You are on page 1of 113

Conservation in developing countries A Nosy Hara National Marine Park Case Study Socioeconomic conditions and co-management structures

that affect conservation sustainability in Nosy Hara National Marine Park An Internship Report Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Professional Science

In cooperation with Community Centred Conservation Judith Hartshorn Division of Marine Conservation

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science November 2012 Approved: Committee chair:

Associate Professor: Marine Affairs and Policy

Judith Hartshorn

(MPS, Marine Conservation)

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. Madagascars 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 Madagascars program manager Slyviane Volmpaine, Chris Poonian, C3s 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. C3s mission is To develop conservation efforts worldwide by building the capacity of local individuals and institutions through grass-roots research and training initiatives. C3s 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 Madagascars 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 parks 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 edglings (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. Gutirrez 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 (Gutirrez 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 eras 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 communitys 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 # of Village Household Surveys Performed Ambararata 6 Ambolomagn 3 ary Ampasindava 18 Anjavy 1

Ankingamelo 6 ka Antanamandr 1 iry Antongoanao 3 mby

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 villagers 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 Dada Key informant description Village elder, long time resident, shaman, worked in sea for all of his live, active in community affairs Fokotany chief, farmer, sea cucumber diver, MNP informant Respected community member, established diver older resident farmer Wife of MNP property guardian, life time village resident Young sea cucumber diver, life time village resident MNP secretary, college educated, born in Ampasindava Home village Informal institutions X Formal institutions X Stakeholder groups and organizations X

Ampasindava

Ambararata Fokotany chief

Ambararata

Tolide

Ampasindava

Local farmer

Anjavy

Mama Mena B

Ampasindava

Raymond

Ankingamelco

Clara

Ampasindava

Claudis

MNP appointed community sector chief of Nosy Hara South MNP vice director of NHNMP

Ampasindava

Fermen

Diego Suarez

Table 4: Focus group descriptions

Focus group

Village

Informal institutions

Formal institutions

Stakeholder groups and organizations X X X

6 wives of fishermen 5 farmers 5 farmers 4 respected community elders whom work in the sea Fokotany chief and 4 young farmers/sea cucumber divers

Ankingamelco

X X

Ambolimagnariny X Antongoanaomby X Ampasindava X

Ambararata

5 sea cucumber Ankingamelco divers

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 parks 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 familys 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 MNPs 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 guardians 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 dont know, good, average, bad or the same. I dont 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 dont 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 comanagement 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 fadys 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 patients 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 fishermens 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 Ankingamelcos 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. MNPs 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


Helping community, tourist care, fundraising Manage the marine park

All aspects of High community life

Women Association

Ampasindava, Informal Ambararata, Mangaoko Mangaoko commune Formal

Community, Environment

Low to none

MNP

Community, environment

High in fishing villages, low in farming villages Moderate

Peche Maritime Fishing association

Ampasindava, Formal Ankingamelok a Ampasindava Liara: formal (Liara others: Association), informal Ambararata, Ankingamelok a

Regulate fisheries

Environment

Liara: Community, Fundraising, to environment receive donations from NGOs. Help Pche maritime and MNP to survey nautical zone Others: fundraise when death in community

Low to none: Liara currently inactive due to corruption

VOI association

Ampasindava Formal

Forest regulation and fire protection


Develop village fundraising, help village

Environment Low

Women association

Ampasindava, Informal Ambararata, Ankingamelok a, Mangaoka

Community

Low to none

Farmer association

Ambararata, Ambolomagna ry, Mangaoko, Ankingamelok a

Formal Ambararata Ambolomagna ry Mangaoko Informal Ankingamelok a

Develop Agriculture, village community fundraising, plant corn and buy equipment with proceeds, work together for planting and harvests, fight for fair corn prices and equipment assistance from government

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; Gutirrez 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 MNP rules ex potentially reworked as fady Segment taboos Temporal taboos Regulate resource withdrawal Regulate access to resource in time Regulate withdrawal of vulnerable life history stages of species -

