Citation
Design of a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system to manage integrated conservation and development projects in Madagascar

Material Information

Title:
Design of a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system to manage integrated conservation and development projects in Madagascar
Creator:
Abel-Ratovo, Henri Lucien, 1953-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 138 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural households ( jstor )
Area development ( jstor )
Biodiversity ( jstor )
Copyrights ( jstor )
Environmental conservation ( jstor )
Food ( jstor )
Paradigms ( jstor )
Protected areas ( jstor )
Rice ( jstor )
Socioeconomics ( jstor )
Conservation of natural resources -- Madagascar ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Food and Resource Economics -- UF ( lcsh )
Economic policy -- Madagascar ( lcsh )
Environmental policy -- Madagascar ( lcsh )
Food and Resource Economics thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
Rural conditions -- Madagascar ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1997.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 134-137).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Henri Lucien Abel-Ratovo.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
027994681 ( ALEPH )
37801080 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









DESIGN OF A SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM
TO MANAGE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS IN MADAGASCAR















By

HENRI LUCIEN ABEL-RATOVO


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1997


























Copyright 1997

by

Henri Lucien Abel-Ratovo































To My Children.













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The fulfillement of this dissertation has been the product of events and people. The events were "good" and "bad", but always have been enriching in their various circumstances. I would like to thank people for making this achievement happen despite uncertain events and circumstances.

I wish to express my sincerest appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Chris O. Andrew, chairman of my supervisory committee, for his guidance and sound advice, patience, support, and most of all, for his caring. This never would have happened without him.

Special thanks are due to the other members of my committee, Drs. Peter E. Hildebrand, Clyde F. Kiker, Larry W. Libby, and Art Hansen, whose expertise, assistance, helpful comments and suggestions, and support contributed a great deal to the completion of this work. Numerous drafts and committee meetings have happened, but my committee members were there, patient and supportive.

I wish also to thank many people related to the integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP) in Madagascar for their assistance and support. A few of them are Mr. Director General of ANGAP, Raymond Rakotonindrina, ANGAP/TR&D's Dr. Richard Swanson, and all the staff of ANGAP and TR&D. In the same way, my thoughts go to the staff of the following ICDPs: Masoala, Montagne d'Ambre, AndasibeMantadia, Ranomafana, and Andohahela. In particular, I want to thank Dr. Claire








Kremen, Raymond Lemaraina, and the staff of Masoala ICDP for their support and efforts to provide me with the data for this study.

I also wish to thank the University of Florida for its supportive environment, in particular Associate Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Richard Lutz, and the Graduate School, as well as Dr. Richard Downie and the International Student Services. My thoughts go to the faculty members, fellow graduate students, and friends at the University of Florida and in Gainesville, in particular Drs. John Gordon and Thomas Spreen, and the Food and Resource Economics Department (FRED). I spent much of my time at the FRED computer lab support center. My special thanks to its staff, in particular Carlos Jauregui for his attempts with the ICP program. Dr. Marianne Schmink, Peter Polshek, and Nina Hoffer are singled out for their genuine friendship. Finally, I cannot forget Sensei Alex Heyman and his Martial arts sessions. He helped me sustain my body and mind systems in stressful circumstances.

This work has put its toll on my family. I thank them, especially my children, for their support and patience. Life continues and so do our lives.

Above all, I thank God for His Mercy and His Plan.














TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ...................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... x

ABSTRACT .......................................... xi

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................. 1

Problematique: The Malagasy Conservation and Development Paradigm . 1
Overview of Problems and Causal Relationships ........... 3
The Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) . . 7
Research Problem .................................. 14
Hypotheses ....................................... 15
Objectives ....................................... 17
Procedures ....................................... 18

2 MADAGASCAR UNDER STRESS ....................... 23

Socioeconomic Situation ............................... 24
Access to Food ................................ 24
Food Insecurity and the Economy ..................... 26
Seasonal Rice Production and Food Insecurity ............. 27
Rice as a Commercial Crop ........................ 29
Conservation ...................................... 29
Conservation And Development .......................... 33
M easures Taken ............................... 33
Implementation and Design of ICDP Activities ............ 34
Lessons Learned ............................... 35
The Masoala Peninsula ICDP ........................... 36








3 EVALUATING THE FARM HOUSEHOLD AND PROTECTED AREA:
A LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL ..................... 40

Linear Programming Model (LPM) ........................ 41
The Basic Mathematical LPM ....................... 45
Procedure ................................... 46
Assumptions ................................. 47
The D ata ........................................ 48
A nalysis ........................................ 49
The Basic Simulation Model: Rice 1 and Tavy, and Purchase of
Tavy Allowed ............................ 50
Alternative Model: Rice 1 Without Tavy and Purchase of Tavy is
Not Allowed ............................. 52
Conclusion and Implications ........................ 53

4 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT .................................... 54

The Basic Systems in the Conservation and Development Relationships . . 54
Decisions, Goals and Strategies in the Grand System of Relationships: A
Principal-Agent Paradigm ......................... 60
Differences in Perspectives ............................. 64
Ethics, Equity and Sustainability .......................... 75

5 SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION MODEL ................. 79

The Institutional Cognitive Pattern ......................... 79
The M odel ....................................... 80
The Traditional System ........................... 82
The ICDP System .............................. 83
A nalysis ........................................ 83
Approaches .................................. 83
Example of Tavy in the Masoala Case Study .............. 84
Beyond the Masoala Case Study ...................... 86
Conclusion .................................. 87

6 SUMMARY AND FOUNDATIONS OF A SOCIOECONOMIC
MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR THE ICDP IN
MADAGASCAR ................................... 89

An Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System ............... 89
Evaluation System .................................. 94
M onitoring System .................................. 96
Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation System (SEMES) ........ 99


vii








7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 110

Conclusion .......................................110
Approach ...................................111
The Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation System (SEMES) . 112 The ICDP ...................................113
Recommendations: Prelude to Implementation ................. 114
The SEM ES .................................115
The ICDP ...................................116

APPENDIX

A LPM: RICE 1 AND TAVY, PURCHASE OF TAVY ............ 120

B LPM: RICE 1 AND NO TAVY, NO PURCHASE OF TAVY ....... 127 REFERENCES ........................................134

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................138


viii













LIST OF TABLES


Table pae

2.1. Development activities strategies and activities of the ICDP Masoala
(compiled from PCDI Masoala, 1996)........................ 38

3.1. Results of the basic simulation model with rice 1 and tavy . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6.1. Analytical Framework of Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation of ICDP
in M adagascar . ....................................102














LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Dage

1.1. Map of protected areas in Madagascar......................... 6

1.2. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The
basic sets . ....................................... 8

1.3. The socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) ........ 21

3.1. Schematic of debate on effects and impacts of ICDP development
activities ........................................ 43

4.1. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The
systems and subsystems . .............................. 55

4.2. Poverty and environmental degradation . ...................... 69

4.3. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The
environments ...................................... 72

5.1. Signed digraph with feedback for Malagasy ICDP................. 81

6.1. Planning-monitoring and evaluation model ...................... 90

6.2. Differences in perspectives, goals and objectives of actors in ICDPs . . . . . 95 6.3. The technology innovation process (TIP) and ICDPs' actors........... 98

6.4. The socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) ........ 100













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

DESIGN OF A SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM
TO MANAGE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN MADAGASCAR

By

Henri Lucien Abel-Ratovo

August 1997


Chairperson: Chris O. Andrew
Major Department: Food and Resource Economics

The issue examined is how to sustain socioeconomic development, while simultaneously conserving resources and the environment for human population livelihoods in general, in the short term, and across generations in Madagascar. The focus is on a grand system of relationships composed of resources, people, and institutions.

A socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) provides a methodology for sustainability analysis of integrated conservation and development in Masoala, northeastern Madagascar. It considers the Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) manager's concern for maintaining resilience of the protected area along with the well-being of nearby farm households. The SEMES, a package of management tools, is composed of three systemic parts: 1) a linear xi








programming model (LPM); 2) an institutional cognitive pattern (ICP) evaluation model; and 3) statistical analysis (STAT). It is argued that changes, and/or constancies, of welltargeted indicators signal positive or negative effects on sustainability of integrated conservation and development, allowing for efficient management of development activities conducted in the ICDP system. Also, signals provide tools to decision-makers, especially the ICDP managers, for management and policy making purposes.

A human pressure (slash and burn or "tavy" in this case study) made in the protected area by a farm household is tied to a farm production subsystem, itself related to other subsystems in the farm household's livelihood system. The farm production subsystem is targeted for change. Results of LPM in the Masoala ICDP case study show that farm households rationally perform tavy culture because of their constrained possibilities. Prohibiting tavy decreases farm household welfare dramatically. A specific development activity, including its constraints and performance, introduced by the ICDP to respond to farm household needs and the pressure can be evaluated, monitored, and managed efficiently with the SEMES management tools.

The ICP evaluation model shows that if no intervention is made in the "traditional" setting of farm households, population growth and increasing food and nonfood demands lead to the increase of secondary forests, and depletion of primary forests, natural resources, and biodiversity. However, the success of ICDP interventions with development activities might not be sustainable unless infrastructure and marketing systems are improved.


xii













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


Problematique: The Malagasy Conservation and Development Paradigm


Socioeconomic activities in food and non-food production and consumption alter the environment, natural resources, and biodiversity in Madagascar. The desire of the human population in conducting the activities, of course, is to better its livelihood. A fundamental issue is how to lay a basis for sustainable development,' while simultaneously conserving resources and the environment for production, consumption, and human population livelihoods in general, in the short-term and across generations.

The problematic relationships in Madagascar's resource conservation and socioeconomic development paradigm are complex and urgent. As farm households' needs and production practices lead to disappearance of unique and endemic natural resources, biodiversity in protected areas is seriously threatened. Poverty, food security, and environmental degradation are legitimate concerns for policy and decision-makers,


1 "Today, there is still a real need to enable the operationalization of sustainability concepts. Farmers, researchers, and extension workers need a definition of sustainability that is scientific, open to hypothesis testing, and practicable. A general methodology for sustainability analysis does not exist at any level, though more progress has been made at some levels (e.g., the field level) than at others." (Kelly, 1995, p. 1-2)

"Sustainable development is itself something of a paradox. The phrase implies that something must change but that something must also remain constant. The paradox appears in a number of forms, and its resolution can provide the direction to seek for investments that could sustain development." (Holling in Gunderson et al., 1995, p. 25)

1








2

international donors, national and international planners and investors, and Malagasy producers and consumers.

This work designs a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) that has broad adaptability. It provides a methodology for sustainability analysis of the Masoala integrated conservation and development in northeastern Madagascar as an example of its use. This location provides empirical evidence for the design and methodology of the SEMES.

Through socioeconomic indicators at different levels in a "grand system of relationships," the evolution of the Masoala integrated conservation and development can be monitored and evaluated. The proposed methodology for ICDP management combines conventional (data analysis) and participatory (participating actors) monitoring and evaluation approaches, and considers the concern of the ICDP managers and decisionmakers for sustainability and resilience of the protected area and farm household systems. The issues are addressed simultaneously, and studied in a grand system composed of resources, people and institutions.

