issue of migrant fishermen permission and access would be clearly defined, outlined, and known

through the creation and formalization of a dina.

During field research several village meetings were held on the subject of creating a dina

formally acknowledged and backed by MNP (Figure 8). MNP is supportive of dina creation. The local

MNP appointed sector chief Claudis and several key community members are pushing for dina formation.

However the village masses need to become involved as a successful dina can only form by input and

support from all villagers. MNP sector chief Claudis lists three steps in creating dina. First, villagers need

education on why a dina is necessary and give input on what their dina should entail. Next, villagers need

to present the dina they form to MNP for formal ratification and inclusion in NHNMP MNP doctrine. The

dina will then be officially accepted, applied and enforced. Villagers dislike the current system as

outsider fishermen enjoy free access to resources. But villagers feel they need assistance in forming a dina

as they lack ability to organize and clearly voice current park issues and possible solutions. Some

villagers feel uncomfortable about formally ratifying dina under MNP. These villagers feel MNP is

corrupt and if dina is MNP law MNP will see all the profits and benefits and local villagers will be in the

same position. Claudis and villagers that support dina creation through MNP are trying to convince the

people that if they work hard to come up with a dina they can define it to ensure this does not occur.

Figure 8: Ampasindava residents gather to discuss formation of an MNP dina

Currently fady have a stronger presence than dina in Mangaoka commune villages. Some fady

have a direct influence on natural resources in NHNMP. It is fady to kill animals in the islands, fady to

cut trees in the islands, and fady to pee or poop near water sources. These fady are examples of resource

and habitat taboos and could easily be incorporated into formal MNP law. Villagers are supportive of

Page 34: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

legalization of these fady. Locals believe following marine fady directly correlates with good resource

conditions. Older villagers recall the old days when fady were followed and resources flourished.

Villagers believe breaking fady that involve the sea results in rough seas, winds and turbidity. Locals

attribute recent increases in these conditions to influxes of migrant fishermen whom do not respect local

fady. The general sentiment of informants was positive towards MNP making sea fady official park rules

to attempt to control migrant fishermen breaking fady, which villagers believe would result in calmer

seas.

Interviewees all agree that fady is important and should be followed but state actual levels of

compliance range. Historically fady has been important to NHNMP villagers. In recent years influxes of

migrant fishermen have decreased fady’s importance in the village. When outsiders come into a village in

Madagascar they are supposed to learn and follow about local fady and dina. Early migrant fishermen did

this, however as numbers of migrant fishermen increase and are of a younger generation inquiries about

fady are a rarity. Lack of fady knowledge results in lack of fady adherence. Younger generations of

NHNMP villagers see their fellow fishermen breaking fady without experiencing consequences. Locals

lose respect and fear of fady and start to break them when convenient. Older villagers feel many of the

current village problems are a result of the general decline in respect toward fady.

The majority of fady are passed down from generations and their formation is attributed to the

ancestors. Specific stories on fady creation are sometimes known but more often than not when a

Malagasy is asked why a fady is followed or the importance of the fady they laugh and shrug saying that

is how it is and how it always has been. Sometimes Malagasy are visited by ancestral spirits who dictate

new fady to them. Shamans and sorcerers are another source of new fady. Shamans and sorcerers are

particularly important to countryside Malagasy. Often when problems or hardships arise in the life of

rural Malagasy they visit a shaman or sorcerer whose solution is making something in the patient’s life

fady. Fady can also be formed in regard to life experiences. If a household head eats something and it

makes him sick he will often declare that food fady for his offspring. New fady do not generally pertain to

large groups or villages only to individuals and their family. As origin of most fady being historic,

spiritual or due to uncontrolled external experience forming new fady to help regulate marine resources

may not be a viable option. However Claudis, the NHNMP local villager sector chief, mentioned one fady

that was dictated by MNP to help regulate pollution amongst the islands. This fady prohibits washing

dishes directly in the sea, saying that water must be taken onto the beach and dishes washed there. Claudis

was the only key informant to mention this fady, possibly illustrating the lack of acknowledgement of

villages to a government dictated fady. However Claudis said this fady was adhered to in the islands,

perhaps villagers follow it and acknowledge as a MNP rule yet do not view it as a fady, or as it is a

relatively new fady did not remember to mention it.

MNP acknowledges local village fady, going so far as to post fady in their park office and

observing the fady amongst MNP employees. Villagers appreciate this act by management but realize that

the majority of [Malagasy] visitors to the park never see this fady list and are not informed of local fady

by MNP. Fady is important to villagers whom are disturbed by outside fishermen’s disregard of local fady

Page 35: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

and courtesy traditions like speaking with the Fokotany chief. Villagers agree incorporation of local fady

into formal MNP rules would be a positive thing as outsider fishermen would be more likely to listen to

fady supported by tradition and law.

See Appendix 8

3.2.2 Formal institutions

Aside from the resource and habitat fady present in the NHNMP area and Malagasy courtesy

traditions of receiving Fokotany chief permission before working in an area there is an absence of historic

formal management in NHNMP. In recent years population increases and influxes of migrant fishermen

kick started by the sea cucumber industry and small fishing companies have increased pressure on

NHNMP resources. The formation of NHNMP brought formal coastal management structures into the

park for the first time. Villagers realize the need for formal management to protect resources for future

generations. However current management has not stayed true to ideals, conservation mechanism and

assistance presented to villagers during the parks creation creating unrest between management and

villagers.

When MNP and WWF first came to Nosy Hara they realized villagers were a critical component

of management success. Malagasy park employees who lived among villagers collected various surveys

and assessments of village socioeconomic, environmental and management conditions. After this

background work was completed MNP began to hold meetings with Fokotany chiefs and villagers. At

these meetings the creation of the park was discussed including why a marine park was necessary, rules

and regulations of the park, the role villagers would play, and how the park would benefit villagers.

Villagers saw the premises of the park were good and were excited to work with MNP to preserve

resources for future generations. MNP told villagers they would have regularly scheduled meetings in

which villagers could present concerns or questions about the park. MNP also made several promises of

assistance the villagers would receive in exchange for adherence to park rules and to compensate for the

new regulations they would be facing. Multiple key informants, focus groups, and household surveys

commented on these promises. Villagers state MNP promised assistance in healthcare/hospitals, roads,

freshwater, education and electricity. These promises increased villager support for MNP as dire

assistance is needed in those areas.

VIllagers are becoming increasingly disillusioned with MNP. Villagers do not feel the park is

benefitting them. Migrant fishermen are allowed to come into the area and take as much resources as

they can, as long as they respect park rules, without park or villager permission. Outside fishermen

disregard local fady and compete with villagers for precious resources. Many villagers feel outside

fishermen pay off MNP and peche Maritime, bribing them to turn a blind eye to use of illegal equipment

like tanks. MNP rules like no camping in the islands and outlawing equipment without providing

villagers with legal alternatives make life hard for the fishermen. Regular MNP meetings with villagers

have long since stopped. No easy communication pathways are available for fishermen to voice concerns.

Page 36: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Villagers feel MNP favors certain villagers, unequally distributing the few benefits they do provide

According to MNP staff MNP has given 26 pirogues and a motor boat to the Mangaoko commune

villagers. The pirogues are unstable; the picture of Ankingamelco’s MNP pirogue says a thousand words

(Figure 9). The donated pirogues are barely sea worthy and instead used as village gathering places.

While MNP did give the villagers a motorboat it is monopolized by one person and only used to take out

MNP researchers or visitors. The motorboat benefits no one but the MNP designated driver. The issues of

unfulfilled promises is the majority of villagers biggest issue with management. Villagers have yet to see

assistance with roads, freshwater, healthcare, electricity or education. Promises mean a lot in Malagasy

culture and the broken MNP promises in important areas like healthcare and water prevent villagers from

trusting and truly accepting MNP management.

Figure 9: An MNP donated pirogue in Ankingamelco. The unsteady boat currently functions as a

bench/gathering spot.

Even though villagers feel management is unfair they comply with and attempt to enforce

regulations. Rules are largely self-regulated. Villagers are afraid of large fines and punishments for

broken infractions. Villagers also agree with the basic conservation premises park management promotes.

Village participation in self-regulation and reporting rule breakers is essential to park success as space,

time and money constraints prevent MNP and Peche maritime from performing regular patrols. When

infractions are called in rule breakers often escape as Peche, MNP, and army regulators must travel up

from Diego.

Management faces its own difficulties. It is very difficult to better the socioeconomic conditions

of resource dependent stakeholder groups while simultaneously preserving resources. One MNP staff

member responded to critique by local villagers of MNP saying “Villagers need to understand that MNP

is to benefit them, staff members receive a salary and are not dependent on resources park rules protect,

Page 37: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

rules are present to ensure current populations and future generations have continued access to resources.”

MNP’s job of regulating the park while attempting to please villagers is especially hard to do in lieu of

changing government regimes, lack of staff and lack of funding. MNP tries to educate villagers on the

need for coastal management however it is hard to get full village support without providing benefits in

return. MNP acknowledges it made certain promises during park implementation but simply does not

have the funds to follow through with promises at the moment. MNP feels they try to incorporate

villagers and open communication pathways through village sector chiefs. However there are only two

sector chiefs for all of Nosy Hara and they are often unavailable to hear concerns due to large workloads

and travel.

A major difficulty facing management is the lack of livelihood options in the area. In NHNMP

the only income sources are farming, fishing or diving. Many villagers want to leave work in the sea as it

is dangerous and becoming increasingly difficult due to declining resources but are unable to do so due to

lack of options. MNP has not yet stepped in to help develop alternative livelihoods. MNP employees also

listed traditional fishing methods as a significant management obstacle. Old people often have habits of

fishing that destroy the reef and habitats, young people see these habits and copy them. NHNMP residents

have traditionally fished and eaten sea turtles. This is an important aspect of NHNMP tradition and the

process is dictated by fady. Although MNP turtle initiatives have been successful as turtle numbers are

rebounding carapaces are still found on the beaches. Lack of education is another obstacle faced by

management. According to MNP staff sometimes villagers cannot grasp basic conservation concepts and

relationships

Although rules regarding resources are currently followed within the Mangaoko commune park

management is failing. Villagers are uninvolved and mistrustful of management. Management itself is

having difficulty overcoming internal and external obstacles.

See Appendix 9

3.2.3 Stakeholder organizations

Though many organizations exist in the area (Table 5) they do not adequately represent

stakeholder needs. The only organizations with a strong presence are the government based organizations

of Madagascar National Parks, Peche Maritime and Fokontany government. The weak farmers

association is the [comparatively] strongest of the nongovernmental organizations. The farmers

association is an example of villagers being pushed into action as local farmers are becoming more and

more fed up with the low corn prices they receive from collectors working in cahoots with factory

owners. Other organizations formed to represent village stakeholder groups have little to no current

influence.

Page 38: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Table 5: Stakeholder organizations present in surveyed villages

Organization Villages Formal/

Informal

Functions Area of

Influence

Level of

Influence

Village government

All Formal Community leader, mediates disputes, holds meetings, helps community

All aspects of community life

High

Women

Association

Ampasindava,

Ambararata,

Mangaoko

Informal Helping

community,

tourist care,

fundraising

Community,

Environment

Low to none

MNP Mangaoko

commune

Formal Manage the

marine park

Community,

environment

High in fishing

villages, low in

farming

villages

Peche

Maritime

Ampasindava,

Ankingamelok

a

Formal Regulate

fisheries

Environment Moderate

Fishing

association

Ampasindava

(Liara

Association),

Ambararata,

Ankingamelok

a

Liara: formal

others:

informal

Liara:

Fundraising, to

receive

donations from

NGOs. Help

Pêche

maritime and

MNP to survey

nautical zone

Others:

fundraise

when death in

community

Community,

environment

Low to none:

Liara currently

inactive due to

corruption

VOI

association Ampasindava Formal Forest

regulation and fire protection

Environment Low

Women

association

Ampasindava,

Ambararata,

Ankingamelok

a, Mangaoka

Informal Develop

village

fundraising,

help village

Community Low to none

Page 39: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Farmer

association

Ambararata,

Ambolomagna

ry, Mangaoko,

Ankingamelok

a

Formal

Ambararata

Ambolomagna

ry

Mangaoko

Informal

Ankingamelok

a

Develop

village

fundraising,

plant corn and

buy equipment

with proceeds,

work together

for planting

and harvests,

fight for fair

corn prices

and equipment

assistance

from

government

Agriculture,

community

Low to none

Ambolomagna

ry working

hard to

increase

influence

Ankingamelok

a high levels of

cooperation

among

farmers

Current village organizations are weak, stagnant and often corrupt. Villagers do not trust each

other with leadership positions, especially when money is involved. In the countryside corruption is often

unintended. For example one local fishing organization worked together to save money for new

equipment. Before the equipment was purchased the president's wife got sick and needed to be taken to

the hospital. The president did not have enough personal money to afford hospital fees. He loves his wife

and was desperate to save her. The association stored their money in the bank in Diego, near the hospital

his wife needed to go to. The president of the association has access to the bank account. In this desperate

hour and with intentions to pay the money back the president withdrew all the money to pay for his wife's

medical care. However, the president of the association, like the majority of the community is "poor

people" and has been unable to pay the money back. Stories like this are commonplace in village

associations and warrant mistrust amongst villagers resulting in a lack of organizations. Some village

residents said they would only trust C3 to help regulate organization funds.