Octopus closed season

Life history taboos

Catch size limits on sea cucumber

Method taboos Regulate methods of resource withdrawal

use metal hook Prohibitions to catch crabs on net size, use of ragiragy net, tanks, and metal tipped sticks Ban on hunting sea turtles No take areas

SpecificTotal species taboos protection to species in time and space Habitat taboos Restrict access and use of species in time and space

Fady to cut trees on islands Fady to kill animals in islands

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 Ishmaels 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 parks 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 Madagascars 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 140:201216. 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 19:17141723. Cinner, J. (2005). Socioeconomic factors influencing customary marine tenure in the IndoPacific. 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 600

pp 584-

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), 357369.

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. Gutirrez, 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. Enqute Dmographique et de Sant, Madagascar 20032004: Rapport de synthse. Calverton, Maryland, USA: INSTAT and ORC Macro. Date of publication: 2005 Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What Is Conservation Science?. BioScience, 62(11), 969. Lambek M. 1992. Taboo as cultural practice among Malagasy speakers. Man 27:245266. Lambek M. 1998. The Sakalava Poiesis of history: Realizing the past through spirit possession in Madagascar. American Ethnologist 25:106127. Langley J.M. 2006. Vezo knowledge: Traditional ecological knowledge in Andavadoaka, west Madagascar. Blue Ventures Conservation: London, UK south-

March 962-

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, Crations daires protges, Mesures de sauvegarde, Cadre de procdure Ministrede lEnvironnement et des Forts, Commission SAPM Fvrier 2009. MEF, 2009, Note technique sur la cration du Parc National de Nosy Hara et de sa zone de protection, Ministre 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 resources in Madagascar. Ocean and Coastal Management 49:855872. 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 8:451468. 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 marine

Appendix 1: SocMon variables monitored in Mangaoko commune villages SocMon Code Community Level K4 Population Data Type (# performed) Key Informant (KI) and derived K5 Number of Households K7 K16 K16 Occupations KI (37) Infrastructure KI (37) Business origin K18 Coastal and marine activities K19 Coastal and marine goods and services K20 K23 Methods KI (37) KI (37) Ki (37) KI (37) Google maps Variable Method

Use Patterns KI (37) timing and season

K23

Use patterns KI (37) daily

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 KI (46), body Focus Group (FG) (3)

K29*

Management KI (46), FG plan (3) KI (46), FG (3) KI (46), FG (3)

K30*

Enabling legislation

K32*

Formal tenure and rules

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 Household Level

KI (40), FG (2)

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 S12

Cooking fuel HS (38) Coastal/mari HS (38) ne activities

S13

Coastal/mari HS (38) ne goods and services

S14

Coastal/mari HS (38) ne methods

S16

Coastal/mari HS (38) ne goods household use

S15

Coastal/mari HS (38) ne target markets

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 HS (38) rules and regulations

S22

Compliance to rules

HS (38)

S23

Enforcement HS (38) of rules

S24

Problems facing coastal management

HS (38)

S24

Solutions to problems facing coastal management

HS (38)

S26

Successes in HS (38) coastal management

S27

Challenges in HS (38) coastal management

S25

Community problems

HS (38)

S29

Material Living

Observation surveys

Standards of during *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 Date: Village Interview #:

Interview Team:

Household role (i.e Father, mother etc):

Interviewee Name:

Occupation:

Introductory Statement Mbolatsara, izahay (Names of interview team) izao avy aminny orinasa C3. Faly izahay tonga eto aminny 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? Aminny fotoagna karakory anaro no mipetraka eto? Ino nahatonga anarao mipetraka eto aminio fotoagna io? Aminny 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 karazanasa misy eto Including fish products, sand extraction, mangrove wood etc. -AzafadyIsaka ny karazanasa azafady mba alaharo ny lisitry ny zavatra azo ao andranomasina -Azafady mba alaharo ny lisitry ny fomba fatao aminny fangalana ireo biby ao andranomasina S16: Ny fampiasana ny vokatra azo -Ho anny isaka karazan-javatra azo avy ao andranomasina izay voalahatra, azafady dia mba ambarao inona ny zavatra atao izy, Alafo, Ampisaina aminny zavatra hafa, ampiasaina ao antokatrano.