The proposed socioeconomic indicators of sustainability focus on 1) the behavior of farm households in the peripheral zone of the Masoala protected area; 2) the institutional setting and environment of the integrated conservation and development; and 3) changes in the farm household, the protected area, and the institutional systems. It is argued that changes, and/or constancies, of the indicators signal positive or negative effects on sustainability of integrated conservation and development. Signals allow for rectification, improvement, modification and/or reorientation of activities conducted in








3

the ICDP system. Also, signals provide tools to decision-makers, especially the ICDP managers, for management and policy making purposes. Overview of Problems and Causal Relationships


The Masoala ICDP (micro level) evolves in the socioeconomic situation of Madagascar (macro level). Witnessing "extreme human poverty" among the rural population during trips around ICDPs in the northern region of Madagascar, a USAID evaluation team (Barbour et al., 1992) suggests that unless the macroeconomic environment is improved, the ICDPs will always encounter hinderances in their conservation and development efforts. Recognizing this perspective, this work provides a descriptive macro background about Madagascar, but focuses on the analyses of the micro level situation as depicted in the case of Masoala.

According to World Bank (1995) figures, Madagascar is among the poorest and most environmentally at risk countries in the World (Chapter 2). Poverty and environmental degradation co-exist in the agriculture-based economy. About 75% of the Madagascar population is estimated to be farm households. Poverty prevails in both the urban and rural sectors.

Population growth and socioeconomic factors interrelate, and mutually reinforce environmental and biodiversity degradation. Increased demand for food and non-food items for a growing human population is not met by equal changes in the supply from agricultural production in Madagascar. As a corollary, low purchasing power for farm households, along with weak infrastructure and marketing systems, limits access to








4

available food and non-food items. As a result, resources from primary forests and biodiversity are exploited to compensate for the gap between demand and supply from production and/or purchase. Major concerns to the national and international communities are the competitive relationships between conservation of Madagascar's disappearing unique and endemic natural resources and biodiversity, and socioeconomic development of the human population.

As illustrated by the Masoala situation, but holding true around all protected areas in Madagascar, human pressure2 on the environment constitutes one of the leading threats to conservation. Pressure is especially exerted by peripheral zone farm households in the protected area for purposes such as food production and consumption, income, and energy (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992; Kremen et al., 1997; PCDI Masoala, 1996).

It is believed that the Malagasy farm household looks for the best alternatives, among those available to it, in production, income, expenditures, and consumption. That is, the household is socioeconomically and culturally rational. Farmers attempt to improve household welfare, given the resource constraints they face in production, in geophysical and socioeconomic environments, such as land availability and land characteristics, and in markets and institutional settings in which they must function. In order to achieve its objectives and goals subject to resource constraints in production, the farm household is assumed to maximize its annual cash balance available for

2 The pressures are destructive actions exerted by the rural households in the protected areas, such as "Tavy" (slash and burn) culture, collecting and gathering natural resources (honey, wood and plants for different purposes, bamboo, crayfish, frog and other items), hunting (lemurs, wild pigs, and other animals) and forest pasturing of cattle.








5

discretionary spending. In such a framework, presented with resource constraints and a constrained overall environment, the farm household forms its behavior with the best available information it possesses; that is, farm household circumstances result from various possibilities and constraints. By understanding the limited production, income, and consumption possibilities available to farm households, it is possible to understand how poverty of the farm household is a result of resource constraints, and consequently, why and how the protected area is depleted.

One pressure, the "tavy" (slash and burn practice of rice culture), is chosen for specific consideration, and the cropping system of Masoala farm households is simulated with a linear programming model (Chapter 3).

To address the concerns of conservation and development simultaneously, the USAID funded Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) were initiated in 1989 under the Sustainable Approaches to Viable Environmental Management (SAVEM) program (Swanson, 1995). Madagascar depends heavily on international aid and assistance for the conservation of its environment and its socioeconomic development. Concepts and causal relationships about conservation and development dealt with by the ICDP derive from different levels of influence, intervention, and perspectives, i.e. international, national, local, and individual. Such differing perspectives influence the ICDP activities. The Masoala ICDP is one of 37 protected areas designated as functioning or potential ICDPs in Madagascar (Figure 1.1).

















































Cap Ste

Figure 1.1. Map of protected areas in Madagascar.
Source: Tropical Research and Development, Inc., Gainesville, 1996.












The Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP)


Paradigm. The Malagasy conservation and development paradigm can be conceptualized as systems of resources and people (Chapter 4). The concept of integrated conservation and development emerged from the relationships between those systems. Farm households in the peripheral zone around a protected area exert destructive pressures on natural resources and biodiversity through their livelihood activities. These pressures are caused by constraints faced by the farm households to satisfy their basic needs, such as production, income, consumption, and energy. In other words, the problematic in this paradigm points to these relationships between the resource systems (protected area) and people (peripheral zone farm household).

Basic systems. The integrated conservation and development paradigm by itself is a grand system of relationships as sketched in Figure 1.2. Four sets, each of which is a system with subsystems, interrelate and interact in the grand system. They include 1) the institutional set--international and Malagasy institutional and organizational systems, and the ICDP system; 2) the protected area set--natural systems; 3) the farm household set--livelihood systems in the peripheral zone; and 4) the introduced development activities set--varied types of activity systems and subsystems. Institutions and development activities are introduced in the conservation and development paradigm, leading to the ICDP scheme.










SInstitutional Set


Conservation System


Development System


Figure 1.2. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The basic sets








9

The self-regulation of, and interrelations and interactions among, these sets and their subsystems determine their own and the overall system's structure, organization, internal and external linkages, resilience3 and sustainability. They constitute the grand system within which the ICDP is expected to manage change.

In this framework, the grand system of relationships is said to be sustainable when the synergy among the sets and their subsystems maintains the viability, durability and operationality of the system in space (physical location) and time (from season and year to across generations). Some subsystems will work positively and others negatively toward sustainability. Boundaries being necessary for systemic approaches, it is evident that many other subsystems and factors are relegated as secondary. From an ICDP management and socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation point of view, the subsystems described are thought to contain the leading factors for integrated conservation and development sustainability.

Goals and expectations. Framers of the ICDP concept expected it to provide new Sustainable Approaches to a Viable Environmental Management (SAVEM) program, promoted and applied by USAID in Madagascar (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992). The approaches stress the importance of the role and impact of peripheral zone farm households in the management of protected areas by involving them through introduced development activities. Introduced development activities are expected to meet the basic needs of these farm households. The ICDP expects farm households will


3 Resilience is defined as the capacity and ability of the system in question to absorb exogenous and endogenous destabilizing factors, and/or to adjust for continuity in its survival pattern relative to those factors.








10

consequently decrease and/or cease the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity in the protected area.

Thus, these approaches are designed and expected to reduce the conflict over sustainable use of natural resources by integrating the knowledge base and strategies for socioeconomic development with the conservation challenge. In other words, the ICDP applies the socioeconomic development knowledge base and strategies to approaches for identifying and achieving the complementary goals and objectives of conservation and development. As such, a simultaneous goal of the ICDP, besides conservation of the protected area, is to improve the standard of living4 of the farm households in peripheral zones. The hope is that this improvement will decrease and/or cease the pressures exerted by farm households in protected area.

Actors in the institutional and farm household sets (Figure 1.2) do not have the same expectations, objectives and goals (Chapter 4, 5, 6). For example, conservation stands as a priority for donors, but relatively short-term food security concerns are at the core of the socioeconomic development issue for peripheral zone farm households. In between donors and farm households, actors see the problematic in the conservation and development paradigm from other perspectives, such as input and total factor productivity and sustainability. In other words, global goals and objectives of conservation and development might be shared, but specific objectives and strategies as priorities and concerns differ in the field. Adding a time dimension, where perspectives on specific



4 The households' standard of living refers to the satisfaction of their socioeconomic and cultural needs, such as levels of production, revenue, consumption, schooling and health.








11

objectives and strategies change due to changes in institutional structures and actors, renders the problem more complex.

Development activities. The ICDPs introduce development activities to the farm households and communities in peripheral zones that exert destructive pressures in the protected area. These activities provide production, revenue, consumption, and/or sociocultural infrastructure alternatives. Development strategies in the ICDPs often include many activities which target a combination of the components of the problematic relationships in the systems of resources and people (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992).

However, it is possible that expectations and the ICDP goals may not be reached because of field implementation problems, resulting from uncertainty, vagueness and conflicts in the definitions of what is to be done and how (Swanson, 1995, 1996). Insuring the efficiency, viability, and sustainability of the new integrated conservation and development approach requires managerial provision for sustainable socioeconomic alternatives directly related to the pressures exerted by the farm households in the peripheral zones. Further, goal achievement means providing a suitable environment for socioeconomic activities, as well as involving farm people in the management practices of their own resources, as they become involved with the varied socioeconomic alternatives.

One aspect of the present research is to focus on a framework to evaluate and monitor the allocation and use of resources by peripheral zone farm households. It is assumed that other community development activities, such as health and education, are








12

conducted as a part of the ICDP efforts. This work will then look at individual and group-oriented development activities, focusing on farm household production, income and consumption. It also assembles a methodology which can be applied to development activities related to conservation of the environment under various circumstances in Madagascar.

As such, the socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) to be proposed constitutes a fifth set (Figure 1.2), which would evaluate and monitor the effective linkages at the intersection of the existing four sets--institutions, peripheral zone farm household, protected area, and introduced development activities (Chapter 6). The goal is to ensure efficient and lasting management of sustainable environmental and socioeconomic systems, in the face of complex and unpredictable events.

The Masoala Peninsula ICDP. The Masoala peninsula was among the first priority sites in the Madagascar Environmental Action Plan in 1990. It is located between the Toamasina and Antsiranana provinces, in the "Fivondronana" (districts) of Maroantsetra and Antalaha. The size of the peninsula is 520,000 hectares with 11 watersheds. A population of about 45,000 inhabitants live in a peripheral zone to 110,000 hectares of primary forest. A national park composed of a terrestrial part of 210,000 hectares and a marine part of 6,000 hectares constitutes the main block to be protected by the ICDP (PCDI Masoala, 1996).

While the Masoala ICDP is now run by a consortium of international NGOs (CARE, Wildlife Conservation Society and the Peregrine Fund) under the guidance of DEF (governmental Direction of Waters and Forestry) and ANGAP (National








13

Association for the Management of Protected Areas), it began differently. The DEF started in 1989 as a USAID funded conservation and development project with national NGOs. Objectives were not met and the project was suspended in 1991. A transitory phase of conceptualization and reorientation was conducted by CARE International in 1992, leading to the USAID SAVEM funded Masoala ICDP in 1993 (Kremen et al., 1997).

The goal of the Masoala project is to ensure "the long-term health of the biological and human spheres." Three mid- and long-term objectives are as follows: 1) the conservation of Masoala biodiversity by the year 2000; 2) adoption by 50% of pilot zones' population of one or several practices for sustainable management of resources in 1996; and 3) a supportive local, regional, national and international institutional environment to ensure the continuity and continuance of integrated conservation and development activities in the Masoala region by the year 2000.

To attain the goal and objectives, four strategies are followed: 1) management of the protected area (delimitation and park management); 2) sustainable exploitation and use of natural resources; 3) organization of rural communities; and 4) institutional development at different levels.

The lessons learned from 1995 point to the desire of the Masoala ICDP to harmonize the goal and objectives of the project with the interests of the local population. A felt need to reinforce the internal (within project) and external (local, regional, national, international) communication emerged and called for an effective and supportive







14

institutional environment. In response, the Information-Education-Communication (IEC) unit was created.