Capacity to organize is another weak point in village organizations. Whether inability to organize

results from lack of education or the work to survive mentality that keeps villagers busy is unknown.

Villagers have no schedule, working as much as possible. For fishermen this often results in days of

relatively little activity but household chores (which in reality can easily consume a day) followed by

weeks of fishing out in the islands. The irregularity of life can make it difficult to gather large groups of

individual stakeholders. Villagers also have little formal education that makes paper work and

organization formalization processes difficult. Villagers do not feel comfortable or trust their ability to

organize and feel the only way for successful organizations to form is with the help of NGOs. Differences

of opinion on issues are another hurdle organizations need to overcome. In Ampasindava the general

sentiment of the village toward management is negative. The need for management is realized but the

actualization of management to this point has left the majority of villagers disappointed. However some

villagers, especially those who benefit in a direct way from MNP, are happy with MNP. Other villagers

Page 40: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

whom feel negatively towards MNP differ on solutions to problems. Villagers feel like agreements and

compromise necessary to present a strong unified voice could never occur.

Villagers are beginning to realize the need for organizations. Individual villagers are tired of their

voices being ignored and willing to push aside negative experiences with village organizations thus far.

Current organizations dislike villagers who speak out to management individually as they feel it

diminishes the purpose of the organization. These organizations do not provide opportunities for people to

speak to them before management and are at the moment inactive in management. Key informants want

organizations to have a strong presence in current issues and to be accessible for all villagers to

participate in through membership or through the ability to present their opinion at set meetings.

See Appendix 10

4.0 Discussion

4.1 Socioeconomic conditions

Results from household surveys indicate current socioeconomic conditions and help determine

the effects NHNMP management has on villagers.

In general the villages have a strong sense of community. Lack of a majority ethnic group

prevents villagers of one ethnic group attaining unfair advantages over other villagers. Use of the

Sakalava dialect enables clear communication between residents. Most villagers have lived in the area for

at least ten years resulting in familiarity through personal experience and observation of village issues and

struggles, specifically with MNP and park management. Residents repeatedly touched on the importance

of preserving resources for future generations; attesting to the willingness of villagers in investing

themselves in preserving the areas around them. The permanence and familiarity of Nosy Hara village

residents with the area and each other provides a stable base to facilitate and sustain improvements.

NHNMP villagers resource dependent livelihoods align with worldwide patterns of heavy

dependence heavy resource dependence among rural people in developing nations (UNDP, 2010). Natural

resource extraction through farming, fishing and diving is the only viable way the majority of villagers

can make a living. Villagers tendency to depend on multiple livelihoods, all focused on resource

extraction, occur for multiple reasons. Livelihood goods and products are often seasonal, undependable,

or do not provide enough income to support households. Depending on a variety of income generating

activities increases income while also increasing resilience and providing a sense of income security as

villagers "don't keep their eggs all in one basket".

Villagers are economically affected by the presence of NHNMP. Park regulations economic

effects are amplified as they regulate two of the four most heavily depended on products, sea cucumber

and fish. The high value of these products increases park induced economic stress. Villagers agree with

and understand basic conservation principles but dislike implementation of management thus far. To this

point MNP has not adequately assisted in transitioning from unregulated open access to method based

regulation. Fishermen would gladly use legal equipment if it was provided or subsidized. Villagers work

Page 41: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

to "feed their bellies" and do not have money to spend on equipment they already have. Transitioning to

new equipment affects family economics, dipping into already meager stores saved for health

emergencies or school supplies. Management must find ways to alleviate short term economic stress new

regulations cause.

Park conditions will only improve if villagers and MNP strive to increase the people's

participation in all areas of management. The apathetic stance many villagers take being highly satisfied

with no participation in management of the coastal resources they depend on is alarming. The people

often spoke of wanting to preserve resources for their future generations however the lack of involvement

in governing their resources puts the fate of their children's resources in the hands of a management

system they distrust.

It is in both MNP and villagers best interest to increase the park's primary stakeholder group,

villagers, role in management. The two groups need to work together to motivate change from current

villager passive dislike of management to active village participation in all aspects of management.

In order for villagers to have a voice in park decisions open communication pathways from

villagers to managing officials need to be available. MNP and villagers need to interact and discuss

current park conditions and use information gained to guide future initiatives and management. Absence

of communication explains the general dissatisfaction villagers hold regarding park management.

Villagers need to want and demand a greater voice in decision making if they expect park regulations and

initiatives that benefit them as well as coastal resources

Villager compliance with MNP regulation thus far should be acknowledged and rewarded.

Currently village dislike of management is heightened due to outside fishermen breaking rules with no

repercussions. In order for management to begin regaining village trust rule breakers need to be punished

consistently and openly. This can only be done with increased village participation in enforcement and

monitoring. It is impossible for MNP to monitor the entire area of NHNMP. Marine park monitoring is a

problem even in developed countries and MNP is grossly understaffed and underfunded. Playing a larger

role in park monitoring will empower the people to demand larger roles in other aspects of management

and increase their sense of ownership over fishing grounds. Fishermen and divers need to continue to act

as stewards of their traditional fishing grounds and encourage other community members to follow suite.

The lack of community ability to identify management successes highlights the failure of

management in educating local populations regarding the necessity for, purposes of, and specific projects

of management. Villagers listing no successes in coastal management allures to a fundamental failure of

management as villagers see no improvements in their own lives or of their resources.

The response of "I do not know" on questions regarding MNP governance occurs much to

frequently among NHNMP villagers. MNP needs to increase education and awareness initiatives in the

whole Mangkoa region. Although some villages are primarily farming many men turn to the sea for their

secondary or tertiary livelihoods. Houses in these villages are made of mangrove and sit in the coastal

watershed. MNP needs to heighten its presence in predominately farming villages like Anjavy and

Antongoanaomby. It should be MNP's responsibility and prerogative to show the people that they are an

Page 42: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

important part of NHNMP and educate them on how their actions directly influence the park. It is

important that all members of NHNMP and its watershed understand the premises and benefits of the park

and are able to raise awareness for these initiatives among themselves and park visitors.

Lack of trust is a major issue between villagers and park management. Villagers feel management

is corrupt and lies. Many things management originally promised including monthly meetings,

development assistance, ecotourism have not occurred or been addressed by management. Promises are

taken very seriously in Malagasy culture and failure to fulfill them results in villagers losing respect for

MNP. Villagers are reminded of these broken promises daily as promises were made in areas like

freshwater, healthcare, roads and education, some of the most commonly listed general community

problems.

Village opinions on resource conditions, attitudes and perceptions reveal areas MNP should

utilize to strengthen management. Resource conditions vary and illustrate some of management effects.

For example many listed sea grass condition as bad, which villagers attributed to the increase in sea turtle

population, resulting from MNP's ban on hunting sea turtle. Answers show villagers readily acknowledge

the need for conservation management. However villagers believe management should have tangible

current benefits and be centered on the community. Villagers generally value resources for more than

monetary benefits gives management a foundation to build upon.

4.2 Co-management

Establishing management that is environmentally and socioeconomically sustainable is critical in

the success of conservation projects in developing countries (Frances et. al., 2002; Gutiérrez et. al. 2011).

Until recently the socioeconomic aspect of conservation was put on a back burner and consequently

various well-intended conservation projects in developing countries floundered. Top down management

systems often do not gauge cultural, traditional, social and economic aspects of conservation and

therefore leave local populations disengaged.

Although certain conservation goals have been achieved in the eyes of NHNMP villagers MNP

management thus far has failed. Villagers distrust management due to corruption, failure to fulfill

promises, absence of a strong presence in the village, issues with migrant fishermen, and lack of current

tangible benefits. Management thus far has placed economic difficulties on villagers and taken away

historically experienced freedom and control over the Nosy Hara islands without fair compensation.

Villagers are all for conservation management but want to be involved and consulted on initiatives. If

MNP wants NHNMP to succeed it needs to drastically adjust its management approach.

One way MNP could increase villager participation is through promoting village organizations.

Current interaction between MNP and "villagers" consists of MNP meetings with Fokotany chiefs. MNP

practice seems to be gaining support of Fokotany chiefs through added benefits or lies while ignoring

village sentiment. Although included by MNP management Fokotany chiefs do not have much say in

actual decision-making. Mounting villager dissatisfaction with management shows this strategy is not

working. It would ultimately benefit MNP to assist villagers in forming organizations.Stakeholder

Page 43: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

organizations would provide an organized platform for the presentation of unified issues and inquiries

representative of member sentiment. MNP could work directly with these organizations. MNP could also

utilize organization communication pathways as tools in providing education and outreach. Successful

park management ultimately depends on participation of local peoples.

In order for an organization to be affective the following things are necessary

Strong, transparent leadership

Communal money management methods

Formalization and acknowledgement by government

Time dedications by members

Assistance from an outside group in organizational start up and leadership training

Indigenous people have incorporated resource managing conservation measures within their

societal frameworks for centuries (Ghazoul 2010, Berkes 2008). Informal institutions, that in some cases

have a major effect on resources, are a huge part of Malagasy culture. Dina, social codes, and fady, social

prohibitions, are the two most important informal institutions in Madagascar and both are significant

influences to every day and large scale decisions. Currently almost 75% of Malagasy populations live in

rural communities and are still governed, to some extent, by Dina (Rakotoson and Tanner 2006).

Incorporation of fady and dina has the potential to strengthen current MNP management.

Growing dissatisfaction with management is pushing villagers into action. Various meetings have

been held between Fokotany chiefs, MNP employees and villagers discussing the formation of a marine

focused Mangaoka commune dina. The establishment of a dina formalized by MNP would benefit

villagers and management. Villagers would feel empowered by a larger role in management that they are

directly responsible for creating. Villagers would have a legally supported method of regulating outsider

fishermen. Villagers would benefit monetarily through fees collected for access to resource use. Villagers

could put these profits towards areas like freshwater, healthcare, and equipment. Perhaps MNP could

match the amount of money villagers pour into development projects. This would allow MNP to make

headway on its broken promises. Management would benefit from villagers taking larger roles in park

enforcement, compliance and monitoring. A commune dina would add legitimacy to park management in

the eyes of villagers..

The NHNMP commune of Andranovondronina recently ratified a commune dina with MNP in

April 2012. Although no community representative was spoken with MNP officials said the dina is

working well for both management and the commune. MNP says overall satisfaction with management

has increased for both parties as villagers feel empowered by the dina and are taking a more participatory

role in management specifically enforcement now that they benefit from cracking down on outside rule

breakers. They also have the ability to regulate the number of outside fishermen able to use their

resources. (Appendix 11: Andranovondronia dina)

Page 44: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

While incorporating dina would improve management villager relations incorporation of fady is

not as easily determined. Fady work in different ways than dina. While dina can be discussed and formed

according to village needs fady are not always easily formed or altered.

Resource and habitat regulating fady exist in Nosy Hara. Among the islands it is fady to kill

animals and cut trees. In the Nosy Hara area it is fady to use a metal hook to catch crabs. These fady are

prime candidates for inclusion in a formalized dina or MNP rules. General village sentiment was

receptive towards MNP incorporating local fady into formal rule believing outsider fishermen would be

more likely to listen to fady supported by tradition and law. The previously mentioned community of

Nosy Ve is an example of this. Nosy Ve established a local dina to manage natural resources. The first 5

of 12 articles composing the dina legally validate traditional fady that do not pertain to marine resources.

The validation of fady that were important to the people gained village support of the entire dina,

legitimizing government in their eyes and allowing them to make sure visitors preserved local fady

(Rakotoson and Tanner 2006). The beginning stages of a MNP formalized dina for the Mangaoka

commune are occuring. Villagers are fed up with their [lack of] current position in management. Villagers

will have the option to include fady in this dina like the community of Nosy Ve.