S15: Ny toerana andafosana ny zavatra azo -Ho anny isaka karazan-javatra azo avy ao aminy 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 Zavatra andranomasi alaina ao na andranomasi na (Alafo, Ampiasaina aminny zavatra, Ampiasaina ho anny tokantrano, na koa hafa) Fomba Fampiasana antrano Tany andafosana azy (Any ivelany, nasionaly, rezionaly, lokaly) fangalana izy azy ao

Inona ny zavatra fampiasainareo aminny 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 aminny ala honko? Y/N Ambarao ny karazany honko atao azy ireo Lalana mifehy na hoe fitantanana Manakory ny fandraisanao anjara aminny fitantanana ny ranomasina? (Be, ely, tsisy) Magnano akory ny fahahafamponao ny fandraiisanao anjara aminny fiarovana io? (ambony, antonony, ambany) For each aspect of coastal management mark the level of participation and satisfaction the interviewee holds Fitantanana ny sisinHabeny fandraisana Habeny fahahafampo

dranomasina anjara BeElyTsisyAmbonyAntononyAmbanyhevitra tapakampanaramasoMpilaza lalana mifehyMpamolavola lalana Fanarahana lalana

S18: Membership in Stakeholder Organization Misy olona avy ao aminao miasa aminio 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 aaminizao fotoana eo aminny fampiasana ireo zavatra mananaina ao andranomasina tsara (1), antonony(2), ratsy(3), tsy fantatro(0),

Ala honko ____ andranomasina_____

Vato hara___ Tany horaka___

Rano mamy ___

Ahitra

Laoko aminny vato hara____ tanimbary___

dingadinga___

drakatra___

taninkatsaka____ aty ala____ lalana___

tany famboliana haninkotrana hafa____

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 aminny 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 aminio 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

Arapanjakan Habeny izy roa? lalana

Habeny lalana

fepetra (Y/N) a, sa tsia, sa Mpamolavola Fanarahana 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 aminny fitantanana ny ranomasina eo aminny fokonolona? 1. 2. Ino ny vahaolana hitanao manoloana io olana io? 1. 2. S26 and S27: Fahombiazana sy vato misakana aminny fitantanana ny sisindranomasina Milaza karazana zavatra roa heverinao fa mifandraika aminny fitantanana sy ny fokonolona? 1. 2. Milaza karazana zavatra roa heverinao fa tsy mifandraika aminny fitantanana sy ny fokonolona? 1. 2. S25: Perceived community problems Milaza karazana olana roa lehibe izay nandalo taminny fokonolona? 1.

2.

Fahalalana aminny sisindranomasina sy ny hazandrano Anontanio ny olana ireto fehezanteny ireto diso sa marina Ny fahasimbany ala honko ve misy fiantraikany aminny laoko Marina/Diso Ala honko sy vato hara miaro ny sisindranomasina aminny onjandranomasina M/D Ny fametrahana ny valanjavabohary andranomasina dia mamela ny laoko hanaranaka sy tsy ho lany tamingana M/D Aminizao fotoana izao firy kilo ny laoko azonao, arak any hevitrao mety mbola ahazo karaha io anaoaminny afara? M/D Ny fiheritreretanao ny hazandranomasina Anontanio raha manaiky na tsia na tsisy ambara ambara Ny fokonolopna tokony hijery akaiky ny hazandranomasina sy ny toerana fonenany tsisy/ ambara Ny fidirambolanay dia miakina aminny hatsaranny hazandranomasuina ambara Mila torohevitra aminny fanjonoana zaho na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara na tsia/na Ny fadintany dia manampy izahay aminny fiarovana ny vatohara tsisy/ ambara Ny vatoharan sy ny ala honko no mapidi-bola tena tsara indrindra aminayl ambara Misy dikany aminny fomba nentim-paharazana ny vatohara Misy dikany aminny fomba nentim-paharazana ny ala tonko Ny fitantanana ve tokony miankina aminny fokonolona Ny fokonolona ve mila olona mpitantana Ilaina ny ala honko aminny fisaritana ny mpizahatany na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara na tsia/na tsisy/ na tsia/na tsisy/ na tsia/na na tsia/na tsisy/ ambara na tsia/na tsisy/ Ny fihetsiky ataonay tsy misy fiantraikany aminny hazan-dranomasina