Research Problem


Insuring the management and operationality of the linkages between development activities and conservation is a requisite for the efficiency, viability, and sustainability of the integrated conservation and development approach. This can be monitored and evaluated through the socioeconomic effects of introduced development activities on the farm household standard of living and the impacts of these activities on its use of natural resources in the protected area. These programs must consider the needs and aspirations of people. However, lack of sound information on target groups and target areas presently hinders the design, consistency, focus, implementation, and management of conservation and development programs.

Understanding production, income generation, food consumption and food security issues at the farm household level in the peripheral zone, and cognizance of the institutional setting of the ICDP are therefore needed. The desired knowledge should give insight into various policy questions and general beliefs which remain crucial in identifying, defining and evaluating socioeconomic development and conservation strategies and consequences. Such information helps strategists and decision-makers anticipate and understand changes, derived pressures and stresses brought on by introduced development activities. The need for information arises at all levels, from the senior decision-makers at the national coordination and international donor levels to the








15

grass-roots and individual levels. In our case, this translates from ANGAP, DEF and USAID to the ICDPs5 and to the farm household members.

Well-defined and appropriate indicators and methods for assessing interactions among protected area, peripheral zone farm household, and ICDP institutional environment are needed. Lack or insufficiency of such indicators and methods precludes solid bases for decision-making at all levels. This deficiency detracts from a self-regulating sustainability of integrated conservation and development systems. Further, the scarcity of scientific research findings in socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation of the development process jeopardizes the chance that resource utilization will improve farm household welfare and reduce negative impacts on protected areas, natural resources and biodiversity. Finally, rarity of reliable farm level information prevents the formulation and selection of sound conservation and development policies in the decision-making process.


Hypotheses


Best and sufficient information, from a socioeconomic theory perspective, is one prerequisite for optimum decision-making at the farm, ICDP, and national management levels. The following hypotheses are designed to express the broad need for knowledge




5 ICDPs are defined as the organizational entities which manage the projects at the field level, such as CARE International, World Wildlife Fund, and so on.
The National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP) is a Malagasy institutional organization coordinating the management of all protected areas, and so all ICDPs in Madagascar. DEF is the Malagasy government Direction of Waters and Forestry.
USAID is the main donor of the ICDPs considered in this study.







16

of linkages from farm households to the national and international levels. For purposes of illustration, specific observations concerning the hypotheses apply to the Masoala case.

1. It is expected that the identification, evaluation, and monitoring of development activities, which are technically, environmentally, socioeconomically, and institutionally feasible, by well informed managers will improve the well-being of peripheral zone farm households and decrease and/or cease the pressures exerted by them in the protected areas. That is, a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) will have a positive impact on farm household welfare and reduce human pressures in the protected areas.

2. Building from the farm household level:

a. If the production activities thought to deplete the protected area are restricted, then the welfare of farm households in the peripheral zone will

decrease, ceteris paribus.

b. Households that diversify their agricultural activities and buy rice are at least as well off as households that produce enough rice to meet their

subsistence needs.

3. The understanding, description, and analyses of concepts and their relationships (including linkages at various levels) about conservation and development will converge and focus the values, beliefs, and incentives of the institutional organizations and actors involved in the ICDP interventions.








17




Objectives


The goal of this research is to contribute to the success, efficiency and sustainability of new approaches to viable environmental management. This will be achieved by providing perennial management tools through a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) that can detect success or failure, efficiency and sustainability of development activities in reducing human pressures in Madagascar's protected areas. Situation analysis, mission, strategies, planning, and project/activity design are considered. Evaluation and monitoring provide feedback to the real world situation when observing the products and impacts of project activities.

The research methods include: 1) a linear programming model (LPM) that describes and analyses the peripheral zone farm household cropping systems, examining especially production, income, and consumption, and 2) an institutional cognitive pattern (ICP)6 evaluation model that describes and analyzes the institutional setting of the ICDP. A tool not used in this research but necessary for a long-run management approach is 3) a statistical (STAT) analysis using data as indicators to monitor for sustainability in an



6 "The nature of people's aspirations, needs, values, beliefs and preferences and their representation is a debatable, but unavoidable, issue due to its implications for research.... Thus, a premise is established that representations of aspirations, needs and knowledge are selectively chosen and formulated as causal concepts in the process of specifying a problem and opportunity domain for action in the solution of an identified social problem.... As a decision-making framework such a [institutional cognitive] pattern can bring values, beliefs, knowledge, processes, policies and objectives into a causal representation; all of these representations or concepts are selected and formulated by the decision makers with a shared sense of commitment and, also, as determinants of their behavior." (Fajardo, 1995, pp. 35, 36, 41)








18

ICDP. Some of these indicators are presented in a summary statement for the overall framework (Chapter 6).

This research proposes a SEMES which looks at the links among the ICDP development activities, the well-being of peripheral farm households and their exploitation of protected areas. The concepts and methodologies developed are designed to be useful to the ICDP managers and decision-makers, ANGAP, DEF, and the donors (USAID) for optimum decision-making in conservation and development management. As a further extension, the outcomes are also expected to be applied to and improve how the peripheral farm households manage their production systems.

The Masoala location is selected because it contains the largest block of near intact primary forest with numerous biological treasures on the east coast of Madagascar. Further, it is among, if not the first ICDP where at least limited socioeconomic data for monitoring and evaluation purposes are available.


Procedures


Because concern is primarily for analysis of the relationships among the peripheral zone farm households, the pressures in the protected area, and the institutional setting surrounding the Masoala ICDP, systems procedures and adaptive management concepts are used.7 The systems management approach allows identification and delimitation of


7 "While systems can be conceptualized at any of many scale levels, a systems approach defines a specific scale of interest and an appropriate boundary of analysis. The systems approach to analysis is marked by recognition of the whole system and the interactions within that system rather than looking only at a system part.... Systems may be grouped together to form a larger system, and each system is itself made up of component subsystems. This structure is referred to as the systems hierarchy." (Kelly, 1995, p. 9)








19

the domains and relationships of analysis. An adaptive management approach provides the necessary flexibility in time and space to consider "uncertain" interactions among resources, people and institutions. The aim is to propose a SEMES that evaluates and monitors development activities at the peripheral zone farm household level. Such a SEMES is expected to help manage 1) the effects of development activities on farm household production systems and standard of living and 2) the impacts of these activities on household behavior towards the protected areas. For the sake of understanding, presentation, and operationality of a very complex task given to the ICDP field managers, the LPM and ICP evaluation, and long-term STAT indicators proposed in this work are maintained as simplified as possible. Also, such simplicity is dictated by the amount and nature of data available. Elements in each analytical subsystem can be increased and made more complex as needed for broader analyses, and as more data become available.

Successful management of ICDPs calls for an underlying assumption for the framework adopted. That is, the SEMES established will remain in place on a long-term basis. Thus, the SEMES can provide a permanent link among sets within the grand system of relationships (Figure 1.2). Evaluation and monitoring focus on these





S(continued). "The basic tenets of adaptive management all deal with the unpredictable interactions between people and ecosystems as they evolve together.... The primary expectation of adaptive management is the unexpected. That is, systems are unpredictable.... Surprises are inevitable; hence policies must always be adaptive.... Recognition of processes at the appropriate space and time scales is reported by all the case studies as a clear bridge to improved management.... One of the challenges is to develop understanding and methodology that spans across space and time scales." (Gunderson, Holling, and Light, 1995, pp. 491, 528)








20

relationships by design. Management elements of the SEMES are expressed as interrelated tools or closely related subsystems (Figure 1.3).

The "real world" is conceptualized through the grand system of relationships. This complex "real world" is depicted as an ICP evaluation model and a set of STAT indicators. A linear programming model (LPM) identifies and evaluates relevant indicators to analyze the behavior and constraints of peripheral zone farm households. The LPM can be viewed, for analytical purposes, as receiving signals from, as well as sending signals to the ICP and STAT.

The ICP (ex-ante) evaluation model is a matrical iteration process based on concepts and relationships of institutional actors.8 The "ICP evaluation model" is defined as the causal interrelations (patterns) among selectively chosen concepts shared by the institutional set (Figure 1.2) and the knowledge of linkages/relationships among those concepts (cognitive). It provides direction and initial, mid- and long-term periodic evaluation to the integrated conservation and development process. The concepts and relationships in the model are based on the literature and the experience of the researcher, concerning the issues that are evolving within the conservation and development paradigm in Madagascar and elsewhere. An analytical framework of an ICP evaluation model leads to the definition of the indicators to be evaluated and monitored, and to the specification of the monitoring model.




' It is a term given to a representation of a structural core made up of causal concepts and broad relationships that influence collective human behavior (Fajardo, 1993). It finds its source in Kosko's (1986, 1988) Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM) theory.

























Farm Household Behavior
(LPM Indicators)
Max Farm household objectives, such that:

Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3


Farm Household Level Data

(STAT Indicators)
Farmers # Land Size I ILabor IRice Yield


Figure 1.3. The socioeconomic evaluation and monitoring system (SEMES)


rp-r-i ;







22

Statistical (STAT) indicators can contribute to both the ICP evaluation model and the LPM, and results of each can be statistically tested and monitored over time to observe how expectations and reality change. This requires of course time-series indicators which are not presently available.

This research is divided into 7 chapters. The present chapter introduced the study of a case to validate tools and a conceptual framework (SEMES) to be used by ICDP managers. A descriptive background of conservation and development in Madagascar and the Masoala peninsula as a basis for the remaining chapters is introduced in Chapter 2. Socioeconomic indicators to help in understanding household behavior are identified in Chapter 3 using a linear programming model (LPM). The LPM provides a basis for 1) a conceptual framework of the "real world" in Chapter 4, and 2) an analytical framework of the ICP evaluation model for understanding institutional relationships as an ex-ante approach to evaluation (Chapter 5).

Criteria to be monitored and evaluated are defined, and the foundations for a successful SEMES for the Masoala and Malagasy ICDPs follow in Chapter 6, putting together the linkages among the systems within the overall framework of the SEMES, including the LPM and ICP models, and STAT indicators.

Conclusions and recommendations based on the research and analyses of data from the Masoala ICDP are given in Chapter 7. Thus, issues in the conservation and development paradigm are investigated and insights on policies for regulating and affecting ICDPs are provided.













CHAPTER 2
MADAGASCAR UNDER STRESS


This chapter provides a general background on Madagascar, followed by a description of the Masoala peninsula ICDP domain. The macroeconomic indicators described, drawn mainly from World Bank (1995), give a rough idea of the country's socioeconomic stress. Madagascar is now one of the poorest countries in the world. Related to this, it has also become one of the most environmentally at risk countries in the 1990s. Some measures have been taken to protect the environment and to promote population welfare. Although part of one of the well endowed regions in terms of resources, the Masoala peninsula follows the general trends of the country's indicators.

Because of its "extreme poverty," Madagascar depends heavily on international aid and assistance for the conservation of its environment and its socioeconomic development. The World Bank (1995) estimates that the country's total external debt grew from US$ 1,223 million in 1980 to US$ 4,594 million in 1993 (US$ converted at official exchange rate).













Socioeconomic Situation


Access to Food


Madagascar is classified by the World Bank (1995) as a low-income, severely indebted, exporter of non-fuel primary products, with a declining GNP per capita. In 1993, GNP per capita stood at US$ 220. At the same time, total population was estimated at 14 million, of which about 74% are rural people. Total population is projected at 17 and 34 million in 2000 and 2025, respectively. Performance indicators for the economy during the periods of 1970-80 and 1980-93, relative to the average annual growth rate of population, suggest reasons for concern.

