socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures that affect conservation sustainability in...
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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).
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
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).
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
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)
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
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.
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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).
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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?
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)
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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?
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
FIgure B: NHNMP commune population class distributions compared to regional and national averages
FIgure C: Age Distribution of Mangaoko commune villages Mangaoka, Ampasindava and Antanamandriry
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
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)
Figure A: Primary, secondary and tertiary income sources of NHNMP households
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
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
Figure F: Target markets of NHNMP goods
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
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
*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
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
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.
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.
Figure I: Perceived community problems
Appendix 7: Resource figures and tables Table A: Analysis of village knowledge on coastal and marine resources
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)
Figure B: Household perceptions of resource conditions
Appendix 8: Informal institutions Table A: Fady listed by focus groups and key informants
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
-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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
MAHALINA Befotaka Befotaka,
Ambatomitan
gola,
Antsafolobe
Ambomadiro Anjiamaloto
Ampondrabe Antsorokaka,
Irangotro,
Ampondrabe,
Farar