Tiako ny taranaka avy afara mba ahazo tombotsoa aminny hazandranomasina

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: 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 aminny orinasa C3. Faly izahay tonga eto aminny 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. Date:

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 aminny fitantagnana, Fandaharanasa ny fitantanana, Lalaagnam-ponenagna, Lalagna mifehy aminny fampiasagna ranomasina How are coastal activities in Nosy Hara Marine Park managed? Ino aby ireo asa ataonolo eto aminny 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 aminny 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 Fanarahanolo io lalana io? (tsara, antonony, tsisy) Please fill out the chart for each coastal activity. Finish one activity before moving onto the next.

Coastal Management Management Activity asa plan Yes/No aminny sisin- body(s) ranomasina Yes/No & & Name Name Mpitantana anarana Tetiakam aminny fitantanana sy anarana

Formal Level of tenure and Rules Lalana compliance sy fepetra (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/sell ing mpanondran a/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 aminny fokonolona ny fitantanana alohanny 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 taminireo 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 ataonolo 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, aminiza 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 aminizy 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 aminny fitantanana ny sisindranomasina Who/what do you think benefits from the park rules? Azovy/Inona ny vokatsoa azo avy aminny 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 aminny lafiny maro ary tena tsy mahita olana mihitsy aminny 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 aminny 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 arapanjakana, fomba nentim-paharazana Are there informal institutions present in the village? Misy fampianarana tsy aradalana ve eto aminny Tanana? Please tell us about fady and its importance to the village. Azafady mba ambarao izahay ny mahakasiky ny fady misy eto aminny Tanana? Does the community have an established Dina? Misy dina ifanarahana ve ny fokonolona eto aminny 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 aminny 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 aminny governemanta ianareo aminny 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 Fanarahanolo 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 Informal Traditions Rules lalana Level of Compliance compliance habeny Fanarahana lalana (High, Medium, Low) tsara, antonony, tsisy

fomba fanao tsy aradalana Level of

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 aminny vokatsoanny fady aminny 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 aminny fitantanana ny tontolo iainana/ na koa ny zava mananaina?

What is park managements 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 aminny lalana mifehy sy ny fady?

Are there any current examples of management incorporating local traditions and fady? Moa ve aminny 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 aminny 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 fiovanny 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 Fikambananny fokonolona sy ny fandaminana What is the current influence of organizations in the community? Inona any karazana fanampiana azonny fokonolona avy aminio fikambanana na orinasa io? What are the organizations present in the community? Inona aby zavatra mba omenny fikambanana ion a orinasa io aminny fokonolona? Is the organization formal or informal Io orinasa ion a fikambanana io dia arampanjakana sa tsia? What are the main functions of each organization?Inona no tena asa sahaninireo fikambanana ireo? How does each organization influence issues in the community? Inona ny fanampiana mba fa efa nataonilreo fikambanana ireo na orinasa teo aminny 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

Formal or

Main

Influence Fiantraikany

Organization Informal ara- Functions fandaminann panjakana na Asa fotora y fokonolona tsy ara panjakana

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 orinasa 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 aminny 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 aminireo mpitantana ny valanjavaboary io? Do organizations need to have a stronger presence? Moa ve ireo fikambanana ireo na orinasa 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 orinasa 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 aminny fokonolona?