Food security can be defined as permanent access by all people to sufficient food for their well-being (World Bank, 1986). It follows that Madagascar has been experiencing food insecurity. This food insecurity is partly caused by insufficient production as related to the population growth. Indeed, if the Malagasy population growth rate is 3.3%, then food production should increase at the same rate, at least, for Madagascar to meet food security requirements without dependence on aid, world markets, and external debt.

In production, fertilizer consumption has regressed from 2,900 grams per hectare of arable land in 1979/80 to 2,500 grams in 1992/93, while land in production has increased. Food production per capita during the period 1980-93 indicates a negative average annual growth rate (-1.5%). These figures suggest that growth of factor








25

productivity in agriculture is stagnant and/or low. The insufficiency in production is also shown by cereal imports which amounted to 110,000 tons in 1980 and 111,000 tons in 1993. Further, food aid in cereals increased from 14,000 tons in 1979/80 to 58,000 tons in 1992/93.

Besides insufficient production, a second factor which restrains access to food in Madagascar is the population's low purchasing power. GNP per capita declined annually by 2.6% in the 13 years from 1980 to 1993. The level of GNP per capita at US$ 220 in 1993, considered low by World Bank standards, when combined with inflationary prices, exacerbates family purchasing power.

The average annual rate of inflation was 9.9% during 1970-80 and increased to 16.1% in the 1980-93 period. While the consumer price index rose from 30.46 in 1980 to 211.47 in 1993, the agricultural domestic price index increased from 29.59 in 1980 to 203.47 in 1993. The overall (GDP) price index was 29.50 in 1980 and 220.07 in 1993 (1987 = 100). The annual average conversion factor, Malagasy francs (FMG) per US$, "feeding" the inflationary situation, increased from 211.279 in 1980 to 1922.85 in 1993, and stabilized around 4,000 after 1994 when "liberalization" of the economy was in effect with structural adjustment programs. It reached FMG 5,000 per US$ in 1997. Difficulties prevail for efforts to counter inflation in the unstructured economic setting.

As might be expected, terms of trade (export prices f.o.b over import prices c.i.f) also deteriorated by declining from 121.4 in 1980 to 68.2 in 1993. The share of primary commodities in exports in 1970 was 84%, and it declined to 73% in 1993. The value of exports (f.o.b), from US$ 203 million in 1973, increased with a high of US$ 402 million








26

in 1980, before declining to US$ 267 million in 1992. Finally, the share of food in the value of merchandise imports was 12% in 1970 and 11% in 1993.

As a third factor repressing access to food, it is suspected that unequal wealth distribution as well as resource endowments, common among the rural population, limit food production and purchase (Mercado, 1989; Zeller, 1993; Abel-Ratovo et al., 1988, 1996). Thus, the majority of the population is expected to live in poverty.

In short, the macro data suggest insufficient agricultural production and the inability of people who must purchase food to acquire enough of it. Deteriorating production processes and output volume, unequal wealth distribution, low income, stagnating food imports, and increasing food aid suggest the majority of the Malagasy population cannot access enough food.

Alarming rates of deficiencies in some essential micronutrients in different regions of Madagascar have been reported by the National Program of Food and Nutrition Monitoring (PNSAN) of the Malagasy Ministry of Scientific Research (1993). Food Insecurity and the Economy


The gap between the growth rates of population and production is aggravated by the characteristics of Malagasy agriculture and a weak infrastructure favoring exploitive marketing channels and practices at the farm level. Such weaknesses lead to low prices for producers and high prices for consumers, deteriorating terms of trade at the farm level, declining farm income and suspected increasing inequality in wealth distribution (Barbour et al., 1992; Abel-Ratovo et al., 1996). Weak industrial sector and service








27

sector growth place further pressure on agricultural areas. These combined factors contribute to the extreme poverty of Madagascar, affecting food security.

Poverty impacts directly on the allocation and use of resources in agriculture, and on the use of natural resources in protected areas. Seasonal Rice Production and Food Insecurity


A fourth cause of food insecurity in Madagascar is the temporary decline in seasonal access to enough food. Insufficient production and the population's low purchasing power interact with the effects of both "hungry" and "normal" seasons in a given year at the farm household level.

The "hungry" season occurs during a part of the rainy season and a part of the dry season, at the pre-harvest period of irrigated rice. The shortage of rice, the staple food, during that period raises its price, making rice consumption inaccessible to much of the consuming population. At the farm household level, those people who are expected to be in difficulty experience a combination of the following circumstances: no or insufficient production, no or insufficient storage, and sold output at low prices for cash needs in the previous "normal" season. During the hungry season, the World Bank (Kahn, 1990) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (Zeller, 1993) suggest that over 40% of Malagasy rural households they surveyed consume less than 80 percent of the recommended 2,100 daily calories per capita as defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) for a healthy and active life. In other words, food








28

insecurity is transitory' in Madagascar. Furthermore, it appears in its worst form (World Bank, 1986); that is, it produces famine in Madagascar as evidenced by facts in recent years in different regions.

The World Bank and IFPRI studies suggest also that food insecurity occurs during the "normal" season, which takes place during the post-harvest period of irrigated rice. During this period of the year, a little over 30% of the rural households surveyed consume less than 80% of the daily recommended 2,100 calories per capita (World Bank, 1990; Zeller, 1993). An anthropometric measurement of preschoolers aged six months to six years followed the same patterns as calorie consumption in terms of malnutrition during both seasons (Zeller, 1993). These findings indicate that food insecurity is also chronic2 in Madagascar.

Food insecurity in Madagascar is probably based on rice which is the primary and staple food in the country. It has been estimated that Malagasy people consume about 172 kilograms of rice per capita per year (Mercado, 1989). Sixty percent of the caloric intake of rural households is derived from rice alone, although large variations prevail by region (rice-based producers or not), season (hungry, normal and intermediate seasons within year), and level of wealth (Zeller, 1993).







1 The World Bank (1986) suggests transitory food insecurity as being a temporary decline in a household's access to enough food.
2 The World Bank (1986) suggests chronic food insecurity as being a permanently inadequate diet due to the inability to acquire food.










Rice as a Commercial Crop


Besides its importance as a staple food, rice is also one of the most important crops in terms of production volume and as a commercial crop. Most farm households are semi-commercialized; that is, they produce part for subsistence, and part for sale. From a net exporter of rice in the 1960s, Madagascar has become increasingly a net importer. This shift from exporter status is thought to be due to the rapidly growing population and to stagnant paddy yields (Mercado, 1989).

Mercado (1989) studied the constraints on rice production in a rice-based farming system in the northwest region of Madagascar and concluded that the farmers behave rationally as profit-maximizers after their food consumption needs are satisfied. This region is rice self-sufficient and exports rice to other (domestic) regions. However, she estimated that a yield per hectare increase of at least 40% was necessary for existing "improved technologies" to be adopted by farmers. Under prevailing prices, their adoption was not profitable.

How these changes in technology would influence broad conservation concerns, resource allocation and use beyond yield per hectare, and broader socioeconomic concerns has not been investigated.


Conservation


Madagascar has become one of the most environmentally at risk countries by the 1990s. People exploit natural resources and biodiversity in protected areas for reasons such as production, income, food, and energy needs. Consequently, the environment is







30

deteriorating. Among the most important types of pressures identified in protected areas are the following broad categories: production by "tavy" (slash and burn), grazing, tree cutting, collecting flora, hunting fauna, and mining (PCDI Masoala, 1996; Swanson, 1995; Kremen et al., 1997). Often, one farm household engages in one or a combination of these practices.

Production by "tavy" is a widespread slash and burn practice. Farmers clear and burn parts of forests. Among others, there are two main reasons for this practice: socioculture and land constraints. It has been a Malagasy tradition in many regions to grow rice and other crops using the "tavy" techniques. Ashes from the burnt plants are considered as easy-to-get and no cost fertilizers. Also, the slash and burn practice facilitates land clearing, preparation, and maintenance for crop growing. Similarly, farmers practice "tavy" to extend their farm size. This second reason is true mainly for people around protected areas where indeed land constraints prevail. A review of the data on Masoala farm households suggests both irrigated rice and "tavy" areas exploited are positively related to farm size.

Another important pressure in protected areas is related to livestock raising. To feed the animals, farmers either burn land for pasture or send their animals into protected areas. The "tavy" and livestock raising practices result in soil impoverishment, forest clearing, and progressive destruction of protected areas.

Tree cutting, the next broad type of pressure in protected areas, provides for farmers' income and personal needs. Business in tree cutting consists of selling precious and/or non-precious woods, or charcoal. Tree cutting is also practiced to satisfy personal








31

needs, such as for home construction and for energy. As a result of tree cutting, trees and flora experience continuous depletion which, of course, impacts also on the habitats of fauna.

The next broad type of pressure in protected areas is the collection of flora. Certain plants are gathered for medical and food purposes. In particular, select wild racines and tubers, such as "ovy ala" or forest potato, are greatly appreciated during the "hungry" season. In addition, select flora can be used for commercial ends. In short, flora collection contributes to the on-going demolition of natural resources and biodiversity in protected areas.

Another important type of pressure in protected areas is destruction of fauna and biodiversity through hunting practices. Because of their inability to access food, farmers hunt forest animals, including endangered ones, for consumption and sale. For example, lemurs, birds and bats are slaughtered for their meat or sold as live animals. Snakes, chameleons and other endangered species are either sold or killed for income purposes. As a result, the fauna in protected areas is disappearing. Hunting practices also place pressure on biodiversity as areas where hunting takes place are often cleared. By the same token, spreading of pollen through birds and bats may decrease.

Mining in some parts of Madagascar has an impact on the environment, in particular on natural resources and biodiversity. These impacts are many fold. Among them are pollution and destruction of the immediate environment about the mining sites, which often are proximate to and/or inside protected areas. In addition, mining industry workers often exert destructive pressures similar to those of farmers to complement their








32

livelihood. Beyond these destructive practices, socio-political forces provide incentives to mining exploitation in view of expectations for "national socioeconomic benefits." Thus, national and international demand for mining products, flora as well as dead and/or alive fauna exacerbate the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity.

These destructive actions result in deforestation and continuous extinction of fauna and flora. On an area of 587,000 km2 for the whole country, the remaining total forest area changed from 171,000 km2 in 1980 to 158,000 km2 in 1990, with an annual deforestation rate of 0.8% of total forest area (World Bank, 1995). Thus, damaging "artificial" shocks to the "equilibrium" of the ecosystem are on-going.

It follows that these many pressures heavily affect the resilience and sustainability of ecosystems in Madagascar. Further, the regeneration of primary forests in Madagascar is very slow (Barbour et al., 1992), making the recovery of lost natural heritage unlikely. The overall bleak situation in the relationship between human development and conservation of Madagascar's environmental biodiversity has made of this country one of the most environmentally at risk in the world. Nash (1994) illustrates this situation:

The magnitude of the problem is daunting, for virtually everything Madagascar's 12 million people do in their daily struggle against hunger can harm the island's delicate ecosystems.... Unfortunately, there is not much time left. Madagascar has one of the highest birthrates in the world, and its population is expected to double over the next three decades, putting excruciating pressure on the shrinking supply of arable land. So many of the slopes have been denuded of trees that by 2015, scientists predict, half of what remains will be lost,.., and soon, some of the world's most magical forests and magnificent animals seem destined to disappear
forever.