Whether forming new fady is a valid tool in strengthening village acceptance and participation in

park management is undetermined. Thus far MNP has created one fady aimed at cleanliness in the Nosy

Hara islands. This fady prohibits fishermen from washing dishes in the sea. Fishermen must bring water

from the sea to designated washing sites. The only interviewee to acknowledge this fady was Claudis, the

Nosy Hara sector chief. It is unknown if other focus group participants of key informants failed to list this

fady because they do not look at it as a fady or because it is new is unknown. Whether or not fishermen

view this fady as a fady or a MNP rule is undetermined. Regardless Claudis stated compliance with the

fady is high. This fady opens up the possibility of creating fady specifically designed to regulate

resources. Table 6 illustrates how some current management rules could potentially be phrased and

qualify as fady. Whether or not these fady would be accepted by the village and be a positive addition to

management would require further study and villager input. If MNP did commit to presenting rules as

fady village support would be absolutely necessary as presenting rules as fady without support could

result in villagers feel MNP is diminishing and disrespecting the institution of fady. At the very least

MNP investigating the potential of presenting rules as fady would produce more communication and

participation between management.

If MNP increased support of village fady and provided villagers with a platform to present and

inform visitors to NHNMP of local fady village acceptance of MNP might increase. From scientific

perspective rough seas, winds and turbidity do not occur as a result of fady breaking. If these conditions

continue villagers would likely attribute this to “others” continuing to break fady. It is unknown whether

or not villagers would be happy with increased MNP support of fady compliance if conditions did not

improve.

Page 45: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Table 6: Examples of NHNMP regulations that have potential to be re-worked as fady

Category Function NHNMP fady

ex

MNP rules

potentially

reworked as

fady

Segment

taboos

Regulate

resource

withdrawal

- -

Temporal

taboos

Regulate

access to

resource in

time

- Octopus

closed season

Life history

taboos

Regulate

withdrawal of

vulnerable life

history stages

of species

- Catch size

limits on sea

cucumber

Method taboos Regulate

methods of

resource

withdrawal

use metal hook

to catch crabs

Prohibitions

on net size,

use of ragiragy

net, tanks, and

metal tipped

sticks

Specific-

species taboos

Total

protection to

species in time

and space

- Ban on

hunting sea

turtles

Habitat taboos Restrict access

and use of

species in time

and space

Fady to cut

trees on

islands

Fady to kill

animals in

islands

No take areas

4.3 Limitations in data

4.3.1 Lack of supplemental data

Supplemental data for the NHNMP area was difficult to attain. All park documents are in

Malagasy or French and require translation. Malagasy government is constantly in upheaval and good

records are not kept. Inquiries to WWF and MNP about basic information such as population within

NHNMP, and maps or GPS points of NHNMP borders were answered with the response that they did not

have that data. General census data was found for the NHNMP communes from a 2001 census. The

Page 46: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

same census was performed in 2007 but due to government transitions the results from this survey were

not disseminated on a wide scale. Inquiries to researchers with access to this data were left unanswered.

Due to lack of supplemental data this report is unable to draw many conclusions or identify trends and

changes. The report simple portrays current socioeconomic conditions of villages C3 research was

conducted in during 2012, providing a new baseline for future monitoring to utilize.

Socioeconomic findings are strengthened by the addition of other quantitative research methods

that were not conducted in this study. Answers of resource conditions would ideally be presented with

and compared to actual resource surveys. Even participant observation was difficult to achieve for most of

the socioeconomic variables investigated.

Villagers and management often provided contradictory stories, opinions and issues. It is

impossible to know whether or not MNP accepts bribes from outside fishermen without direct

observation or confession. It is impossible to know true levels of compliance to regulations without

observing fishermen in action. It is impossible to measure the importance and adherence of villagers to

local fady. Nearly all rural Malagasy "follow" fady however actual fady observance levels vary. Fady

vary in seriousness, origin, intent, and punishment. As few admit to breaking fady it can really only be

studied by observation. Even observation can fail as a true indicator as few break fady in the public light.

Once I learned a fady special attention was paid to whether or not the fady was followed. I noticed that

some of the less important fady seemed to only apply to Vahaza (foreigners) as whenever my fellow

interns or myself committed them we were told the action was fady however if a local committed the

action nothing was said. Many fady were given regarding the sea and environment. In learning, studying

and researching fady I had to depend on interviews and limited observations as logistically tagging along

on a weeklong diving or fishing trip to the islands to observe the degree to which fady is followed was not

a reality.

4.3.2 Sample size and quality

Due to previously discussed factors random sampling was not feasible. Although I feel the report

is an accurate general portrayal of conditions and attitudes within NHNMP villages the small sample size

of 38 household surveys total, often only a few surveys per village, is not a statistically significant

representation of the population.

Focus groups and key informants were not always composed of “ideal” candidates for monitoring

issues relating to coastal government. Groups and KI were sometimes farmers who had little to no

interaction with the sea or coastal government. Although this is in one way a weakness as fewer coastal

KI and FG focused interviews were performed it is also a strength. In reality many villagers within

NHNMP are farmers not fishermen or divers. Knowledge on these park stakeholders is important in

managing to best benefit ALL park residents.

4.3.3 Survey fatigue

Since the creation of NHNMP villagers have undergone numerous social surveys regulated by

NGOs, MNP, and other outside organizations on a range of subjects from migrant fishermen, resources

Page 47: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

and conditions, to socioeconomic conditions. Villagers often see little firsthand direct or indirect benefits

and are not presented feedback or results. C3 does its best to ensure this is not the case through various

community benefit programs such as their most recent C3 PSI health initiative and an up and coming

environmental mortgage project which incorporates information gained from this socioeconomic study.

As a result the community does have good relations with C3. However even with these positive relations

villagers are becoming worn out with studies. Some days we would walk up and down villages all day

without finding an available interviewee. The survey teams experienced blatant avoidals, people going

into their huts or pretending to not be home during times they knew C3 was trying to survey. Towards the

end of fieldwork time C3 interview teams resorted to offering fizzy pop to household survey participants,

even this incentive failed to produce interviews near the end of the time. Before more surveys are

conducted in the area villagers need and deserve to see tangible results directly correlated to participation

in surveys.

4.3.4 Logistic constraints

Data collection occurred over set time periods. Despite planning sampling was often delayed by

external physical events such as village deaths, celebrations and work availability. Money also was a

constraint. Ideally more surveys would have been performed and other NHNMP communes investigated.

Money and time constraints prevented this from occurring.

4.3.5 Cultural differences

Ishmael and Raymond, the Malagasy program officers, have been working in NHNMP for

several years. As native Malagasy they know Malagasy traditions, customs and etiquette and enabling C3

to avoid most cultural missteps. Ishmael and Raymond also prevented potential issues with conducting

surveys. The native Malagasy C3 staff know the difficulties of countryside life and that people work “to

feed their bellies”. Therefore it is realized by this study that surveys are secondary to work and even if

surveys are prearranged if an opportunity to work arises surveys will be canceled. Ishmael and Raymond

helped to design surveys as to not offend Malagasy, knowing which questions to avoid completely

(specifically material ownership questions) and how to word other questions appropriately. Even with

Raymond and Ishmael’s guiding knowledge interns made a few cultural missteps. However no major

damage was done by these incidents.

4.3.6 Data and analysis quality:

Few villagers posses’ language skills in French or English. Therefore all interviews were held in

the predominant Sakalava Malagasy dialect. Survey templates were created in English. Program officer

Ishmael translated surveys into Malagasy. Ishmael is a native French and Malagasy speaker. Ishmael has

been speaking English for 5+ years and is fluent. In order to avoid mistranslations Ishmael and C3 interns

worked together to translate each question, Ishmael explaining what he thought each question meant for

intern approval before each translation. When actual surveys were performed questions were asked and

answered in Malagasy and immediately translated to English. Interns took notes in English and had the

opportunity to ask clarifying questions. Though this method was the best option its limitations are

Page 48: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

recognized. Often survey participants would talk for minutes yet translation to English would be a few

sentences. When confronted about this Malagasy translators said all pertinent information was relayed.

However in socioeconomic surveys background information and answers to questions, even when

“irrelevant” are relevant. Translating answers combined with time constraints may have resulted in

misinterpretation of data at the note taking and thus analysis stages.

Another shortcoming in data quality is the survey design and team itself. Socioeconomic surveys

are generally spearheaded by trained individuals whom have years of experience in the area and working

in foreign countries. Teams are composed of multidisciplinary professionals funded and supported by

accredited institutions. Half of the interview teams had no formal training in conducting surveys.

Although this project had good support systems in C3 and RSMAS the project was designed by a master

student with no prior experience in socioeconomic surveys and little experience in data analysis.

Consistency in monitoring is another potentially limiting aspect of data quality. Socioeconomic

monitoring should occur over long terms with consistent monitoring of the same variables. Although

socioeconomic surveys have been performed in the area since 2007 variables have not been consistent.

Therefore there is no current baseline data assessment to compare findings against. Ideally C-3 will be

able to facilitate consistent future monitoring however this is not a guarantee.

5.0 Conclusion

NHNMP differs from many countryside areas in its potential to improve area conditions.

Whether or not residents currently realize it the attention NHNMP brings to the area through

organizations like MNP and C3 and global recognition by WWF and various other park funders

(including the World Bank) could work to the villagers’ advantage. Agencies want to see the park prosper

through sustainable management of resources. In order for the park to succeed the primary stakeholder

group, local villagers, need to play an active role management. Villagers are at a crossroads. Villagers

can continue to be dissatisfied with and largely inactive in management. Or they can choose to step up to

their role of power in the park and demand involvement in management through working amongst

themselves and with agencies to

• Organize stakeholder associations

• Demand, through associations, increased participation in park management

• Commit to complying with regulations and enforcing rules on outside fishermen

• Forming a Mangaoko commune Dina

• Evaluating the potential of fady in strengthening management

• Develop alternative livelihoods

• Formulate a community development plan

As increased village involvement would benefit the park MNP needs to do its part in cultivating

village participation. MNP needs to bridge gaps in current village sentiment; general support for

conservation of marine resources but lack of support for and/or issues with current park management

methods of achieving conservation goals. MNP should utilize information provided through

Page 49: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

socioeconomic studies and research and work to address shortcomings in management and identify

specific village areas of need. Below are examples of steps MNP could take to gain village support.

• Reinstitute regular village meetings

• Address broken promises

• Examine the position and roles of migrant fishermen in the park

• Assist villagers in organizing strong stakeholder associations

• Encourage villagers to form a Dina

• Examine distribution of MNP benefits

• Increase education on marine ecosystems and the park’s purposes

• Assist villagers in development of alternative livelihoods

MNP and community members often have similar goals, conservation of resources for future

generations, but disagree on the means of achieving these goals. Villagers feel management should work

with them and take into account their feelings. Currently villagers feel they receive the short end of the

stick. Villagers feel migrant fishermen often disregard MNP and Fokotany rules sabotaging conservation

initiatives with no punishment. Villagers themselves follow the rules resulting in lower profits [compared

to migrant fishermen] and decreasing satisfaction with management. Through the development of strong

stakeholder associations, formalized dina, and increased MNP cooperation with villagers NHNMP has

potential succeed. Without such initiatives villagers, the parks primary stakeholders, dissatisfaction with

management will rise resulting in decline of park success, resources, and villagers socioeconomic

conditions.

Community Centered Conservation's presence in the NHNMP for the past five years result in

ability to partake and influence conservation. C3 has positive relationships with both MNP and villagers

and could potentially play a large role in facilitating cooperation between the groups through acting as a

mediator.

C3 identifies areas in need of assistance through intern research and design subsequent aid

programs. C3's up and coming aid projects address two of villager's highest needs, healthcare and lack of

livelihoods. Currently villagers have to travel to the one rural hospital in Mangaoka or all the way to

Diego to get any type of medical care. Doctors, medicines and transportation are expensive and people

regularly fall extremely ill or die due to their lack of access to basic healthcare. C3 is working with

Population Services International (PSI) Madagascar to solve this problem. One individual from each

village will undergo a year- long training program in Diego Suarez facilitated by C3 and PSI. Training

will provide each village representative the knowledge to adequately administer medicine and basic

health services. Through C3 and PSI will monitor the initiative providing support through behind the

scenes support and medical supplies the program is designed for the village to take ownership and

responsibility. The ultimate purpose is local access to medicines and basic care for affordable face value.

Another future C3 project addresses lack of alternative livelihoods. C3 will work with villagers to identify

potential areas of economic growth and provide microloans. It is essential that C3 facilitates aid projects

alongside research. All to often villagers are asked to participate in socioeconomic research and do not

Page 50: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

see results. Even with C3 programs that occur as a direct result of studies villagers experience survey

fatigue. Towards the end of my time in the field it was extremely hard to find villagers to interview. C3

needs to continue to work on its relationship with villagers through enabling villagers to make the direct

connections between participation in research and benefit programs.

C3 works to empower native Malagasy to manage their resources. Intern research in NHNMP

provides the opportunity for native Malagsy college students to get fieldwork experience. Malagasy

students come out to NHNMP for weeks at a time to perform reef checks, mangrove surveys, and turtle

counts. Students also put on conservation education campfires and assist in beach clean ups. Villagers see

fellow Malagasy investing themselves in NHNMP. Several students have gone on to work within MNP.