Would the community benefit from changes to the existing organization structure? Moa ve ny fokonolona eto aminny Tanana dia mba mahazo tombony aminny fisiany fikambanana eto? Would you like there to be other organizations in the community? Moa ve anareo mbola mitady fikambanana hafa na orinasa 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 orinasa misy eto aminareo nanampy anareo aminny 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 aminny fandraisana decision eto aminny 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 aminny 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 aminny Tanana dia afaka miteny aminny 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 ahafahanny 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? Aminny 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 Fish Octupus Shark (fins and meat) Crab Sea cucumber Corn Rice Assorted crops Zebu Poultry Farming products Wood house Cement house Dried sea products Crop Boat rides Methods Net, pole and line, speargun pirogue or motor boat Pole on reef Jarifa net Household Uses Own consumption, Sale Own consumption, Sale Fins-sale; Meat-own consumption

Hunt in mangrove with hands Own consumption, Sale Free dive in islands with mask, snorkel and fins hand plant, zebu and plow, apply insecticide hand plant, zebu and plow Hand plant Young boy watches during day, inside pens at night Free range during day, chicken coop at night Handmade from wood using basic metal tools Construct with basic tools Construct with basic tools Dry, salt and smoke Sell from home Transport fishers, divers, researchers, MNP to Nosy Hara islands Sale Own consumption, Sale Own consumption, Sale Own consumption, Sale Own consumption (force), Sale (meat) Sale Own consumption, Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale Own consumption, Sale

House security Sea cucumber

Monitor property Walk on reef in low tides

Sale 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 Preserve general biodiversity Legislation/Rules Respect of regulations

Any activity in MNP the sea

Forbidden to fish and Yes camp in nautic zone of the Nosy Hara marine park.

Sea cucumber fishing Reef fishing

Pche maritime Check on tank use Forbidden to dive Yes(8) / No(10) and MNP and small size under 18 years old, to catch use a tank, catch juveniles/small size Pche maritime Check on gear and MNP used and adherence closed season. Forbidden to catch Yes(12) / No(3) 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

Shark fishing No Lobster fishing Octopus fishing Farming Pche maritime Closed season and MNP MNP Agriculture Ministry, Fokotany chief Closed season Closed season December to March Closed season from May to December Yes Yes

Help community in Forbidden to cut trees Yes(1) their activities without permit

*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 ctier de lArchipel de NOSY HARA Fady of Nosy Hara National Marine Park

-Parler haute voix pendant lheure de traverse ou travail -Madrotogno mandritry ny fotoana iasana an-dranomasina. -Speak loudly during the travel or work at sea

-Dispute avant et pendant la pche ou la randonne -Mifampiankany aloha sy mandritry ny fotoana iasana -Argument before and during fishing or hiking -Sifflement durant la nuit. -Mifiko aminny aligny -Whistling during the night -Toilette sur les lots dans lArchipel de NOSY HARA -Mangery aminny Nosy -Use Toilet on the islands in the archipelago of Nosy Hara -Rapport sexuel sur les lots dans lArchipel de Nosy Hara -Misogno aminny Nosy -Sex on the islands in the archipelago of Nosy Hara -Dgts et destructions de tous tres vivants ou morts sur les les et sous la mer -Manimba na zavaboahary velogna na maty eny aminny 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 lumire ou feu durant la nuit -Magnilo motro aminny alina - Light areas other than your path during the night

-Port de chapeau de paille (Penja) -Magnano satroka Penja - Wear a straw hat (Penja) -Jete des Sels de cuisine par terre -Manary Sira aminny jia -Throw salt on the ground in the islands

-Crochet mtallique pour capture des Crabes -use metal hook for catching crabs

-Transport des poissons avec des corbeilles (Atomby) -Mitondra laoko aminny Atomby -Transport fish with certain baskets (Atomby) -Plonge des marmites dans leau 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 Preserve general biodiversity Legislation/Rules Respect of regulations

Any activity in MNP the sea

Forbidden to fish and Yes camp in nautic zone of the Nosy Hara marine park. High: NHNMP residents Low: Migrant fishermen High: NHNMP residents Medium: Migrant fishermen