Actions are underway to protect the environment, preserve natural resources and biodiversity, and promote socioeconomic development simultaneously.










Conservation And Development Measures


Measures Taken


The challenges to conservation and development are thought to have existed in Madagascar for a long time. Hence, the resources, production and people paradigm is a universal and all-time situation. Population growth, increasing socioeconomic needs and relations, poverty, rate of deforestation, soil impoverishment and erosion, and international awareness make them more acute nowadays in Madagascar.

Preservation, by strict policing and isolation of protected areas, has been conducted with mixed results in Madagascar. Barbour et al. (1992) report successes and failures of this policy on the conservation side. Failures of most integrated rural development strategies and continued environmental degradation have also been reported, and put a question mark on the efficiency and efficacy of such policies alone.

To address the concerns of conservation and development simultaneously, the Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) system was put in place in 1989 (Swanson, 1995). The physical domains of the ICDPs are delimited protected areas, surrounded by peripheral zones where farm households are located. There were 37 nationally protected areas in 1993 on 11,200 kinm2, which represent 1.9% of the area of the country (World Bank, 1995).

Existing protected areas are classified as national parks, integrated natural reserves and special reserves (Figure 1.1). The Andranomena special reserve (6,420 hectares) was the first one created in 1955. Most of the protected areas were created








34

around the end of the 1950s, late 1960s and late 1980s. Their sizes vary from 600 hectares (Beza Mahafaly special reserve created in 1986) to 300,000 hectares (Masoala national park created in the late 1980s, classified in 1997), with a mean of 40,886 hectares. Ten protected areas are under the ICDP program. The size of peripheral (buffer) zones, and the population of surrounding local communities vary depending on the regions. The delimitations are still under discussion (Swanson. 1995, 1996). Geophysical situations, mixed with socio-cultural, legal and political issues, render these delimitations problematic.

Each ICDP is run by a consortium of international NGOs (WCS, Peregrine Fund, CARE in Masoala) led by one principal operator (CARE in Masoala). These NGOs operate under the guidance of Madagascar's ANGAP (National Association for the Management of Protected Areas) and government DEF (Direction of Waters and Forests).


Implementation and Design of ICDP Activities


The activities of ICDPs can be summarized into three broad categories:

1. Conservation, including such activities as the establishment of national parks, and the development and implementation of parks management;

2. Development, including the introduction of community, group and individual development activities to improve the socioeconomic welfare of farm households in the peripheral zones; and

3. Research studies that support the conservation and development units.








35

ICDPs and/or rural communities conceive and generate development activities. Actions are initiated by the ICDPs under two forms:

1. "Integration" ("portes d'entr6es") activities are designed to consolidate the presence of the projects into the local communities through, for example, socio-cultural infrastructure, information--education--communication on conservation and development matters and issues; and

2. Individual or group activities generate alternatives for production, revenue and/or consumption, such as tourism-related activities, agroforestry, and an Intensive Rice Culture System ("SRI"). These activities are directly linked to possibly reducing the production, revenue and/or consumption problems that cause pressure in the protected areas by farm households.


Lessons Learned


It is agreed that enforcing a preservationist model alone is not desirable. The livelihood of people surrounding protected areas needs to be taken into account in the conservation and development paradigm (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992; Kremen et al., 1997). It is assumed that the conservation motive must be integrated with the socioeconomic conditions. Among the activities called for by the ICDPs are monitoring and evaluation of the ICDP itself, conservation and development. Organization charts of all ICDPs, and ANGAP, show these management divisions.

Actors in the ICDPs agree on goals but differ in crucial design and implementation of actions to be undertaken. Failures in measures and actions may result








36

from a lack of shared beliefs, values and incentives. Consequently, ICDP measures may fail to reach overall goals because of a lack of sound and agreed upon socioeconomic criteria for monitoring and evaluation strategies. Good monitoring and evaluation in conservation cannot succeed by ignoring socioeconomic concerns.

Consequently, ICDP actions will fail in the long run if socioeconomic aspects related to environmental protection are overlooked. Thus, there is a need for a sound strategy in socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation. The purpose of this research is to suggest this strategy, and identify and clarify the linkages in the grand system of relationships in the conservation and development paradigm.


The Masoala Peninsula ICDP3


During the phase of reorientation of the conservation and development project in the Masoala area in 1993, different pressures and their reasons, intensity and distribution in the protected area were identified by the project team (ICDP Masoala, 1996; Swanson, 1995). In 1994, the project team determined and ranked, in terms of severity, the following human extraction pressures 1) "tavy" culture (slash and burn farming); 2) illicit forest exploitation (logging); 3) cash crops in the protected area (coffee, cloves, vanilla); 4) removing wood for construction; 5) removing secondary forest products (plants, eels, shrimp, crabs); 6) fishing; 7) hunting (lemurs, crocodiles, birds); 8) pasturing of cattle within the protected area; and 9) prospecting for minerals.


3 This section draws heavily on Kremen et al. (1997), ICDP Masoala (1996) and Swanson (1995, 1996). Priorization and ranking of pressures and their causes are different in ICDP Masoala (1996) and Swanson (1995). We show the ICDP Masoala version.







37

The prioritized principal causes of these pressures are 1) satisfaction of food needs; 2) traditional land tenure system; 3) demographic pressure; 4) lack of, or insufficient, community structures; 5) lack of technical information; 6) custom and tradition of slash and burn agriculture; 7) lack of protected area surveillance and patrol system; and 8) financial needs.

The development activities of the Masoala ICDP are mainly under the department of Rural Animation and Development, but exist also in other departments such as the unit Information-Education-Communication (IEC). The strategies and activities of this department are reported in Table 2.1 (PCDI Masoala, 1996). It would appear that assumptions and expectations about the development activities are debatable when employed for design and implementation.











Table 2.1. Development activities strategies and activities of the ICDP Masoala (compiled from ICDP Masoala, 1996).


Strategies Activities Assumptions and expectations of project team

1. Community i. Operationalize community i. Ensure local participation and sustainability of development activities, and participation/ Organization action plans: constitute reinforce the structure of local community. of rural community. community groups, identify and conceptualize development ii. Improve the control and management of the economic environment, and the activities, train members, provide structuration/organization of producers (collaboration with LOVA program and inputs, follow-up and support ODR Antsirabe). household enterprises.

ii. Support farmers'
organizations, input channels,
marketing, training and support.

2. Sustainable management i. Establish permanent reserves. i. Show coherence between resource management and protection plans, improve of marine resources. touristic aesthetics, preserve marine ecosystems and biodiversity.
ii. Establish a sanctuary for
marine mammiferes. ii. Value biodiversity and conservation.

iii. Fish management: activity iii. Improve production and conservation. diversification, technical
improvement.











Table 2.1 (continued)


3. Income opportunities, technical alternatives, and profitable commodities.


i. Establish testing and demonstration centers for the development of rainfed cultural systems, vegetable crops, and improvement of irrigated rice culture.

ii. Pisciculture. iii. Watershed Management. iv. Natural forestry management (peripheral zone). v. Harvest of palm seeds. vi. Butterfly production. vii. Seedbed for plant production destined to the Zoo of Zurich. viii. Beekeeping. ix. "Raphia" and "Penja" exploitation.

x. Ecotourism.


i. Improve productivity of crops (yield +20%) and diversification, convince farmers to adopt improved technologies, improve income and food with women in production, increase number of farmers in network, decrease "tavy" practices and cleared forests.

ii. Improve deficit in animal protein with consumption, and income with sale, decrease hunting and pressures on ecosystems.

iii. Value innovative techniques (from ICDP) adaptable to the site, effective land delimitation and behavioral change (collaboration with CIFOR and University of Madagascar).

iv. Value forestry products on the international market by eco-certification with Woodmark.

v. Improve income (seed market with Kew Garden and Palm Society).

vi. Improve income with labor, promote ecotourism, master production techniques for reproduction.

vii. Improve income.

viii. Decrease pressure in protected area while improve income, contribute to agricultural production (pollinization).

ix. Improve and diversify income, behavioral change towards natural resources.

x. Improve income, participation of local community to conservation, behavioral change.













CHAPTER 3
EVALUATING THE FARM HOUSEHOLD AND PROTECTED AREA: A LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL


One purpose of this research is to provide to managers of the Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) in Madagascar a system of tools for evaluating, monitoring and managing socioeconomic development activities. Within the context of farm household potentials and capabilities, the resilience of the protected area, and the broad-based institutional environment, these tools will assist managers in clarifying the components and relationships in the conservation and development paradigm. They also will identify the determinant relationships among these different sets, facilitating managers' work in targeting groups and activities for the sustainability of the ICDP. ICDP managers thus can provide a vital link among international and national policy and decision-makers, program supervisors, and the project level farm households.

The tools proposed are designed to be operational, flexible, and manageable. The ex-ante socioeconomic evaluation system is a two-stage approach with: 1) the linear programming model (LPM) at the interface of evaluation, monitoring and management; and 2) the ICP evaluation model. This Chapter is focused on the LPM.










Linear Programming Model (LPM)


Swanson (1996) summarizes one of the main problematics of socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation of ICDP:

we are presumably implementing certain development activities, at certain scales, in certain areas, with certain people, based upon some kind of expectation linked to project objectives.... In many cases, the expected impacts have not been thought out clearly enough for major activities to permit the kind of targeted monitoring necessary. Experience has shown that the "conservation" and "development" components of projects have operated independently of each other, like separate subprojects. The "development" has tended to be unfocused "regional rural development," and not within a clearly defined peripheral zone
around the parks and reserves.... (p. 13)


This statement has been confirmed over the last few years in monitoring and evaluation meetings through harsh debates on why, what, and how questions on approaching the relationships between protected areas and farm households. On the one hand, proponents of a broad or general ("shotgun") approach argue that the systemic and dynamic nature of the farm household and protected area systems make it impossible to distinguish and narrow the effects of any one development activity on any one specific pressure. They contend that development activities also are systemic in their relationships, effects, and impacts among themselves, and on farm household and protected area systems. Thus, a targeted approach in the extreme would be quite unacceptable.

On the other hand, proponents of a specific or targeted ("silver bullet") approach argue that, when pressures and their causes are well-defined and understood, it is possible to test the hypothesis that a specific development activity affects positively farm








42

household livelihood and behavior, and decreases and/or ceases the pressure it was mainly designed for. However, no decisive methodology exists to test these hypotheses.

The objectives of the LPM are to clarify the components, or subsystems, of the protected area and farm household sets, identify the determinant relationships between them, and analyze alternatives to propose for problem resolution. In so doing, the "division" of the sets (Figure 1.2) into subsystems is helpful. Indeed, it is expected that when the identification and causes of each environmental pressure are specified, the pressure can be identified with a specific subsystem in the production, income, consumption, and/or other systems of the farm household (Figure 3.1). The LPM is designed to allow partial analysis of each subsystem containing a specific pressure. Subsystems can then be combined for more complex models.

As an example in the Masoala case, one identifies "tavy" rice culture as a main pressure. Tavy is an integral part of the farm household cropping system, the main subsystem in the farm household production system. Tavy touches production, income, if rice is sold, and consumption systems from its place in this rice-based cropping system. A "partial" analysis of the cropping system (model presented in this work) with and without tavy can be performed with the LPM. For a resource (personnel, equipment, capital, and the like) constrained ICDP, such partial analysis can prove useful for the managers in anticipating the effects of the decrease and/or cessation of the tavy on farm household welfare.