Some of the students participating in park field research during my time in the field expressed interest in

staying in the NHNMP long term to assist in building up village stakeholder organizations. C3 has the

potential to utilize these college students to a greater degree. Using local college students to help conduct

leadership training workshops focused on creating local organizations would provide college students

conservation experience and empower local stakeholders to take control of their resources.

"Martin Luther's “I have a dream” speech would have led nowhere if he had framed his

message as “I have a nightmare,” yet this is exactly the sort of message of hopelessness that

conservationists too often deliver" (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). There are many obstacles in

NHNMP path before sustainable co-management is acheived. Although these obstacles are substantial

they can be overcome. It is vital that all stakeholder groups from NGOs like C3, to regulating agencies

and village stakeholders do not stop working towards co-management or fall into a state of hopelessness.

I believe the strong desire villagers' have to preserve resources for future generation will prevent villagers

from giving up on achieving sustainable conservation. Agencies like MNP and C3 need to do their best

to capitalize on villagers' basic want to preserve resources through working to empower and assist

villagers in becoming management leaders.

Page 51: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Work Cited

Allison, E. H., & Horemans, B. (2006). Putting the principles of the sustainable

livelihoods approach into fisheries development policy and practice.

Marine policy, 30(6), 757-766.

Bawa, K. S. (2006). Globally dispersed local challenges in conservation biology. Conservation

Biology, 20(3), 696-699.

Berkes, F. (2008). Community conserved areas: policy issues in historic and contemporary

context. Conservation Letters, 2(1), 20-25.

Cinner, JE. and Fuentes, M. (2008). Human Dimensions of Madagascar’s Marine

Protected Areas. CORDIO Status Report.

Cinner, JE., McClanahan, TR., Daw, TM., Graham, NAJ., Maina, J., Wilson, SK. and

Hughes, TP. (2009a). Linking Social and Ecological Systems to Sustain Coral Reef

Fisheries. Current Biology 19: 206-212.

Cinner, JE., Wamukota, A., Randriamahazo, H. and Rabearisoa, A. (2009b). Towards

Institutions for Community-Based Management of Inshore Marine Resources in the

Western Indian Ocean. Marine Policy 33: 489-496.

Cinner J. and Aswani S. 2007. Integrating customary management into the modern

conservation of coral reef fisheries in the Indo-Pacific. Biological Conservation

140:201–216.

Cinner J., Marnane M. and McClanahan T. 2005. Conservation and community benefits from

traditional coral reef management at Ahus Is-land, Papua New Guinea. Conservation

Biology 19:1714–1723.

Cinner, J. (2005). Socioeconomic factors influencing customary marine tenure in the Indo-

Pacific. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 36.

Cinner J., Marnane M., McClanahan T. and Almany G. 2006. Periodic closures as

adaptive coral reef management in the Indo-Pacific. Ecology and Society 11

Cinner J., Sutton S. and Bond T. 2007. Socioeconomic thresholds that affect use of

customary fisheries management tools. Conservation Biology 21(6):1603– 1611.

Colding J. and Folke C. 2001. Social Taboos “Invisible Systems of Local Resource

Management and Biological Conservation” Ecological Applications Vol 11 no 2 April pp 584-

600

Foale, S., Cohen, P., Januchowski‐ Hartley, S., Wenger, A., & Macintyre, M. (2011). Tenure

and taboos: origins and implications for fisheries in the Pacific. Fish and Fisheries, 12(4), 357-

369.

Page 52: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Francis, J., Nilsson, A. and Waruinge, D. (2002). Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern African

Region: How Successful Are They? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment

31(7):503-511.

Gutiérrez, NL., Hilborn, R. and Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership, Social Capital and

Incentives Promote Successful Fisheries Nature 470: 386-389.

Institut National de la Statistique (INSTAT) [Madagascar] and ORC Macro. 2005.

Enquête Démographique et de Santé, Madagascar 2003–2004: Rapport de

synthèse. Calverton, Maryland, USA: INSTAT and ORC Macro. Date of publication: March

2005

Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What Is Conservation Science?. BioScience, 62(11), 962-

969.

Lambek M. 1992. Taboo as cultural practice among Malagasy speakers. Man

27:245–266.

Lambek M. 1998. The Sakalava Poiesis of history: Realizing the past through spirit

possession in Madagascar. American Ethnologist 25:106–127.

Langley J.M. 2006. Vezo knowledge: Traditional ecological knowledge in Andavadoaka, south-

west Madagascar. Blue Ventures Conservation: London, UK

Lingard M., Raharison N., Rabakonandrianina E., Rakotoarisoa J. and Elmqvist T. 2003.

The role of local taboos in conservation and management of species:The radiated tortoise in

southern Madagascar. Conservation and Society

Malleret-King, D., Glass, A., Wanyonyi, I., Bunce, L. and Pomeroy, B. 2006.

Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines for Coastal managers of the western Indian

Ocean, SocMon WIO. COR DIO East Africa Publication (Version 1) 108pp.

McClanahan, TR. and Arthur, R. (2001). The Effect of Marine Reserves and Habitat on

Populations of East African Coral Reef Fishes. Ecological Applications 11(2): 559-569.

McClanahan, T. R., Marnane, M. J., Cinner, J. E., & Kiene, W. E. (2006). A comparison of

marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current

Biology, 16(14), 1408-1413.

MEF, 2009, Créations d’aires protégées, Mesures de sauvegarde, Cadre de

procédure Ministèrede l’Environnement et des Forêts, Commission SAPM Février

2009.

MEF, 2009, Note technique sur la création du Parc National de Nosy Hara et de sa zone de

protection, Ministère de l'Environnement et des Forets.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance.

Cambridge university press.

Page 53: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

North, D. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American economic review,

84(3),

359-368.

Poonswad, P., Sukkasem, C., Phataramata, S., Hayeemuida, S., Plongmai, K., Chuailua, P. &

Jirawatkavi, N. (2005). Comparison of cavity modification and community

involvement as strategies for hornbill conservation in Thailand. Biological

conservation, 122(3), 385-393.

Rakotoson L. and Tanner K. 2006. Community- based governance of coastal zone and marine

resources in Madagascar. Ocean and Coastal Management 49:855–872.

Ruud J. 1960. Taboo: A study of Malagasy customs and beliefs. Oslo University Press: Oslo.

Walsh A. 2002. Responsibility, taboos and ‘the freedom to do otherwise’ in Ankarana,

northern Madagascar. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8:451–468.

World Wildlife Federation Marine Park Bolsters Community Facing Climate

Change "http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/madagascar"

United Nations Development Program. 2010. GEF Madagascar Mid-term

Evaluation

Page 54: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Appendix 1: SocMon variables monitored in Mangaoko commune villages

SocMon

Code

Variable Method

Community

Level

Type (#

performed)

K4 Population

Data

Key

Informant

(KI) and

derived

K5 Number of

Households

Google maps

K7 Occupations KI (37)

K16 Infrastructure KI (37)

K16 Business

origin

KI (37)

K18 Coastal and

marine

activities

Ki (37)

K19 Coastal and

marine goods

and services

KI (37)

K20 Methods KI (37)

K23 Use Patterns

timing and

season

KI (37)

K23 Use patterns

daily

KI (37)

Page 55: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

K26 Household

use

KI (37)

K22 Target

Markets

KI (37)

K21 Value of

goods

KI (37)

K24 Level of use

by outsiders

KI (37)

K25 Level of

impact

KI (37)

K25 Type of

impact

(primary)

KI (37)

K27 Tourist

Profile

KI (37)

K28* Management

body

KI (46),

Focus Group

(FG) (3)

K29* Management

plan

KI (46), FG

(3)

K30* Enabling

legislation

KI (46), FG

(3)

K32* Formal

tenure and

rules

KI (46), FG

(3)

K33* Informal

tenure

KI (46), FG

(5)

K2* Stakeholders KI (40), FG

(2)

K36* Community

and

stakeholder

organizations

KI (40), FG

(2)

Page 56: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

K37* Power and

Influence

KI (40), FG

(2)

Household

Level

S8 Household

members

and structure

HS (38),

derived

S7 Languages

spoken

Household

Survey (HS)

(38)

S6 Ethnic

background

HS (38)

S10 Household

income

sources

HS (38)

S11 Residency

Status

HS (38)

N/A Cooking fuel HS (38)

S12 Coastal/mari

ne activities

HS (38)

S13 Coastal/mari

ne goods and

services

HS (38)

S14 Coastal/mari

ne methods

HS (38)

S16 Coastal/mari

ne goods

household

use

HS (38)

Page 57: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

S15 Coastal/mari

ne target

markets

HS (38)

S17 Stakeholder

participation

and

satisfaction

HS (38)

S18 Membership

in

stakeholder

organizations

HS (38)

S19 Perceptions

of resource

conditions

HS (38)

S20 Perceived

threats to

coastal and

marine

resources/en

vironments

HS (38)

S21 Awareness of

rules and

regulations

HS (38)

S22 Compliance

to rules

HS (38)

S23 Enforcement

of rules

HS (38)

S24 Problems

facing

coastal

management

HS (38)

Page 58: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

S24 Solutions to

problems

facing

coastal

management

HS (38)

S26 Successes in

coastal

management

HS (38)

S27 Challenges in

coastal

management

HS (38)

S25 Community

problems

HS (38)

S29 Material

Standards of

Living

Observation

during

surveys

*Denotes data collected on these topics collect using specific topic surveys and as part of

general KI surveys

Page 59: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Appendix 2: SocMon socioeconomic household survey Malagasy version

SocMon

Household

Survey

DIANA

region:

Madagascar

Notes in

Italics are to

assist the

interviewer

Underlined

bold text

refers to

SocMon

indicators

Interview #:

Date:

Village

Page 60: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Interview

Team:

Household

role (i.e

Father,

mother etc):

Interviewee

Name:

Occupation:

Introductory Statement

Mbolatsara, izahay (Names of interview team) izao avy amin’ny orinasa C3. Faly izahay tonga

eto amin’ny tanananareo. Tia hikoragna aminaro mandritra ny 40 minitra mba te ahafantratra ny

momba ny fiainanareo sy ny ny maha zava-dehibe ny raha misy ao an-dranomasina. Marihiko

etoanafa mipetraka ho tsy ambaratelo ny raha koragniny eto.

Demography

S6 & 7: Fiteny sy karazana

*household=everyone who sleeps in the home or on its immediate property

Karazana foko ino anaero ato?

Ino no teny fampiasanareo ato?

S8:

Firy anareo mipetraka ato?

Ato iro jiaby io mihina?

S10 Fidiram-bola

Ino asa fototra hivelomanareo?

Ino koa ny magnaraka io?

Ino koa ny farany?

S11: Fonenana

Mandavantaogno anareo mipetraka eto?

Amin’ny fotoagna karakory anaro no mipetraka eto?

Ino nahatonga anarao mipetraka eto amin’io fotoagna io?

Amin’ny fotoana akory anaro mipetraka eto?

Efa firy taona no nipetrahanaero teto?

Page 61: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Use the table below to record the answers to the questions above. First list the coastal and

marine activities in order from most to least important (to the household). Go through each

activity individually and record the goods and services produced by a given activity along with

how they are procured, their target market, and their household use. Finish filling out all the

information for each good/service before moving on to the next.

S13: Asa fatao andranomasina

-Azafady mba alaharo araka ny filaharany ny karazan’asa misy eto Including fish products,

sand extraction, mangrove wood etc.

-AzafadyIsaka ny karazan’asa azafady mba alaharo ny lisitry ny zavatra azo ao andranomasina

-Azafady mba alaharo ny lisitry ny fomba fatao amin’ny fangalana ireo biby ao andranomasina

S16: Ny fampiasana ny vokatra azo

-Ho an’ny isaka karazan-javatra azo avy ao andranomasina izay voalahatra, azafady dia mba

ambarao inona ny zavatra atao izy, Alafo, Ampisaina amin’ny zavatra hafa, ampiasaina ao

antokatrano.

S15: Ny toerana andafosana ny zavatra azo

-Ho an’ny isaka karazan-javatra azo avy ao ami’ny ranomasina izay voalahatra, raha to aka

alafo izy dia, azafady mba alaharo ny lisitry ny tany andafosana azy (Any ivelany, nasionaly,

rezionaly, lokaly)

If mangroves are mentioned here, pls get as many additional details as possible e.g. species,

regularity of use

Asa fatao ao

andranomasi

na

Zavatra

alaina ao

andranomasi

na

Fomba

fangalana izy

Fampiasana

azy ao

antrano

(Alafo,

Ampiasaina

amin’ny

zavatra,

Ampiasaina

ho an’ny

tokantrano,

na koa hafa)

Tany

andafosana

azy

(Any ivelany,

nasionaly,

rezionaly,

lokaly)

Page 62: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Inona ny zavatra fampiasainareo amin’ny fandokisana eto

Please tick the appropriate answer or write an answer not included in the list in the space

provided as necessary.