Sea cucumber fishing Reef fishing

Pche maritime Check on tank use Forbidden to dive and MNP and small size under 18 years old, to catch use a tank, catch juveniles/small size Pche maritime Check on gear and MNP 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

Shark fishing No Lobster fishing Octopus fishing Pche maritime Closed season and MNP MNP Closed season Closed season December to March Closed season from May to December High High

Farming

Agriculture Ministry, Fokotany chief

Help community in Forbidden to cut trees High their activities without permit

Appendix 10: Village stakeholders Table A: Village organizations


Organization Villages Formal/ Informal Functions Area of Influence Level of Influence

Village All government

Informally formal

Community leader, mediates disputes, holds meetings, helps community


Helping community, tourist care, fundraising Manage the marine park

All aspects of High community life


Community, Environment Community, environment Low to none

Women Association MNP

Ampasindava, Ambararata, Mangaoko Mangaoko commune

Informal

Formal

High in fishing villages, low in farming villages Moderate Low to none: Liara currently inactive due to corruption

Peche Maritime Fishing association

Ampasindava, Ankingamelco Ampasindava (Liara Association), Ambararata, Ankingamelco

Formal

Regulate fisheries

Environment

Liara:formal Liara: Fundraising, to Community, others:inform receive donations from environment al NGOs. Help Pche maritime and MNP to survey nautic zone Others:fundraise when death in community

VOI association Women assoication

Ampasindava
Ampasindava, Ambararata, Ankingamelco, Mangaoka

Formal
Informal

Forest regulation and fire protection


Develop village fundraising, help village

Environment
Community

Low
Low to none

Farmer assoication

Ambararata, Ambolimagnary, Mangaoko, Ankingamelco

Formal Ambararata Ambolimagna ry Mangaoko Informal Ankingamelc o

Develop village Agriculture, fundraising, plant corn community and buy equipment with proceeds, work together for planting and harvests, fight for fair corn prices and equipment assistance from government

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 womens 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 C3s 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 aminny riva Ampisikilia ka mipka 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 aminny 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 tanna 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: Fidiranny vahiny rules for outsiders

Andininy 04: Eto, ny vahiny dia ireo olona izay tsy voasoratra anarana aminny lisitry ny mponina anatinireo fokontany anatny kaominina Andranovon dronina, 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 pche (10 000Ar isam-batanolona), alohanny iasany anaty valam pirenena Nosy Hara; avy eo aminny 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 pche ihany no omena lalana hiasa ato aminny 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 fanamarinamponenana na certificat de rsidence avy aminny 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 fifodianny fangalana orita dia ny 15 desambra ka hatraminny 30 aprily ny taona manaraka. Octopus has closed season from 15 december to 30 april. Andininy 09: Rarna 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 aminny 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 fahka. Not allowed to dive for octopus Andininy 13 : Tsy azo atao ny mijibika aminny 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 aminny alalanny 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 antinny fari-dranomasinny 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 aminny mpanjono mikasika ny vidinny vokatra, alohanny fisokafanny 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-javaboaharimpirenena 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 ivelanny 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 valanomby 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 aminny filna fanamboarana trano, lakozia, fa indray mandeha ihany isaky ny efatra (04) taona, ary tsy maintsy mamboly honko farafaharatsiny mitovy aminny isanny 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 aminny komity mpanaramaso vao hamarininny fokontany, ka ny saranizany 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 aminny fandikan-dalna sy ny fampiharana azy. Punishments for people that break the dina Andininy 25 Ny fihetsika fandikana lalna rehetra dia manana sazy mifanaraka aminy, ary tsy maintsy tazomina an-tsoratra ka soniavinireo voakasika izany ary hamarininny Comit 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 Lamandy fihetsika punishmen tsy mety t bad behavior

Tsy mamonjy fivoriampokonolona you dont come to the meeting (have family representati ve) Tanna maloto keep your area dirty

Roa arivo ariary (2 000 Ar) pay fine

Tsy mahazo famatsiambola. The people do not have to help you when you are in need