Introducing one or a package of "improved rice culture" techniques in the model, with and without tavy, would help identify appropriate development activity to introduce,









IFarm Household Livelihood I


Figure 3.1. Schematic of debate on effects and impacts of development activities


Cash cr pro ed area



Logging



W for constru tion



F rests produ s



... o"Targeted" approach
- "General" approach


I Pressure in protected area I


Development Activities








44
and provide insights into expected changes in the cropping system, and farm household livelihood with the development activity. This phase is not done in the present study because data are not yet available.

Suppose that activities in ecotourism are to be considered with the objective of increasing income and decreasing cash crops in the protected area. Cash crops are also part of the cropping system. Ecotourism activities will affect labor distribution, as well as allocation and use of resources in the cropping system, and thereby disturb the farm plans in production, income and consumption. Ecotourism activities can be inserted into the simulated farm model, and issues about farm household welfare, and alternatives and/or "technology" introduction can be analyzed. Situations with and without tavy and/or cash crops can be analyzed, as well as with and without improved rice culture and/or ecotourism activities, and so on. We can think of targeted blocks of matrical subsystems composed of activities and constraints that can be assembled and disassembled as needed without losing the essence of the whole system. More detailed and complex models are part of future research and not included in the present effort.

The particular case of Masoala ICDP illustrates the operationality of the proposed socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES), as a package of management tools for managers of the ICDPs. Thus, the case has no intent of studying or resolving at once all the farm system problems of the household. As an illustration, it is accomplished under stringent data constraints. Important as well is to keep in mind the resources and constraints at the ICDP field management level. Further complexity might







45

be achieved in the future as needed and desired with improved information, as linear programming possesses many flexible features.


The Basic Mathematical LPM


The LPM draws heavily from the basic mathematical model in Hazell and Norton (1986), and is adapted and applied to a relatively "average" Masoala farm household. It is acknowledged that farm household behavior, through its objectives, activities and constraints is much more complex than the model presented here. That is, the farm household forms its behavior from all the possibilities, resource requirements, and constraints it faces. The choice of activities, as well as allocation and use of resources, depends on household objectives and all of the activities and constraints present in the household. However, it is argued that prominent subsystems tied to predominant pressures, or vice versa, determine the farm household behavior and livelihood with regards to conservation.

ax Z = c X
suchthat
Sai1 X, < bi, all i = 1 ..., m xj z 0, all j = 1, ..., n



Where:

Xi = the level of the j' activity. j = Rie rice 1 produced (RI1), sold (RI1S), consumed (RI1C), purchased
(RI1P); rice 2 produced (RI2), sold (RI2S), consumed (RI2C), purchased (RI2P); tavy produced (TAV), sold (TAVS), consumed (TAVC), purchased (TAVP). Subsistance crops: cassava produced (CAS), sold









(CASS), consumed (CASC), purchased (CASP); sugar cane produced (SGC), sold (SGCS), consumed (SGCC), purchased (SGCP); banana produced (BAN), sold (BANS), consumed (BANC), purchased (BANP); taro produced (TAR), sold (TARS), consumed (TARC), purchased (TARP). Cash crops: coffee produced (COF), sold (COFS), consumed (COFC), purchased (COFP); cloves produced (CLO), sold (CLOS); vanilla produced (VAN), sold (VANS). Cash flow: cash transfer from beginning year to semester 2 (CSH1); cash transfer from semester 2 to
end year (CSH2).

ci = value of a unit of the jth activity.

a, = quantity of the ih resource required to produce one unit of the jh activity:
hectare (ha) for land; days (days) for labor; Malagasy Franc (Fmg) for cash; kilogram (kg) for the quantity of output produced, sold, consumed,
and purchased.

i = Land: rice land (LdRI); tavy land (LdTV); land for subsistance crops
(LdSBS); land for cash crops (LdCSH). Labor.: January labor (LbJA); February labor (LbFB); March labor (LbMR); April labor (LbAP); May labor (LbMY); June labor (LbJN); July labor (LbJL); August labor (LbAG); September labor (LbSP); October labor (LbOC); November labor (LbNV); December labor (LbDC). Yields, consumption and purchase: rice 1 produced (R1), consumed (RI1C), purchased (RI1P); rice 2 produced (RI2), consumed (RI2C), purchased (RI2P); tavy produced (TAV), consumed (TAVC), purchased (TAVP); cassava produced (CAS), consumed (CASC); sugar cane produced (SGC), consumed (SGCC); banana produced (BAN), consumed (BANC); taro produced (TAR), consumed (TARC); coffee produced (COF), consumed (COFC); cloves produced (CLO); vanilla produced (VAN). Cash, cash at beginning of
year (CSH1); cash in semester 2 (CSH2); cash at end of year (CSH3).

bi = quantity of the i, maximum or minimum constraint.


Procedure


The use of the LPM to analyze various potential actions is based on first

simulating existing representative livelihood systems. After a base model that adequately








47

simulates a given livelihood system has been created, it is then used to analyze alternatives by incorporating them into the base model. Assumptions


The base LPM simulation concerns only the cropping system of the farm. According to the data available, this subsystem in the production, income and consumption systems of the Masoala farm household set appears to be the determinant of the farming system and the household's behavior. Other activities, such as livestock, fishing, and non-tavy activities in the protected area, can be included later as needed. A more complex model is possible and subject to further research. The present choice of production activities is also driven by the desire to understand the main pressure, tavy culture in the protected area, which can be thought of as an integral part of the farm's cropping system.

For purposes of linear programming, the most realistic objective of this type of farm household has been found to be to maximize annual discretionary cash available for spending, without violating any of the resource or consumption constraints (P.E. Hildebrand, personal communication). Annual discretionary cash available for spending can be thought of as the end of year cash balance minus beginning year cash balance. The cash balance is defined as that amount of money available for all other purposes, after production costs, food and other required uses for cash related to the subsystem considered (cropping system) have been deducted.








48

Building a complex model requires the understanding of each subsystem and the circumstances surrounding its presence in the farm household. Besides ranking pressures by severity in the protected area, it is argued that subsystems that determine the farm household livelihood also can be prioritized. This prioritization of the farm household subsystems allows partial analyses. The present model will provide a useful glimpse of farm household circumstances, and of the posssibilities offered by the model in relation to managing the SEMES for the ICDPs. Preliminary analyses, for example, can reflect alternative farm household circumstances resulting from the presence or absence of tavy in the cropping system, and from the diversification of farm activities.


The Data


The data are from the Masoala peninsula ICDP. Distributed in 4 watersheds, 167 Masoala farm households' were interviewed in the sample by the ICDP socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation team.

The cropping system can be categorized based on rice production, and the practice of rice tavy. Seven farm types (percentage given is over a sample of 153 farm households) can be delineated: 1) rice 1 only (17%); 2) rice 2 only (4%); 3) tavy only (11%); 4) rice 1 and 2 (21%); 5) rice 1 and tavy (33%); 6) rice 2 and tavy (8%); and 7) rice 1 and 2, and tavy (6%).





1 The number of farm households actually interviewed was 167, of which 153 were chosen for the purposes of this analysis.








49

The base or simulation model for the present analyses is based on an aggregate "average" farm which corresponds to average farm type 5. Any type of farm can be examined however with this model.

This research has been performed with limited funding and scarce data. The data were sent from the Masoala ICDP, Madagascar, to the University of Florida, USA, with various time, logistical, and communication constraints. Inconsistent and incomplete observations were difficult to identify and correct in a timely manner for the present research. Secondary data were complemented with observations from key informants and other sources, including an Internet network of Malagasy scientists and students. Much of the complementary information comes from the author's personal experience and knowledge.


Analysis


Two models are utilized for the analysis. The basic simulation LPM includes rice 1 and tavy production and purchase of tavy is allowed. The alternative is production of rice 1 without that of tavy, and purchase of tavy is not allowed. Both models contain the same objective (maximization of annual discretionary cash income), activities (production, sale, consumption, and purchase of rice, subsistence and cash crops), and constraints (land, labor, cash, consumption).

Land is constrained to 1 hectare of rice 1, and 0.5 hectare of cash and 0.5 hectare of subsistence crops. No limit is put on tavy land exploited in the base model. Labor has been distributed on a monthly basis, and the amount is constrained to one adult male and







50

one adult female in the farm household, with half time available for production activities for the female. No hired labor is available. Cash available at the beginning of the year has been constrained to the amount needed to produce one hectare of rice 1.

Consumption is based on an average household size of 6 persons. Purchase is allowed for any 3 types of rice in the base model, but not for tavy in the alternative model. However in that later case, storage in rice 1 and transfer of rice 1 to rice 2 are allowed. Subsistance crops are either sold or consumed, and cash crops are sold only except some for coffee consumption. Prices were estimated by the author from available data to follow seasonal variations in rice: low prices in the normal season, high prices in the hungry season. Also selling prices are less than purchasing prices. Seasonal trends are realistic but the magnitudes should be interpreted with caution.


The Basic Simulation Model: Rice 1 and Tavy, and Purchase of Tavy Allowed


The results show that when tavy is allowed (Table 3.1), most of the rice 1 land is used, and all subsistence and cash crop land is used. In addition, 1.8 ha of tavy are exploited. Surplus rice 1 (normal season) is sold, 516 kg consumed, and no purchase of rice is made in that season. All rice 2 consumed is purchased. Tavy production compensates for the deficiency in rice 2, with 1.8 ha produced, a significant 700 kg sold, 258 kg consumed, and none purchased.

All subsistence crops including cassava (0.087 ha), sugarcane (0.1 ha), banana (0.27 ha), taro (0.04 ha) are produced and consumed, but only surplus banana is sold.









Table 3.1. Results of the basic simulation model with rice 1 and tavy.

Item Unit Rice 1 + Tavy Rice 1 only
Rice 1 area ha 0.974 1 Rice 1 produced kg 789 810 Rice 1 sold kg 273 0 Rice 1 purchased kg 0 222 Rice 1 consumed kg 516 516 Rice 1 stored kg 0 516
Rice 2 area ha 0 0 Rice 2 produced kg 0 0 Rice 2 sold kg 0 0 Rice 2 purchased kg 258 0 Rice 2 consumed kg 258 258
Tavy area ha 1.807 0 Tavy produced kg 958 0 Tavy sold kg 700 0 Tavy purchased kg 0 0 Tavy consumed kg 258 258
Banana area ha 0.27 0.27 Banana sold kg 746 746 Coffee area ha 0.264 0.5 Coffee sold kg 241 468 Vanilla area ha 0.236 0 Vanilla sold kg 105 0
Available labor days 75.1 197 Ending cash balance FMG 2,524,810 1,623,676








52

No cloves are produced, while coffee (0.26 ha) is produced, and some sold and consumed, and vanilla (0.24 ha) is produced and sold.

Labor constraints exist in the months of April, June, and July, although all months, except January and August, are quite active though not binding. Less than 20% of total available labor is not used.

All food consumption needs are satisfied, and annual discretionary cash of FMG 2,524,810 (about US$ 631) remains for all other purposes to the farm household.

The model concerns only the cropping system of the farm, yet it is considered that this model adequately simulates the representative farm livelihood system against which to evaluate alternatives.