Only one answer may be accepted in response to this question.

Hazo___: charbon___: Hafa (azafady ambarao)______

Io hazo io a charbon dia alaina avy ao amin’ny ala honko? Y/N

Ambarao ny karazany honko atao azy ireo

Lalana mifehy na hoe fitantanana

Manakory ny fandraisanao anjara amin’ny fitantanana ny ranomasina? (Be, ely, tsisy)

Magnano akory ny fahahafamponao ny fandraiisanao anjara amin’ny fiarovana io? (ambony,

antonony, ambany)

For each aspect of coastal management mark the level of participation and satisfaction the

interviewee holds

Fitantanana

ny sisin-

dranomasina

Habeny

fandraisana

anjara

Habeny

fahahafampo

BeElyTsisyAmbonyAntononyAmbanyhevitra tapakampanaramasoMpilaza lalana

mifehyMpamolavola lalana Fanarahana lalana

Page 63: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

S18: Membership in Stakeholder Organization

Misy olona avy ao aminao miasa amin’io orinasa io?

Ino orinasa io?

Toetra aseho sy ny fahitana ny zava-misy

S19: Perceptions of resource conditions

Akory ny fahitanao ny fifanarahana izay misy aamin’izao fotoana eo amin’ny fampiasana ireo

zavatra mananaina ao andranomasina tsara (1), antonony(2), ratsy(3), tsy fantatro(0),

Ala honko ____ Vato hara___ Tany horaka___ Rano mamy ___ Ahitra

andranomasina_____

Laoko amin’ny vato hara____ dingadinga___ drakatra___

tanimbary___ taninkatsaka____ aty ala____

tany famboliana haninkotrana hafa____ lalana___

Nanomboko anao nipetraka teto, nisy ala honko teto:

Please tick the appropriate answer. Only one answer may be selected for this question.

nitombo be__; nihegny__; mbola izy __; tsy fantatro__

S20 Fahitana ny fahasimbana

Ino aby ny karazana fanimbana dimy misy amin’ny sisindranomasina?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

S21: Mpilaza lalana mifehy, S22: Fanarahana lalana, S23: Mpamolavola lalana

Complete the table for the activities identified. If both formal and informal rules are present mark

the indicated levels of enforcement and compliance for each with an “F” for formal and an “I” for

informal under the perspective level. Fully complete information regarding one activity before

moving on to the next.

Page 64: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Misy Lalana sy fepetra fantatrao amin’io asa io?

Arapanjakana sa tsia sa izy roa?

Mihatra ve io lalana mifehy io? (tsara, antonony, tsisy)

If both formal and informal be sure to record enforcement levels for each

Manaraka io lalana io ve ny fokonolona ( tsara, antonony, tsisy)

If both formal and informal be sure to record compliance levels for each

Asa fatao lalana sy

fepetra (Y/N)

Arapanjakan

a, sa tsia, sa

izy roa?

Habeny

Mpamolavola

lalana

Habeny

Fanarahana

lalana

TsaraAntononyTsisyTsaraAntononyTsisyfanjonoana dingadinga fanionoana laokofanionoana

hafa asa atao anaty ala honkofamboliana sy fiompiana

S24: Perceived coastal management problems and solutions

Ino ny olan roa hitanao misy eo amin’ny fitantanana ny ranomasina eo amin’ny fokonolona?

1.

2.

Ino ny vahaolana hitanao manoloana io olana io?

1.

2.

S26 and S27: Fahombiazana sy vato misakana amin’ny fitantanana ny sisindranomasina

Milaza karazana zavatra roa heverinao fa mifandraika amin’ny fitantanana sy ny fokonolona?

1.

2.

Milaza karazana zavatra roa heverinao fa tsy mifandraika amin’ny fitantanana sy ny

fokonolona?

1.

2.

S25: Perceived community problems

Milaza karazana olana roa lehibe izay nandalo tamin’ny fokonolona?

1.

Page 65: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

2.

Fahalalana amin’ny sisindranomasina sy ny hazandrano

Anontanio ny olana ireto fehezanteny ireto diso sa marina

Ny fahasimbany ala honko ve misy fiantraikany amin’ny laoko Marina/Diso

Ala honko sy vato hara miaro ny sisindranomasina amin’ny onjandranomasina M/D

Ny fametrahana ny valanjavabohary andranomasina dia mamela ny laoko hanaranaka sy tsy

ho lany tamingana M/D

Amin’izao fotoana izao firy kilo ny laoko azonao, arak any hevitrao mety mbola ahazo karaha io

anaoamin’ny afara? M/D

Ny fiheritreretanao ny hazandranomasina

Anontanio raha manaiky na tsia na tsisy ambara na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Ny fihetsiky ataonay tsy misy fiantraikany amin’ny hazan-dranomasina na tsia/na tsisy/

ambara

Ny fokonolopna tokony hijery akaiky ny hazandranomasina sy ny toerana fonenany na tsia/na

tsisy/ ambara

Ny fidirambolanay dia miakina amin’ny hatsaran’ny hazandranomasuina na tsia/na tsisy/

ambara

Mila torohevitra amin’ny fanjonoana zaho na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Ny fadintany dia manampy izahay amin’ny fiarovana ny vatohara na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Tiako ny taranaka avy afara mba ahazo tombotsoa amin’ny hazandranomasina na tsia/na

tsisy/ ambara

Ny vatoharan sy ny ala honko no mapidi-bola tena tsara indrindra aminayl na tsia/na tsisy/

ambara

Misy dikany amin’ny fomba nentim-paharazana ny vatohara na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Misy dikany amin’ny fomba nentim-paharazana ny ala tonko na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Ny fitantanana ve tokony miankina amin’ny fokonolona na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Ny fokonolona ve mila olona mpitantana na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Ilaina ny ala honko amin’ny fisaritana ny mpizahatany na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara

Thank you for speaking with us. We have learned many interesting things! We hope to help the

community achieve management that benefits the community through conserving resources in a

biological and socioeconomically sustainable way. If you have any more questions or comments

to add we would like to hear them!

Page 66: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

S29: Material style of life

*Observation Only

Size of the house:

number of rooms:

If can directly observe and/or interviewee previously mentioned owning boat, animals or

property please note as well.

Are any parts of the house made of mangrove wood? If so , provide precise details inc species

if possible

Note any other observed uses of mangrove

Define the types of market orientation to the interviewee as the following

International: Outside of Madagascar

National: Within Madagascar

Regional: Diego Suarez/Diana Region of Madagascar

Local: the village

Appendix 3: Coastal key informant surveys Malagasy/English version

Coastal Key Informant Survey

Page 67: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

KI Name,

position,

expertise,

contact

details:

or Type of

Focus

Group, # of

people:

Survey #:

Site:

Interview

Team:

Date:

Notes in

Italics are to

assist the

interviewer

Underlined

bold text

refers to

SocMon

indicators

Introductory Statement

Hello, we are ______________ from the organization C3. We are very happy to be in your

beautiful village of _______ . Thank you for sharing it with us. We would love to talk with you for

about 40 minutes to learn about your life in the village and the importance of and issues

surrounding coastal and marine resources in Madagascar.

The results of this discussion will be kept confidential from any authorities.

Mbolatsara, izahay (Names of interview team) izao avy amin’ny orinasa C3. Faly izahay tonga

eto amin’ny tanananareo. Tia hikoragna aminaro mandritra ny 40 minitra mba te ahafantratra ny

momba ny fiainanareo sy ny ny maha zava-dehibe ny raha misy ao an-dranomasina. Marihiko

etoanafa mipetraka ho tsy ambaratelo ny raha koragniny eto.

Page 68: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Allow conversations to flow, if a new subject/category comes up that does not answer a specific

question but is relevant to the overall topic mora mora (no worries). Thank respondent for

his/her answers and give encouraging comments and smiles. Asses the interest levels of the

participant.. If discussion begins to fade or interviewee seems tired wrap up the session.

Remember Malagasy are very polite and may not overtly express feelings and sentiments. Be

sure finish by thanking the participant and him/her know if they have questions or further

comment you would be happy to hear it.

Governance Fitantanana

K28-32: Management Body and Plan, Enabling Legislation, Management Resources,

Formal Tenure and Rules Fintondran-tena amin’ny fitantagnana, Fandaharan’asa ny

fitantanana, Lalaagnam-ponenagna, Lalagna mifehy amin’ny fampiasagna ranomasina

How are coastal activities in Nosy Hara Marine Park managed? Ino aby ireo asa ataonolo eto

amin’ny Nosy Hara misy fitantanana

Is there a management body responsible for __________ (fill in blank with each coastal

activity)? If so whom? Misy mpitantana ny asa _____________, azovy?

Is there a developed management plan for ____________ (coastal activity)? Misy mpitantana

mafatoky amin’ny io asa io ___________?

Has the managing body set forth legislation regarding ___________ (coastal activity)? Misy

lalana mifehy io asa io ________?

What are the rules? Ino aby?

What is the level of compliance with the rules? (high, moderate, low) akory ny fahitanao ny

Fanarahan’olo io lalana io? (tsara, antonony, tsisy)

Please fill out the chart for each coastal activity. Finish one activity before moving onto the next.

Page 69: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Coastal Activity asa amin’ny sisin- ranomasina

Management

body(s)

Yes/No &

Name

Mpitantana

anarana

Management

plan Yes/No

& Name

Tetiakam

amin’ny

fitantanana

sy

anarana

Formal tenure and Rules Lalana sy fepetra

Level of

compliance

(High,modera

te, low)

Habeny

Fanarahana

lalana

(tsara,

antonony,

tsisy)

Sea Cucumber Fishing fanjonoana dingadinga

Reef fish

fishing

fanionoana

laoko

Other fishing fanionoana hafa

Exporting/selling mpanondrana/mpividy

Farming crops mpamboly Farming cattle mpiompy

Tourism Fitsanga tsanganana

How effective is management? Ahoana ny fiantraikany fitantanana

Page 70: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Does management discuss with the people before creating rules? Moa ve resahina miaraka

amin’ny fokonolona ny fitantanana alohan’ny hamoronana ny lalana mifehy?

Did management make any promises to the villagers when they implemented the rules? What

were these promises? Moa ve mpitantanana efa misy zavatra nomena ny fokonolona tamin’ireo

hamorona ny lalana mifehy?

What has happened with these promises? Inona nahatonga io fanampiana io?

How are people made aware of the rules? Akory moa ataon’olo eto mahay ireo lalana mifehy

ireo?

If people do not agree with the rules who can they talk to? Raha to ka tsy manaiky ny lalana

niforona ny fokonolona, amin’iza no ahafahandreo miresaka izany?

If cultural rules and legal rules clash which would the people follow? Why is this? Raha roa k

any lalana nentimpaharazana sy ny lalanam-pamjakana mifanipaka? Inona amin’izy ireo no

tokony arahiny fokonolona? Nagino?

Do you think there are any benefits from coastal management? Moa ve anao mandiniky fa misy

vokatsoa azo avy amin’ny fitantanana ny sisindranomasina

Who/what do you think benefits from the park rules? Azovy/Inona ny vokatsoa azo avy amin’ny

lalana mifehy ny valanjavaboary

Do you [villagers] receive compensation or training of any sort, to help alleviate any

disadvantages brought about by the implementation of new rules? Moa ve ny fokonolona eto

mba mahazo fanampiana na fampianarana amin’ny lafiny maro ary tena tsy mahita olana

mihitsy amin’ny fisiany lalana io?

How are the rules enforced? Akory moa ny fihatrany lalana io eto?

Who is responsible for enforcing the rules? Azovy oa no tomponandraikitra amin’ny fampiarana

ny lalana izay?

Are the rules enforced at a high medium or low level? Moa ve tena mihatra marina ireo lalana

ireo sa antonontonony nyh fihatrany sa tsia

Page 71: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Please could you describe to us the methods used to enforce the rules? Azafady mba afaka

hazavainao aminay ny fomba fampiarana io lalana io?

Do you think the existing level of enforcement is sufficient? If not, how do you feel it could be

improved? Anao mandiniky fa tena mendrika ny fampiarana ny lalana eto aminareo? Raha to

aka tsia, inona no tokony atao mba hampivoatra izany?

K33: Informal Tenure and Rules, Customs and Traditions Lalana mifehy tsy ara-

panjakana, fomba nentim-paharazana

Are there informal institutions present in the village? Misy fampianarana tsy aradalana ve eto

amin’ny Tanana?

Please tell us about fady and its importance to the village. Azafady mba ambarao izahay ny

mahakasiky ny fady misy eto amin’ny Tanana?