Manary Dimanjato plastika ariary (500 (gony, Ar) pay fine sachets,) na pile amorondranomasin a if u throw plastic

Vahiny tsy mandoa droit de pche tratra miasa anaty ny faritra voalaza if they catch someone with no permit working in the area Olona avy ivelanny fokontany Vohilava tsy mitondra taratsy fanarinamponenana if you are people from other commune if you dont bring your proof of residiency Manao serisery if you use stick net

Dimampolo arivo ariary (50 000Ar) pay fine

Folo arivo ariary (10 000Ar) pay fine

Telopolo arivo ariary 30 000 Ar) pay fine

Mijibika anaty toerana efa misy harato mivelatra if you dive in people net Mijibika orita anaty fahaka have octopus

Folo arivo ariary (10 000 Ar) pay fine

Dimy arivo ariary (5 000 Ar) isaky ny kilaon ny vokatra azo pay per kilo Dimy arivo ariary (5 000 Ar) isaky ny kilaon ny vokatra azo pay per kilo Dimy arivo ariary (5 000 Ar) isaky ny kilaon ny vokatra azo u have to pay 5000 ariary per kilo

Miasa orita mandritra ny rano gegy catch octopus during the neap tide Mangala /mandafo orita mandritra ny fotoana fifodianny fangalana azy have octupus during closed season or sell

Mangala orita latsaky ny 350g octopus smaller than 350 g Mamaky na mamadika koray break or move coral Mamango rano magnarato if u use stick to hit water and herd fish Mampiasa fagnamo na laro if u use posion liquid or native plant/leaves to stun fish Mangala bankora take the shell that eats COT starfish

Dimy arivo ariary (5 000 Ar) isaky ny kilaon ny vokatra azo pay per kilo Roapolo arivo ariary(20 000Ar) pay fine Folo arivo ariary (10 000 Ar) pay fine

Telopolo arivo ariary (30 000 Ar) pay fine

Folo arivo ariary ny araiky (5 000 Ar) pay fine

Mampiasa lipondro misy vy aminny vodiny using the stick with metal end Mamoaka honko ivelanny fokontany niaviany na tsy nahazoana alalana, mivarotra honko, manao valanomby aminny kakazo honko. If u take mangrove outside, without permission, or use for zebu fence

Folo arivo ariary (10 000 Ar) pay fine

Roa arivo ariary (2 000 Ar) isaky ny kakazontrano 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 ampihrina ny paika tsy maintsy arahina aminny fijerena ifotony ny fanaraha -maso ny fandikan-dalna

(procdure de contrle de dlit). 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 lalna misy ireo dia miafara aminny fampiakrana ny raharaha any aminny fitsarna 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 aminny fitsarna 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 Comit Local du Parc no tompony fahefana feno aminny fampihrana 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 aminny fampihrana ity Dina ity dia ampidirina ao anaty kitapom-bolanny komity mpanaramaso, ary ny dimy amby roapolo isan-jato (25%) dia omena ny olona izay nandray anjara taminny 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 ANATINNY 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 Andranovondro NDRONINA nina

Andranovond ronina, . Antsako,Vahi lava, Lalandaka, Ambalavy. Andohonko, Ambodivoani o,Antsatrabe Ilomotro, Ambaro, Andrahimba Bobatolagna

Vohilava

Antsisikala

Ilomotro

MANGAOKA

Mangaoka

Ampasindava Ampasindava Antanamandr Ankingamelo iry ka,Antanama ndriry,Ambar arata Antongoanao mby Mananra Andranomav o, Mananra

Matsaborimai Matsaborimai ky ky, Ambovobe


ANDRANOFA NJAVA

Ironona

Ironona, Antafiabe, Melivato, Ankiabe, Analamavaza

MAHALINA

Befotaka

Befotaka, Ambatomitan gola, Antsafolobe

Ambomadiro Anjiamaloto Ampondrabe Antsorokaka, Irangotro, Ampondrabe, Farar