Alternative Model: Rice 1 Without Tavy and Purchase of Tavy is Not Allowed


The prohibition of tavy production and purchase in the cropping system (Table 3.1) would decrease the annual discretionary cash available for spending by about 35% from the original situation, to FMG 1,623,676 (about US$ 406) if no other sources of income were available.

All available cropland is used for rice 1, subsistence and cash crops. The farm household would have to purchase 222 kg of rice 1, and store 516 kg for consumption in the rice 2 and tavy consumption periods. Crop diversification would decrease because only coffee, and not vanilla or cloves, would be produced. Available labor would increase by more than double to 197 days.













Conclusion and Implications


Thus, everything else being the same, the farm household performs tavy culture for income, and to compensate rice consumption and purchase during the hungry season. A significant amount of land (1.8 ha of tavy for a 3.8 ha farm size) is devoted to the activity.

The prohibition of tavy production would decrease welfare and productive employment on the farm. If compensating income and other use for this labor were not found by alternative ICDP activities, the farmers might employ the available labor in other extraction activities in the protected area.













CHAPTER 4
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT


Managers of the Integrated Conservation and Development Projects in Madagascar are confronted with the task of finding consensus and complementarity within the concerns for conservation and development. Many relationships and systems are at stake, most important being farm households in the peripheral zones and the protected areas.

Farm household behavior relative to production is motivated by concerns for security and survival. The assessment of farm level responses to changes in resource use policy, technologies and socioeconomic conditions can be studied as in Chapter 3. The present chapter is directed toward understanding the complex relationships, or overall environment, that confront farm managers and ICDP managers. It provides a basis for the institutional analysis to follow in Chapter 5.


The Basic Systems in the Conservation and Development Relationships


The overall conservation and development paradigm can be viewed as a grand system of relationships composed of subsystems called sets. Each set is a system on its own with subsystems. This chapter draws on Gunderson et al., (1995) and Kelly, (1995) for a paradigm to depict relationships in systems and subsystems, and their interdependencies (Figure 4.1).











Government Consultants


Institutional Set
National Institutional Organization (ANGAP - PACT/GMU) NGOs

I ICDP System I Universities..


Conservation System


Development System


Technology Innovation/Improvement Process (TIP) System Figure 4.1. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The systems and subsystems








56

In this framework, the grand system of relationships is said to be sustainable when the synergy of the sets composing it maintains viability, durability and operationality in space and time. Some systems will work positively and others negatively toward sustainability. Since boundaries are necessary to distinguish systems, it is evident that some systems are of primary interest while many other systems and factors are relegated to a secondary status. From a management and socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation point of view, the systems and factors described are thought to be primary for sustainability within the conservation and development setting in Madagascar.

The conservation system. The protected area set which is a system composed of its fauna and flora subsystems is included in the conservation system. Endogenous (relations between and within subsystems and with their natural environment) as well as exogenous (natural processes such as cyclones, droughts, and/or other climatic processes) subsystems interact and influence the protected area system, and the fauna and flora subsystems. The socioeconomic subsystem also interacts with and influences the protected area through induced needs and motivations of the farm household in production, income and/or consumption. Resilience of biodiversity and ecosystems forms the main core within the conservation system.

The development system. This system contains the farm household set which is composed of its production, income and consumption subsystems. Endogenous (land, capital, labor, entrepreneurship, resource allocation and use, and productivity), as well as exogenous (prices, infrastructure, and socioeconomic processes) subsystems interact with and influence the farm household system and the production, income, consumption








57

subsystems. The natural processes subsystem also interacts with and influences the farm household system at the level of the production, income and/or consumption subsystems. Sustainability of productivity and profitability, as well as resilience of farm household systems, forms the main core within the development system.

The resilience in space (at a local, regional, and/or national level) and time (from season to year, and generation to generation) of biodiversity and ecosystems to natural processes and human behavior systems is at the heart of environmental sustainability. By the same token, the resilience in space and time of the human household system to natural and socioeconomic processes and systems is at the heart of human and development sustainability. The issues of resilience in space and time, and of linkages between sustainable conservation and development, bring forth the idea of introducing unique subsystems as development activities for farm households who exert pressures on the protected areas.

The development activities system. Substitute activities to reduce human pressure in the protected area are to be introduced to peripheral zone farm households. They constitute a system which can be viewed as a distinct set in the grand system of relationships. By introducing community, group and/or individual development activities to meet the basic needs of farm households, the ICDP expects that farm households will decrease and/or cease the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity in the protected areas, and involve themselves in conservation. It is assumed and expected that an "ethical" sense of protection responsibility toward the protected area emerges within,








58

from and among farm households. The exploitation of "open access" resources therefore would be naturally and "democratically" prohibited.

For example, it has been shown in Chapter 3 that farm households practice "tavy" to satisfy their rice consumption needs in the hungry season. On the other hand, it is known that "tavy" degrades the environment. If "tavy" is to be decreased and/or ceased, then development activities to respond to the removal of "tavy" should at least compensate for production and consumption foregone from that crop. The removal of "tavy" also frees labor for other purposes, in particular for such introduced activities. Among other considerations for these activities to be successful, one therefore should take into account the activities level of incremental benefits and labor used. Coupled with environmental education, such activities are thought to help farm households cope with their circumstances in an environment-friendly manner.

For these reasons, most people assume these development activities must simultaneously "better" human welfare and decrease pressures and damages on protected areas. Introducing development activities can then be viewed as a technology innovation or improvement process (TIP). Formal stages of the TIP (Chapter 6, Figure 6.5) in an agricultural setting have been proposed by McDermott and Andrew, (1995). As applied to the ICDP situation, technology embedded in introduced development activities might be questioned as to technology/activity design or generation, testing and adaptation. Hence, technologies and corresponding activities must be responsive at the local level.

The beliefs, values and incentives of the donors, international and Malagasy institutional organizations, and ICDPs blend into an institutional set which acts as a








59

system directing and shaping the goals, objectives and actions towards the conservation and development systems. This is particularly true in setting the priorities among conservation and development issues and the introduction of development activities.

The institutional system. An important factor for the success and sustainability of the ICDPs is the institutional system. Hence, decision-makers, managers, field agents and households are expected to integrate their rationale about the conservation and development paradigm into shared, meaningful and operational goals, objectives and actions. All of these participants share to different degrees the goals of natural resource and biodiversity conservation, as well as socioeconomic development of farm households. In a related topic, Kiker and Putz (1997) suggest actors "share some sensed, partial, approximate and noisy information."' Information about conservation and development is, by nature, diverse. Participants may differ in the emphasis given to the design and implementation of specific activities as they relate to conservation and development.

The monitoring and evaluation system. As a set at the intersection of all of the above sets, the monitoring and evaluation system is where the ICDP evolves. It is conducted by the institutional organizations extending from donors to the ICDPs. The actual and future situations of the Malagasy ICDP result from an institutional dimension of change, itself resulting from the evolution of concepts built through evolution of


1 "For both the agent and the principal, knowledge of the environment is partial and approximate; sensing of the environment and the agent's actions is partial and noisy; the dynamics of the environment can be only partially predicted; and the agent's execution of actions [in the forest] is not completely reliable.... The result is that the agent needs to maintain a degree of reactivity to meet its goals in [the] face of unpredicted environmental and labor related or social situations, and the principal needs to be assured that agreed upon strategic goals and plans are being met, at least to some degree, otherwise the basis of the [certification] system collapses" (Kiker and Putz, 1997, p. 43).








60

beliefs, values, and incentives in the conservation and development paradigm in Madagascar. The management of change focuses on the relationships among the different sets, that is the interdependence of all the systems and subsystems described above. One main "raison d'6tre" of the proposed socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) is to "test" the hypotheses established in planning, and through implementation of development activities, for conservation and development. Again, the desire is that the well-being of the farm households will increase and the pressures on protected areas will decrease and/or cease.


Decisions. Goals and Strategies in the Grand System of Relationships: A Principal-Agent Paradigm


The earlier systemic framework illustrates that the introduction and nature of development activities tied to conservation mainly depend on the institutions. Receiving, adapting, and adopting the activities depend on the farm households. Within the institutional set, relationships among international (donors), national (government, DEF, ANGAP), and local (ICDP) organizations influence the goals, objectives, and strategies at the ICDP and field (protected area and farm household) levels.

A multi-level principal-agent relationship exists among the actors in the grand system of relationships. Goals and strategies span from the abstract to operational, and extend from the donor level through the international and Malagasy institutional organizations to the ICDPs and farm households, finally to have an impact on all relationships in the total system.








61

Donors provide funds to the Malagasy institutional organizations to carry out the conservation and development goals and strategies, with an emphasis on conservation. These donors rely on their governments (USAID) and/or the international community (World Bank) for policy direction. Malagasy institutional organizations, such as the National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP) and the Direction of Waters and Forests (DEF), supervise and coordinate the ICDPs at the national level, with priority on conservation and development. They simultaneously depend on the donors and the Malagasy government in carrying their mandate. Many other organizations and individuals, such as universities, NGOs and consulting entities, with their own beliefs, values and incentives, enter this system at different levels for different purposes. They depend and rely on the donors, the national government, and/or the ICDPs in fulfilling their objectives. The ICDPs manage the protected areas on a shortterm basis with a long-term view to conservation and development. Satisfaction of the goals and strategies of related international and national organizations, as well as farm households is the mandate of ICDPs.

The principal-agent paradigm in the ICDP context possesses some interchangeable features. For example, from a participatory approach perspective, the farm households would be the principal and the ICDP the agent when identifying, designing and defining the development activities. The reverse would occur when implementing and actually conducting the development activities.

This interchangeable feature can be extended to the whole institutional set. It is a looping feedback channel in the grand system of relationships. For example, at the








62

design and planning phase, donors would be the principal when providing funds to the agents, the Malagasy national organizations. During implementation, the principal-agent relationship reverses. Biological and socioeconomic information is the basis for request by the now principal Malagasy national organizations, and for readjustment and reorientation by the donors, now the agent. These features suggest systemic relationships and interdependencies among institutional actors in decisions, goals and strategies of the Malagasy ICDPs.

In the identification, design, and definition of development activities, farm households and communities request technical assistance and/or technology from the ICDP. The ICDP often transfers the actual activities without conducting any on-site preliminary research to test and adapt solutions to the local situations. That is, the site itself becomes a living laboratory where trial and error is allowed. This process forms the basis for adaptive ecosystem management.

In the same manner, funding requirements bias the priority, design, and implementation of field actions. This situation is best illustrated by the following observations:

1. Conservation and development are two distinct departments like two subprojects (Swanson, 1995) at the ICDP level. The monitoring and evaluation unit is supposed to promote the links between them.

2. Monitoring and evaluation, as an integrated activity, is divided into three distinct "subsystems": the project, conservation and development.








63

3. The project and conservation indicators are abundant and precise at the ICDP organizational level, but incomplete and difficult to implement in the real world. The development indicators are mostly left to the discretion of the ICDP which experiences different influences from institutions and actors.

Such partition and imprecision in development lead to unfocused development activities. The situation in development becomes one where activities are subjected to the beliefs, values and incentives of the diverse and different decision-makers, managers and field agents. In other words, even though farm households and communities seek the satisfaction of precise needs, activities might not always respond adequately. Global goals and objectives are shared, but design and implementation differ due to beliefs, values, and incentives.