Does the community have an established Dina? Misy dina ifanarahana ve ny fokonolona eto

amin’ny Tanana

(if so) Can you explain it to us? Raha to aka misy dia hazavao aminay

Does the community know about any law which enables local rule making process of Dina to

establish resource norms the community will uphold and is measured by? Moa ve

mahafantatra ny mahakasika ny lalana mifehy ny fokonolona mba entina hampandrosoana ny

dina amin’ny fiarovana ny hazandranomasina?

Would working with the government to manage your own resources through a legally

recognized Dina potentially work in this community? Mila miasa miaraka amin’ny governemanta

ianareo amin’ny fitantanana ny fananareo ary mba hampahazo vahana ny Dina izay mifehy ny

fokonolona? Inona ny antony na inona ny antony tsy hanaovana izany?

Page 72: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

How do fadys work/Why do fady exist? Inona ny antony mapisy fady?

Why are fadys upheld? Inona ny antonym bola misy tokoa ny olona manaraka ny fady

What happens when people break fadys/rules? Inona ny karazandraha mety mahazo ny olona

izay mandika ny fady?

Under what circumstances can fady change? Mety miovaova arak any toejavamisy ve ny fady?

How does new fady form? Ahoana no mety hiforonany fady vaovao?

What are the fadys that affect Marine and Coastal environments, resources, and activities?

Inona ny fady mahakasika ny tontolo iainana andranomasina sy ny fananana ary fiasana

andranomasina?

Please List any customs or traditions dealing with _________ (coastal activity) Azafady ameza

za ny lisitry ny fomba fanao _______?

Please list any informal rules relating to _________ (coastal activity) Azafady ameza za lisitry ny

lalana tsy aradalana ________

What is the level of compliance to these traditions (high, medium, low)?

akory ny fahitanao ny Fanarahan’olo io lalana io? (tsara, antonony, tsisy)?

Please fill out the chart for each coastal activity. Finish one activity before moving onto the next.

Indicate high, medium, or low for level of compliance

Coastal

Activity

Asa fatao

Customs and

Traditions

fomba fanao

Informal

Rules lalana

tsy aradalana

Level of

Compliance

Level of

compliance

habeny

Fanarahana

lalana (High,

Medium,

Low) tsara,

antonony,

tsisy

Page 73: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Sea

Cucumber

Fishing

fanjonoana

dingadinga

Reef fish

Fishing

fanionoana

laoko

Other types

of fishing

fanionoana

hafa

Exporting

Tourism ?

Can you think of any examples where local fady benefits coastal resources? For example

sacred areas that prohibit fishing and swimming may allow for habitat and fish to flourish Anao

mety mandiniky ohatra amin’ny vokatsoan’ny fady amin’ny fananana andranomasina? Ohatra

tany masina izay tsy hanjonoana na hilimaognosagna?

Are there any situations where local fady has a detrimental effect on the coastal environment

and/or wildlife? Moa ve misy fotoana ireo fady any ireo dia miteraka vokadratsy amin’ny

fitantanana ny tontolo iainana/ na koa ny zava mananaina?

What is park management’s knowledge of local fady? Moa ve mahafantatra ny fady mahakasika

ny Tanana ity ireo mpitantana ny valanjavaboary ireo?

Are there any examples of management conflicting with fady/ where following formal rules

means breaking fady? Moa ve misy ny tsy fifanarahan amin’ny lalana mifehy sy ny fady?

Page 74: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Are there any current examples of management incorporating local traditions and fady? Moa ve

amin’ny izao fotoana izao misy fady efa tadiditra ao anty ny lalana entina mitantana?

Do you think it would be beneficial for management to know more about local traditions and

fady? Moa ve misy vokatsoa amin’ny fitantanana ny fahaizana ny fahaizana ny fomba sy ny

fady?

Please explain the reasoning behind your response? What would this change? Azafady nba

hazavao ny antonyhafa ambadiky ny valimpanontanianao teo? Inona no mety mampiova azy?

How would your perception of management change if local fady was incorporated into park

regulations? Mety akory ny fahitanao na fihetsehampoao ny fiovan’ny fitantanana raha toa

kahampidirina anty lalana ny fady?

Do you have any suggestions on ways management could incorporate local traditions and fady

into park rules? Moa ve manana mety ahafahana mampiditra ny fady anaty lalana mifehy ny

valanjavaboary io ianao?

K36 Community and Stakeholder Organizations Fikambanan’ny fokonolona sy ny

fandaminana

What is the current influence of organizations in the community? Inona any karazana

fanampiana azon’ny fokonolona avy amin’io fikambanana na orin’asa io?

What are the organizations present in the community? Inona aby zavatra mba omen’ny

fikambanana ion a orin’asa io amin’ny fokonolona?

Is the organization formal or informal Io orin’asa ion a fikambanana io dia arampanjakana sa

tsia?

What are the main functions of each organization?Inona no tena asa sahanin’ireo fikambanana

ireo?

How does each organization influence issues in the community? Inona ny fanampiana mba fa

efa nataon’ilreo fikambanana ireo na orin’asa teo amin’ny fokonolona?

Please fill out chart with answers to questions above. Fill out all the information for each

organization before moving on to the next.

Page 75: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Community

Organization

fandaminan’n

y fokonolona

Formal or

Informal ara-

panjakana na

tsy ara

panjakana

Main

Functions

Asa fotora

Influence

Fiantraikany

How do organizations interact with the community? Akory no ataono manoloana ny fokonolona

Do the organizations take into account the feelings of the community? Moa ve ireo

fikambanana ireo na orin’asa ireo dia mba miraharaha sy manome hasina ny fokonolona?

What is the level of interaction between formal park management/assistance and village

organizations? Inona ny fifandraisana misy eo amin’ny mpitantana ny valanjavaboary sy ny

fokonolona?

Are stakeholder groups that do not have an actual organization able to participate in park

management decisions? Ny olo tsotra tsy anaty fikambanana ve dia mba mahazo sy afaka

miteny ny hetahetany amin’ireo mpitantana ny valanjavaboary io?

Do organizations need to have a stronger presence? Moa ve ireo fikambanana ireo na orin’asa

ireo dia mbola tena mila manao mampivoatra ny fisiandreo eo Tanana?

Tell us about satisfaction levels with current organizations? Moa ve mba afaka ambaranao

izahay ny mahakasika ny fihetsehampo ny fokonolona manoloana ny fikambanana sy orin’asa

miasa eto aminareo?

What would these organizations need to have a stronger effect on village issues? Inona ny

raha rokony ataondreo mba hampahazo vahagna ireo eo amin’ny fokonolona?

Page 76: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Would the community benefit from changes to the existing organization structure? Moa ve ny

fokonolona eto amin’ny Tanana dia mba mahazo tombony amin’ny fisiany fikambanana eto?

Would you like there to be other organizations in the community? Moa ve anareo mbola mitady

fikambanana hafa na orin’asa hafa hiasa eto aminareo?

What issues would you like them to address? Lafiny inona no tianao sahanindreo eto?

What prevents organizations forming to address these issues? Inona no antony tsy nahafandreo

fikambanana na orin’asa misy eto aminareo nanampy anareo amin’ny lafiny io?

K37: Power and Influence Fahefagna sy ny fiantraikany?

Who is involved in decision-making that affects the village?Azovy aby ireo olona tafiditra

amin’ny fandraisana decision eto amin’ny Tanana?

List what organizations or individuals are involved in making decisions about your activities

(where, when, how, and who can participate in a given activity)? Tanisao azovy jiaby

fikambanana na olona tafiditra amin’ny fanapahan-kevitra mikasiky asa io (Izany hoe, taia,

nombiagna, karakory ary azovy iantefiany io asa io)?

Who (activity, age, gender) else (not neccesarily part of an official process) has to be consulted

for the activity to be carried out, expanded, or changed?_ Azovy (asany, taonany, toetoetrany)

ankoatrany (tsy voatery voamariky ara-panjakana) mety antogniny momba ny asa atao,

fampandrosoagna na fagnovagna?_

Are you(villagers) able to express how they feel about these decisions? Anao na koa

fokonolona eto amin’ny Tanana dia afaka miteny amin’ny mpitantana ny momba fanapahank

evitra izay efa noraisina?

Are your (villagers) feelings considered when the decisions are made/ Do they listen to what

you say and use it to make decisions? Moa ve mba mitandregny anareo ireo manoloana ny

fanapahankevitra?

How is the village informed about management decisions? Akory no ahafahan’ny fokonolona

maharegny ny lalana tapaka?

Page 77: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Where do you get information about coastal and marine resources? Aia na taminjovy

nahazaoanaro information nikasiky fanagnana an-dranomasina ndraiky sisin-dranomasina?

Would you like more information about these resources? Anao mbola mitady fahaizana bebe

kokoa mahakasika ny fananantsika andranomasina

How would you like this information to be presented? Amin’ny fomba ahoana no hitiavanao

azahoanao io fahaizana io?

Masotroa!!!!

Thank you for speaking with us about these subjects. We have learned many interesting things!

We hope to help the community achieve management that benefits the community through

conserving resources in a biological and socioeconomically sustainable way. If you have any

more questions or comments to add we would be happy to hear them!

Appendix 4: Demographic figures Figure A: Ethnic background of Nosy Hara National Park Residents

Page 78: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

FIgure B: NHNMP commune population class distributions compared to regional and national averages

Page 79: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

FIgure C: Age Distribution of Mangaoko commune villages Mangaoka, Ampasindava and Antanamandriry

Page 80: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Appendix 5: Economic fIgures and tables Table A: Major occupations according to NHNMP key informants

Table B: NHNMP goods and services, methods attained, and customary household uses

Goods and Services Methods Household Uses

Fish Net, pole and line, speargun

pirogue or motor boat

Own consumption, Sale

Octupus Pole on reef Own consumption, Sale

Shark (fins and meat) Jarifa net Fins-sale; Meat-own consumption

Crab Hunt in mangrove with hands Own consumption, Sale

Sea cucumber Free dive in islands with

mask, snorkel and fins

Sale

Corn hand plant, zebu and plow,

apply insecticide

Own consumption, Sale

Rice hand plant, zebu and plow Own consumption, Sale

Assorted crops Hand plant Own consumption, Sale

Zebu Young boy watches during

day, inside pens at night

Own consumption (force), Sale (meat)

Poultry Free range during day,

chicken coop at night

Sale

Farming products Handmade from wood using

basic metal tools

Own consumption, Sale

Wood house Construct with basic tools Sale

Cement house Construct with basic tools Sale

Dried sea products Dry, salt and smoke Sale

Crop Sell from home Sale

Boat rides Transport fishers, divers,

researchers, MNP to Nosy

Hara islands

Own consumption, Sale

Page 81: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

House security Monitor property Sale

Sea cucumber Walk on reef in low tides Sale

Table C*: KI reported values of NHNMP goods and services

*Generated from previous C3 research (February 2012)

Page 82: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure A: Primary, secondary and tertiary income sources of NHNMP households

Page 83: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure B: Primary, secondary and tertiary income sources for total household surveys, land based villages, and sea based villages

Figure C: % of households active in various NHNMP activities

Page 84: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure D: Percentage of households active in NHNMP activities broken down into land and sea based villages

Figure E: % of household's that depend on goods and services

Page 85: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure F: Target markets of NHNMP goods

Page 86: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure G*: Level of outsider use on NHNMP goods and services

*Generated from previous C3 research (February 2012)

Appendix 6: Management tables and figures Table A: Household survey knowledge on rules and regulations and personal enforcement and compliance levels

Page 87: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Table B: Coastal activities’ management body, management plan, legislation, and compliance

Coastal

activity

Management

body

Management

plan

Legislation/Rules Respect of

regulations

Any activity in

the sea

MNP Preserve general

biodiversity

Forbidden to fish and

camp in nautic zone of

the Nosy Hara marine

park.

Yes

Sea

cucumber

fishing

Pêche maritime

and MNP

Check on tank use

and small size

catch

Forbidden to dive

under 18 years old, to

use a tank, catch

juveniles/small size

Yes(8) / No(10)

Reef fishing Pêche maritime

and MNP

Check on gear

used and

adherence closed

season.

Forbidden to catch

juveniles, use nets

under 2-3 fingers

mesh size, beach

seining, use sticks with

metal ends (in

pirogues), respect

species closed

seasons, use jarifa

nets below 10m deep

Yes(12) / No(3)

Shark fishing No

Lobster

fishing

Pêche maritime

and MNP

Closed season Closed season

December to March

Yes

Octopus

fishing

MNP Closed season Closed season from

May to December

Yes

Farming Agriculture

Ministry,

Fokotany chief

Help community in

their activities

Forbidden to cut trees

without permit

Yes(1)

*Generated from previous C3 research (February 2012) Table C*: Key informant knowledge of NHNMP activity regulations, enforcement, and compliance

Page 88: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

*Generated from previous C3 research (February 2012) Figure A: Levels of enforcement determined by household surveys

Figure B: Levels of compliance determined by household surveys

Page 89: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure C: Household participation levels in NHNMP management aspects

Figure D: Household levels of household participation and satisfaction for decision-making

Total village numbers are given followed by sea villages and land villages for each level of participation Figure E: Household levels of household participation and satisfaction for monitoring

Page 90: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Total village numbers are given followed by sea villages and land villages for each level of participation Figure F: Household levels of household participation and satisfaction for Awareness-raising

Total village numbers are given followed by sea villages and land villages for each level of participation.

Page 91: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure G: Household levels of household participation and satisfaction for enforcement

Total village numbers are given followed by sea villages and land villages for each level of participation. Figure H: Household levels of household participation and satisfaction for compliance

Total village numbers are given followed by sea villages and land villages for each level of participation.

Page 92: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure I: Perceived community problems

Appendix 7: Resource figures and tables Table A: Analysis of village knowledge on coastal and marine resources

Page 93: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Table B: Analysis of village attitudes toward coastal and marine resources

Figure A*: Impacts caused by coastal activities, according to key informants

*Generated from previous C3 research (February 2012)

Page 94: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Figure B: Household perceptions of resource conditions

Page 95: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Appendix 8: Informal institutions Table A: Fady listed by focus groups and key informants

Page 96: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Table B*: Key informant listed fady and compliance levels

*Generated from previous C3 research (February 2012)

NHNMP fady acknowledged and posted by MNP

Tabous ET US

FADY SY FOMBANDRAZANA

Taboos (Prohibited to..)

Parc marin et côtier de l’Archipel de NOSY HARA

Fady of Nosy Hara National Marine Park

-Parler à haute voix pendant l’heure de traversée ou travail

-Madrotogno mandritry ny fotoana iasana an-dranomasina.

-Speak loudly during the travel or work at sea

Page 97: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

-Dispute avant et pendant la pêche ou la randonnée

-Mifampiankany aloha sy mandritry ny fotoana iasana

-Argument before and during fishing or hiking

-Sifflement durant la nuit.

-Mifiko amin’ny aligny

-Whistling during the night

-Toilette sur les îlots dans l’Archipel de NOSY HARA

-Mangery amin’ny Nosy

-Use Toilet on the islands in the archipelago of Nosy Hara

-Rapport sexuel sur les îlots dans l’Archipel de Nosy Hara

-Misogno amin’ny Nosy

-Sex on the islands in the archipelago of Nosy Hara

-Dégâts et destructions de tous êtres vivants ou morts sur les îles et sous la mer

-Manimba na zavaboahary velogna na maty eny amin’ny Nosy sy an-dranomasina

-Cause unneccesary damage and destruction of all natural things, living or dead on the islands

and under the sea

-Propagation de lumière ou feu durant la nuit

-Magnilo motro amin’ny alina

- Light areas other than your path during the night

-Port de chapeau de paille (Penja)

-Magnano satroka Penja

- Wear a straw hat (Penja)

-Jetée des Sels de cuisine par terre

-Manary Sira amin’ny jia

-Throw salt on the ground in the islands

-Crochet métallique pour capture des Crabes

-use metal hook for catching crabs

Page 98: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

-Transport des poissons avec des corbeilles (Atomby)

-Mitondra laoko amin’ny Atomby

-Transport fish with certain baskets (Atomby)

-Plongée des marmites dans l’eau de mer

-Manasa vilany an-dranomasina

-Diving pots in seawater

Appendix 9: Formal management

Table A: Formal rules and regulations

Coastal

activity

Management

body

Management

plan

Legislation/Rules Respect of

regulations

Any activity in

the sea

MNP Preserve general

biodiversity

Forbidden to fish and

camp in nautic zone of

the Nosy Hara marine

park.

Yes

Sea

cucumber

fishing

Pêche maritime

and MNP

Check on tank use

and small size

catch

Forbidden to dive

under 18 years old, to

use a tank, catch

juveniles/small size

High: NHNMP

residents

Low: Migrant

fishermen

Reef fishing Pêche maritime

and MNP

Check on gear

used and

adherence closed

season.

Forbidden to catch

juveniles, use nets

under 2-3 fingers

mesh size, beach

seining, use sticks with

metal ends (in

pirogues), respect

species closed

seasons, use jarifa

nets below 10m deep

High: NHNMP

residents

Medium: Migrant

fishermen

Shark fishing No

Lobster

fishing

Pêche maritime

and MNP

Closed season Closed season

December to March

High

Octopus

fishing

MNP Closed season Closed season from

May to December

High

Page 99: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Farming Agriculture

Ministry,

Fokotany chief

Help community in

their activities

Forbidden to cut trees

without permit

High

Appendix 10: Village stakeholders

Table A: Village organizations

Organization Villages Formal/ Informal

Functions Area of Influence

Level of Influence

Village government

All Informally formal

Community leader, mediates disputes, holds meetings, helps community

All aspects of community life

High

Women Association

Ampasindava, Ambararata, Mangaoko

Informal Helping community, tourist care, fundraising

Community, Environment

Low to none

MNP Mangaoko commune

Formal Manage the marine park

Community, environment

High in fishing villages, low in farming villages

Peche Maritime

Ampasindava, Ankingamelco

Formal Regulate fisheries Environment Moderate

Fishing association

Ampasindava (Liara Association), Ambararata, Ankingamelco

Liara:formal others:informal

Liara: Fundraising, to receive donations from NGOs. Help Pêche maritime and MNP to survey nautic zone Others:fundraise when death in community

Community, environment

Low to none: Liara currently inactive due to corruption

VOI association

Ampasindava Formal Forest regulation and fire protection

Environment Low

Women assoication

Ampasindava, Ambararata, Ankingamelco, Mangaoka

Informal Develop village fundraising, help village

Community Low to none

Page 100: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Farmer assoication

Ambararata, Ambolimagnary, Mangaoko, Ankingamelco

Formal Ambararata Ambolimagnary Mangaoko Informal Ankingamelco

Develop village fundraising, plant corn and buy equipment with proceeds, work together for planting and harvests, fight for fair corn prices and equipment assistance from government

Agriculture, community

Low to none

Ambolimagnary working hard to increase influence

Ankingamelco high levels of cooperation among farmers

Villagers:

Malagasy people have historically inhabited the NHNMP region. Some of the parks 60+ year old

residents have lived in the area their entire lives. Residents depend on agriculture and

extracting resources from the ocean and have few modern amenities. Villagers agree that

natural resources need to be protected so future generations can enjoy them but struggle with

some aspects of management.

Villager Organizations:

Village organizations have a weak presence in the Mangaoko commune. Organizations are

formed around livelihood activities like fishing and farming. There is also a women’s association.

Village organizations are plagued by corruption, low capacity to organize, and lack of strong

leadership. Villagers realize the potential of organizations in presenting a strong unified platform

to present their opinions. Villagers want to see associations change from their current ineffective

state to one that promotes positive change.

Village Fokotany:

Village government in Madagascar is informal. Fokotany chiefs are elected by village residents.

Although these chiefs are not backed by formal codified laws they are in every way responsible

for and acknowledged as village government. Visitors to the area are expected to ask

permission of the Fokotany chief for their presence in the village and any activities they plan to

partake in. Formal Madagascar government acknowledges Fokotany government by

cooperating and collaborating with local chiefs on initiatives. Each commune has a formal mayor

whose council is composed of the local Fokotany chiefs.

Madagascar National Parks (MNP):

MNP was founded in 1990. MNP aims to protect ecosystems through research, environmental

education and ecotourism. MNP brags, on a national level, of its equitable profit share system

which assures regional and local populations bordering parks benefit directly from their parks’

creation and profits. The Antisiriana (Diego-Suarez) MNP branch is responsible for

Page 101: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

management NHNMP. Managing from an office 40 km away has proven to be a struggle. To

better manage the park MNP split it into 2 sectors and assigned each a local village sector chief.

MNP has arrangements with other villagers whom act as spokespeople and informants for park

management. Although villagers agree with the premises and need for park management many

do not feel MNP is doing a good job with management implementation. Villagers feel MNP fails

to distribute benefits equally and is corrupted by bribe accepting officials.

World Wildlife Federation (WWF):

WWF is responsible for the initial movement of making the area around Nosy Hara a protected

area. WWF played a primary role in the parks creation and early management. It was

understood from the beginning that management responsibility would be relinquished to

Madagascar National Parks. WWF is still involved in some aspects of the park, most notably

climate change studies; however WWF no longer assumes a management position.

Peche Maritime:

Peche maritime regulates fisheries in the DIANA region of Madagascar. Specific fishing rules

imposed through Madagascar National Park follow guidelines set out by Peche Maritime. Peche

plays a role in enforcement and will usually come out with park management when reports of

illegal fishing are made. Villagers have negative attitudes toward Peche Maritime as they

believe Peche takes bribes from migrant fishermen allowing them to break the rules.

Non-governmental organizations:

Community Centered Conservation has the strongest NGO presence in the Nosy Hara area.

Trust and familiarity are the product of C3’s relationship with the community over the past 5

years. C3 tries to put information gained through intern research into practice through

community development projects. C3 maintains neutral relationships with MNP, WWF, and

villagers, not becoming involved directly in large issues in order to work with all stakeholder

groups

Other NGOs are involved in the area but usually on temporary projects. The general village

attitude towards NGOs is positive as NGOs have helped them in the past. However villagers

often feel NGOs often come into the area, perform surveys (C3 is no exception), and make

promises that are seldom fulfilled. This could be a cultural miscommunication as Malagasy take

promises form Vazaha (foreigners) very seriously while foreigners are not always as literal.

Tourists and researchers:

Tourists and researchers occasionally frequent NHNMP but have little interaction with human

park inhabitants. Bad roads prevent large numbers of tourists from Nosy Hara. Nearly all

Page 102: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

tourists make arrangements with tour companies in Diego Suarez who see most of the

ecotourism profits. Scientific researchers are mostly interested in the islands the park

surrounds.

Collectors and consumers of extracted resources:

Nosy Hara villagers have little ability to transport the resources they harvest to viable markets.

Instead collectors for the major products come to the park as needed, for sea products, or on

arranged days following harvest, corn and rice. Although consumers have no direct contact with

the park they ultimately provide product markets for NHNMP products. As is the case for the

sea cucumber industry this can be a blessing and a curse. Without Chinese demand for sea

cucumbers NHNMP villagers would have no high profit products to base livelihoods upon, nor

would sea cucumber populations be exploited.

Appendix 11: Formalized Dina of Andranovondronina

DINA Natao ity Dina ity mba ifampifehezana ato anaty faritra avy eo amin’ny riva

Ampisikilia ka mipàka hatrany Lotsihy, izay ato anaty kaominina

ambanivohitra Andranovondronina

we create this dina for the people living in the area of the coast from ampisikilia

to lotsihy in the commune of andranovondronia

• Toko voalohany: Fiaraha-monina amin’ny ankapobeny

1.general community rules

Andininy 01 (1st article): Tsy maintsy mandefa solon-tena mamonjy fivoriana

farafaharatsiny ny tokan-trano tsirairay izay misy ato anaty faritra voalaza etsy ambony.

If they have meeting every family needs to have 1 person present

Andininy 02: Tsy maintsy manao asa fanadiovana tanàna ny anaty tokantrano tsirairay.

It is obligatory to keep clean the area around your house

Andininy 03: Tsy azo atao ny manapariaka zavatra plastika (gony, sachets …) na pile

You are not allowed to litter plastic pile (bags, wrappers) and batteries

• Toko faharoa: Fidiran’ny vahiny rules for outsiders

Page 103: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Andininy 04: Eto, ny vahiny dia ireo olona izay tsy voasoratra anarana amin’ny lisitry ny

mponina anatin’ireo fokontany anat’ny kaominina Andranovondronina, Mangaoka,

Andranofanjava ary Mahalina

here you are an outsider, if you are not included in the book/register of commune

residents these rules apply to you

Andininy 05: Ny vahiny dia tsy mahazo mitondra fitaovam-panjonoana, ary tsy maintsy

mandoa droit de pêche (10 000Ar isam-batan’olona), alohan’ny iasany anaty valam -

pirenena Nosy Hara; avy eo amin’ny riva Ampisikilia mianavaratra.

Outsiders are not allowed to bring destructive gear with them, and it is obligatory to pay

10,000 ariary fee if you want to fish in the area, you pay this before you start to

fish/work. This is from ampisikilia beach to the north

Andininy 06:Ny vahiny 50 voalohany tonga mandoa droit de pêche ihany no omena

lalana hiasa ato amin’ny faritra

the 50 outsiders that come in first they give the opportunity to work in the area (if they

pay the 10,000) more than 50 outsiders is not allowed

Andininy 07: Ireo olona izay tsy monina ato anaty fokontany Vohilava, nefa mipetraka

anaty kaominina efatra voalaza ireo, dia tsy maintsy mitondra taratasy fanamarinam-

ponenana na « certificat de résidence » avy amin’ny toerana niaviany. Around nosy

hara marine park there are 4 different communes. The people that live in other

communes did to bring resident certificate if they want to work in their area (to prove

that they are also residents of Nosy Hara communes)

• Toko fahatelo: Fiasana andranomasina 3. Work in the sea

Andininy 08: Ny fifodian’ny fangalana orita dia ny 15 desambra ka hatramin’ny 30

aprily ny taona manaraka. Octopus has closed season from 15 december to 30 april.

Andininy 09: Raràna ny manao tekinika fanaratovana izay antsoina hoe: “serisery” you

are not allowed to use fishing technieque serisery (net made up of sticks attached

together that they use to section off areas where fish aggregrate trapping them) (i.e in

bay when come in at high tide trap them there)

Andininy 10: Tsy azo ampiasaina ny lipondro misy vy amin’ny vodiny. Not allowed to

use stick with metal end (oft used to herd fish toward net)

Andininy 11: Tsy azo atao ny miasa orita mandritra ny rano gegy. Not allowed to

collect the octopus during the neap tide

Andininy 12: Tsy azo atao ny mijibika orita anaty fahàka. Not allowed to dive for

octopus

Andininy 13 : Tsy azo atao ny mijibika amin’ny toerana efa misy harato mivelatra if

someone has layed out nets others cannot dive within them/the area (take advantage of

fish accumulated/trapped) they must go elsewhere

Page 104: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Andininy 14: Tsy azo atao ny manao tekinika fanaratovona mamango rano. You are

not allowed to use sticks to herd fish into net

Andininy 15: Tsy azo atao ny magnamamo laoko amin’ny alalan’ny laro na fagnamo

you are not allowed to use posions/liquids to stun sealife

Andininy 16: Tsy azo atao ny mamaky na mamadika koray. You are not allowed to

break the coral even to move it

Andininy 17: Tsy azo atao ny mangala bankora (satria izy io no

mihinana ireo biby mamono koray). You are not allowed to collect

charonia trittonis shells because the species eat the crown of thorns

starfish

• Toko fahaefatra: Fahafahana manjono na manangona vokatra. If you

want to be fisher or collect/buy sea life these apply to you

Andininy 18: Ny olona tsy manana badge maha mpanjono dia tsy mahazo miasa

antin’ny fari-dranomasin’ny valam-pirenena Nosy hara. If you do not have paper/badge/

paper that identifies you as a fishermen you cannot fish in nosy hara marine park

Andininy 19: Ny mpanagona vokatra (mareyeurs, collecteurs) dia tsy maintsy

mifanakalo hevitra amin’ny mpanjono mikasika ny vidin’ny vokatra, alohan’ny

fisokafan’ny fiasana vao afaka manomboka miasa. Tsy maintsy tazomina an-tsoratra ny

fifanarahana tapaka. If you are collector you have to give the fishermen the right price

for their sea-goods you cannot give lower price than is correct, before you work in the

area. First you should go in before you are start to buy goods and tell fishermen the

price you will pay for that good. This must be done before you come in to actually buy

the good. Collecting is a competitive business. You should always have an official paper

stating the price you will pay. If your price changes your paper should also change. This

all needs to be arranged before open season starts to prevent collectors from grouping

together and lowering prices during season.

• Toko fahadimy: Fampiasana ny hazo honko sy ala anaty valan-javaboaharim-

pirenena Nosy hara. Using mangroves and working in the area of nosy hara

marine park

Andininy 20: Tsy azo atao ny mivarotra kakazo honko. You are not allowed to sell

mangroves

Andininy 21: Tsy azo avoaka ivelan’ny fokontany niaviany ny kakazo honko

Mangroves must be used in close proximity to where they are cut (cut in ampasindava

use in ampasindava cannot transport to other areas like diego)

Andininy 22: Tsy azo anaovana valan’omby ny kakazo honko you are not allowed to

use mangroves to make small fences, you should collect other smaller wood from the

forest. You can use mangrove to make large zebu pens with permission

Page 105: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Andininy 23: Ny tokantrano araiky dia afaka manao fangatahana amin’ny filàna

fanamboarana trano, lakozia, fa indray mandeha ihany isaky ny efatra (04) taona, ary

tsy maintsy mamboly honko farafaharatsiny mitovy amin’ny isan’ny kakazo honko izay

nalainy. Every family needs a permit to take mangrove. Only 1 time per four years you

can apply for this permit. Also you need to plant a new mangrove for every one you cut.

Andininy 24: Ny fangatahana an-taratasy dia tsy maintsy mandalo amin’ny komity

mpanaramaso vao hamarinin’ny fokontany, ka ny saran’izany dia roa arivo ariary (2000

Ar) ny hazon-trano, ary arivo ariary (1000 Ar) ny “gaulette”. If you want to use

mangroves you need to make an official request. First you bring to the villager

responsible for inquiries about mangroves. If they accept your request you than ask

permission of the fokotany chief. If you want to cut the mangrove for your house and

need big strong wide tree 1 tree costs 2000 ariary. If you just want to make like zebu

fence and u do not need to get big wide tree it costs 1000 ariary per tree. The fee is

paid to Fokotany chief who should use money for the community.

• Toko fahaenina: Ireo sazy mifandraika amin’ny fandikan-dalàna sy ny

fampiharana azy. Punishments for people that break the dina

Andininy 25 Ny fihetsika fandikana lalàna rehetra dia manana sazy mifanaraka aminy,

ary tsy maintsy tazomina an-tsoratra ka soniavin’ireo voakasika izany ary hamarinin’ny

“Comité Local du Parc” sy ny Chef de fokontany. You should know the rules of the

islands before you fish or dive. If you break the rules you will be punished. Punishment

is dependent on the offense. Punishments are assigned by the Fokotany chief and the

local community park representative(sector chief). The punishment is official on paper

not just a verbal agreement

Ireo

fihetsika

tsy mety

bad

behavior

Lamandy

punishmen

t

Page 106: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Tsy

mamonjy

fivoriam-

pokonolona

you dont

come to the

meeting

(have family

representati

ve)

Roa arivo

ariary (2

000 Ar) pay

fine

Tanàna

maloto

keep your

area dirty

Tsy mahazo

famatsiam-

bola. The

people do

not have to

help you

when you

are in need

Manary

plastika

(gony,

sachets,…)

na pile

amoron-

dranomasin

a if u throw

plastic

Dimanjato

ariary (500

Ar) pay fine

Page 107: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Vahiny tsy

mandoa

droit de

pêche tratra

miasa anaty

ny faritra

voalaza if

they catch

someone

with no

permit

working in

the area

Dimampolo

arivo ariary

(50 000Ar)

pay fine

Olona avy

ivelan’ny

fokontany

Vohilava tsy

mitondra

taratsy

fanarinam-

ponenana if

you are

people from

other

commune if

you don’t

bring your

proof of

residiency

Folo arivo

ariary (10

000Ar) pay

fine

Manao

serisery if

you use

stick net

Telopolo

arivo ariary

30 000 Ar)

pay fine

Page 108: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Mijibika

anaty

toerana efa

misy harato

mivelatra if

you dive in

people net

Folo arivo

ariary (10

000 Ar) pay

fine

Mijibika orita

anaty

fahaka

have

octopus

Dimy arivo

ariary (5

000 Ar)

isaky ny

kilaon’ ny

vokatra azo

pay per kilo

Miasa orita

mandritra ny

rano gegy

catch

octopus

during the

neap tide

Dimy arivo

ariary (5

000 Ar)

isaky ny

kilaon’ ny

vokatra azo

pay per kilo

Mangala

/mandafo

orita

mandritra ny

fotoana

fifodian’ny

fangalana

azy have

octupus

during

closed

season or

sell

Dimy arivo

ariary (5

000 Ar)

isaky ny

kilaon’ ny

vokatra azo

u have to

pay 5000

ariary per

kilo

Page 109: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Mangala

orita latsaky

ny 350g

octopus

smaller than

350 g

Dimy arivo

ariary (5

000 Ar)

isaky ny

kilaon’ ny

vokatra azo

pay per kilo

Mamaky na

mamadika

koray break

or move

coral

Roapolo

arivo

ariary(20

000Ar) pay

fine

Mamango

rano

magnarato if

u use stick

to hit water

and herd

fish

Folo arivo

ariary (10

000 Ar) pay

fine

Mampiasa

fagnamo na

laro if u use

posion liquid

or native

plant/leaves

to stun fish

Telopolo

arivo ariary

(30 000 Ar)

pay fine

Mangala

bankora

take the

shell that

eats COT

starfish

Folo arivo

ariary ny

araiky (5

000 Ar) pay

fine

Page 110: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

Mampiasa

lipondro

misy vy

amin’ny

vodiny using

the stick

with metal

end

Folo arivo

ariary (10

000 Ar) pay

fine

Mamoaka

honko

ivelan’ny

fokontany

niaviany na

tsy

nahazoana

alalana,

mivarotra

honko,

manao

valan’omby

amin’ny

kakazo

honko. If u

take

mangrove

outside,

without

permission,

or use for

zebu fence

Roa arivo

ariary (2

000 Ar)

isaky ny

kakazon-

trano ary

dimanjato

sy arivo

ariary (1500

Ar) isaky ny

gaulette

Than u have

to pay 2000

ariary for big

and 1500

for small

Andininy 26: Ny fe-potoana farany andoavana ny vonodina dia erinandro. The deadline

of the people to pay his dina is just one week

Andininy 27: Raha tsy voaloa anaty io fe-potoana io ny vonodina, dia ampihàrina ny

paika tsy maintsy arahina amin’ny fijerena ifotony ny fanaraha-maso ny fandikan-dalàna

Page 111: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

(procédure de contrôle de délit). If you do not finish/are unable to pay your fine in 1

week they go to the place the infraction happened and u will end up having to pay than

the original amount (i.e if they catch u with 10 mangroves u have to pay 2000 for each,

if u do not pay this in time they will take u back to the place u cut and see how many u

actually cut and make u pay for this)

Andininy 28: Ny tsy fankatoavana ireo lalàna misy ireo dia miafara amin’ny

fampiakàrana ny raharaha any amin’ny fitsaràna mahefa Antsiranana (tribunal). If u do

not respect the law they will bring you to court

Andininy 29: Ireo izay minia mamerina ny hadisoana dia enjehina avy hatrany amin’ny

fitsaràna mahefa Antsiranana. If you do an infraction and have to pay for it..if you have

a repeat offence you do not have the option of paying u go directly to court

Andininy 30: Ny “Comité Local du Parc” no tompony fahefana feno amin’ny

fampihàrana izay rehetra voarakitra ato anaty ity Dina ity. Sector chiefs are the first

people responsible for people that break the rules

• Toko fahafito: Ny vola azo. The money collected

Andininy31: Ny dimy amby fitopolo isan-jato (75 %) ny vola azo amin’ny fampihàrana

ity Dina ity dia ampidirina ao anaty kitapom-bolan’ny komity mpanaramaso, ary ny dimy

amby roapolo isan-jato (25%) dia omena ny olona izay nandray anjara tamin’ny

fisamborana ny olona nanao ny fahadisoana.

75% of the money should be used to help the general population

25% goes to the people who help catch and prosecute (i.e person who sees doing

wrong and reports, sector chief etc)

Natao teto Antsako, faha 16 Avril 2012

Ny Chef Fokontany

VISA LE MAIRE

LISITRY NY TANANA SY FOKONTANY ANATIN’NY KAOMININA EFATRA

MAMARITRA NY VALAN-JAVA-BOAHARY NOSY HARA

list of village, areas and 4 communes around nosy hara marine park

KAOMININA

commune

FOKONTAN

Y area/

neighborhood

TANANA

village

Page 112: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

ANDRANOVO

NDRONINA

Andranovondro

nina

Andranovond

ronina,

……………

……….

Vohilava Antsako,Vahi

lava,

Lalandaka,

Ambalavy.

Antsisikala Andohonko,

Ambodivoani

o,Antsatrabe

Ilomotro Ilomotro,

Ambaro,

Andrahimba

MANGAOKA Mangaoka Bobatolagna

Ampasindava Ampasindava

Antanamandr

iry

Ankingamelo

ka,Antanama

ndriry,Ambar

arata

Antongoanao

mby

Mananàra Andranomav

o, Mananàra

Matsaborimai

ky

Matsaborimai

ky,

Ambovobe

ANDRANOFA

NJAVA

Ironona Ironona,

Antafiabe,

Melivato,

Ankiabe,

Analamavaza

Page 113: Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park - Hartshorn / C3 Madagascar 2012

MAHALINA Befotaka Befotaka,

Ambatomitan

gola,

Antsafolobe

Ambomadiro Anjiamaloto

Ampondrabe Antsorokaka,

Irangotro,

Ampondrabe,

Farar