Harsh debates in socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation meetings illustrate the problem. It is therefore useful to understand the perspectives on conservation and development, and make a meaningful convergence, which will be "rationalized" and "operationalized" with the ICP evaluation model.

It is useful to keep in mind that donor representatives, as well as international and national institutional organization representatives, visit the protected areas and farm households from time to time. The ICDPs manage on a day-to-day basis. Monitoring refers to the short-term management of ICDPs, at most yearly, while evaluation refers to a longer period of management by donors and national institutional organizations.2


2 "Planning is (a) the choosing of mission and objectives and (b) the development of a course of action to achieve mission and objectives. It involves ex ante evaluation. Monitoring is the observation of a plan during implementation and the taking of corrective action. It involves ex-












Differences in Perspectives


Chapter 3 has shown clearly that farm households encroach the protected area by necessity due to constraints in resources, and socioeconomic and institutional environments: in a way, a question of survival! In such circumstances, ICDPs are faced with sustaining the resilience of both protected areas and farm households. The relationships between population growth, increasing gap between demand and supply of food and non-food items, and socioeconomic and political concerns focus government priorities. National and international commercial entities related to natural resources and biodiversity are concerned about productivity and profit from their use. International donors and "green" institutions rather aim at conservation of natural resources and biodiversity.

Conceptually, a moderate and probably realistic view of conservation and development would seek complementarity and integrate both extremes in the paradigm. Sustainable environmental management focused mainly on the conservation of resources must take into account those who depend on the resources for their livelihood. Likewise, socioeconomic development, focused mainly on increasing the production of goods and services, must take into account sustainability of the resources on which production and consumption are based (UNCED, 1992).





present, continuous evaluation. Evaluation is the determination of the value of a completed plan and involves ex post evaluation." (McDermott and Andrew, 1995, p. D-4)








65

However, two extreme ideals should not be overlooked, as their "reality" drives many institutions and actors in the conservation and development paradigm (Raustiala and Victor, 1996; Lehr, 1992). The first views conservation as a chief priority; conserving the environment, including natural resources and biodiversity, is needed and necessary. Human heritage and ecosystemic philosophy respond to an intergenerational value of conservation. Population growth, poverty and destructive production behaviors, because of, and leading to, loss of productivity, are seen as the main causes of environmental degradation and depletion. Policing and rationing are the primary approaches to satisfying this conservation and development perspective.

The second view sees development as the main priority. Meeting the population needs and wants through socioeconomic development is needed and necessary. The poor are mostly the development targets because poverty and population growth impact negatively on the environment. It is proclaimed that there is no evidence for human production behavior having any detrimental effects on the environment when production is rationalized (Lehr, 1992). Mere value-judgements and normative thinking about environmental issues are seen by these development proponents as the main constraints to socioeconomic development. A free market paradigm is the resolving approach, where market forces lead to "natural" equilibrium.

An array of common alternative views exists among these perspectives, giving more weight to one or the other.3


3 "Faced with the partial understanding we have of the problems and with the conflicting views of science, it is no wonder that public concern and mistrust are great but public understanding disturbingly bad. Political responses have a weak foundation for confident action







66

Blaikie and Jeanrenaud (1996) state "biodiversity and human welfare are perceived differently by a wide range of actors (international, national and local levels)." (p. 1) They define biodiversity as "the variability of life in all forms, levels and combinations within and among ecosystems, species and genetic material." (p. 3) The causes of loss of biodiversity are well documented, but estimates of loss are uncertain, deriving from extrapolations and estimates. Blaikie and Jeanrenaud summarize five general reasons for the importance of maintaining biodiversity: ethical reasons, maintaining ecosystems, material and economic benefits to people, maintaining evolutionary processes, and aesthetics. They express these in turn in terms of values which can be summarized as 1) direct and instrumental/use values comprising (a) non-market oriented consumptive use values and (b) market oriented productive use values, where conversion of value may exist between (a) and (b); 2) indirect instrumental/use values comprising (a) functions and services of ecosystems having value for society as public goods and (b) option values for present and future uses for direct and indirect values; and 3) non-instrumental intrinsic value related to moral responsibility.

As well as for biodiversity, human welfare means different things for different people as shown by the increasing range of sophisticated measures of welfare such as UNDP's Human Development Index (HDI). They show that different groups have


that will not make the cure worse than the disease. To whom can the public turn for insight? This is less a problem of trust in science than of trust in governance by all participants who, in the absence of firm foundations for understanding, are forced to shape their decisions by beliefs" (Holling in Gunderson et al., 1995, p. 14)

"Understanding the bases of attitudes among the various publics he deals with can be helpful to the wildlife manager who faces a great challenge in coping with the conflicting views expressed, and politicized, concerning wildlife issues today." (Gilbert and Dodds, 1992, p. 49)








67

differing scales of influence, sources of power, interests and aims, and means of dealing/relating with biodiversity to reach interests and aims. From the range of local farm households to international groups, the scale of influence increases in scope. According to the authors, the power held by farm households is considerably less than that imposed by international groups concerning "green conditionality." Interests and aims range from livelihood maintenance and use of protected areas for subsistence needs by farm households, to commercial profit among entrepreneurs and tourism entities, and finally to conservation as expressed by international groups. Thus, depending on the actors, welfare can take a wide range of meanings.

Duraiappah (1996) points out that "until recently, there has been very little indepth coordinated empirical research in the economics of environmental degradationpoverty causality relationships." (p. 1) He suggests the existence of a large degree of subjectivity about environmental degradation based on the actors, ecosystems and values involved relative to the particular resources of concern. He proposes ecological thresholds based on physical characteristics and revealed preferences as indicators of environmental degradation.

Defining poverty, the author summarizes three measurements: 1) the World Bank's household expenditure approach giving a poverty line threshold level; 2) the UNDP's Human Development Index (HDI) drawn from criticisms about the concepts of objective needs in the poverty line measure; and 3) a more encompassing approach relating to resource accessibility and the vulnerability of "low income groups who face high income uncertainty because of natural resource degradation." Accessibility and







68

vulnerability are based on more subjective needs than the objective ones in 1) and 2). Duraiappah distinguishes "indigenous poverty as caused by environmental degradation" from "exogenous poverty as caused by factors other than environmental degradation." He provides an analytical framework for literature review where causality relationships (Figure 4.2: R1, R2, R3A, R3B, R4, R1FB) between poverty and environmental degradation are postulated. "The relationships are not mutually exclusive and can be present simultaneously."

From a philosophical and practical management perspective, Gilbert and Dodds (1992) categorize people's attitudes and values toward wildlife as "economic (or commercial, including recreational), socio-cultural (including aesthetic), ecological (including biological), and scientific." (p. 54) They identify many factors affecting people's opinions, attitudes, values and incentives towards wildlife, such as occupations and professions, land ownership, immigration status, degree of dependency on wildlife, degree of contact with wildlife, sex, age, income, education, residency, ethnicity and religion. In sum, social, economic, cultural and political experiences and sense of belonging build one's own concepts, norms, beliefs, values, and incentives relative to the issues of conservation and development.

For example, biological scientists and ecotourists might be perceived by Gilbert and Dodds to place high values on conservation; social scientists and farm household members might be perceived to value development much more than conservation. Further, in a subsistence economy, the traditional sociocultural environment induces the farm household members to give more weight to conservation, because the household













R3A.........



R3A


R1FB


. ...... ......


Figure 4.2. Poverty and environmental degradation

Source: Adapted from: A. Duraiappah, 1996.
Poverty and Environmental Degradation: A Literature Review and Analysis








70

depends on its immediate environmental resources for survival. Open markets and infrastructure bring exogenous socioeconomic development concepts based on material manufactured goods that disturb the traditional sociocultural environment, inducing the farm household member to give more weight to socioeconomic development.

Equally, a group of individuals or population sets, be it a community, society, country or international region, embodies aggregate beliefs, values and incentives resulting from those of its members. For example, because of science and media awareness, developed countries lean towards protecting the environment from depletion and degradation. Donors, originating from developed countries, and most importantly incountry executing ranks, have corresponding beliefs, values and incentives embedded in aid and assistance. Developing countries, because of population growth, poverty and "destructive" production behaviors, tend to give weight to socioeconomic development. Thus, developing countries tend to foster beliefs, values and incentives relative to their own goals that engender specific perspectives of aid and assistance (Lehr, 1992; James, 1994; Raustalia and Victor, 1996).

From yet another perspective, Holling (in Gunderson et al., 1995) suggests five belief systems in conservation and development which "are driving present debate and public confusion. Each reflects different assumptions about stability and change...." (pp. 14-15):

1. the view of "Nature Cornucopian is one of exponential growth" with endless resources, assuming human creativity for substitutes is able to cope with the gradual changes of nature;








71

2. the view of "Nature Anarchic is hyperbolic" where growth attains a limit followed by a decline, assuming the inability of humans to deal with their own creativity;

3. the view of "Nature Balanced is of logistic growth" where environmental and development sustainability are of simultaneous concern, assuming systemic relationships;

4. the view of "Nature Resilient is one of nested cycles organized by fundamentally discontinuous events and processes" comparable to schumpeterian economic business cycles and creative destruction, assuming shocks and waves disturb growth trends; and

5. the view of "Nature evolving is evolutionary and adaptive" where integration is the foundation, assuming a multidisciplinary perspective to the conservation and development paradigm.

Obviously, the diverse, practical to abstract, perpectives reviewed so far, leading to as well diverse beliefs, values, and incentives toward conservation and development, affect the grand system of relationships through institutional organizations and actors. ICDPs at the field level take into account the beliefs, values and incentives of donors, international and Malagasy institutional organizations, scientists, local communities and farm households. On the other hand, the field level where the ICDP evolves can be situated within the context of a broader environment where all institutional organizations and actors interact.

The grand system of relationships evolves in the broader environment which influences and is influenced by the grand system (Figure 4.3). The broader environment









Donors (USAID) system Institutional Set National Institutional Organization Syste
. . . . ........................................................�. ........................ .. . . .......... . . ..... .,..........
Government (ANGAP - PACT/GMU) NGOs . 1 Consultants Universities L, Develop Internal


iConservation System n Development System ntroduced Development Activities S
Human Systems
ommunity Individu
Group
Technology Innovation recess (TIP) System ............................... ..........y.s ..tn...a i...p ..de m.. ....................................
Figure 4.3. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The environments







73

can be characterized into four types of environments (McDermott and Andrew, 1995, pp. IX-3 to IX-5):

1. The internal environment of the ICDP system is composed of its own ICDP organization-entity, and the individual and units that make it into an operating entity. The objectives in the internal environment are to secure and sustain farm production, income and consumption so that pressures in protected areas will decrease and/or cease.

2. The enabling environment is composed of institutions and organizations that provide resources and authority" to the success of ICDPs. These institutions and organizations are included in the institutional set, such as donors. But they exist also outside the grand system, such as agricultural industry and services, and infrastructure. Hence, new or improved technology in introduced development activities often requires infrastructure and markets for inputs in production, as well as for product sales and income absorption.

3. The normative environment "includes those institutions that defend the norms and values of society.... They speak to moral concerns and ethical consequences of [ICDPs]." Sociopolitical forces at the local, regional, national and international levels, inside and outside the grand system of relationships, interrelate, interact and often conflict at the ICDP level. The normative environment often influences mission, strategies, planning and actions.

4. The diffuse environment "is composed of organizations that help form the general image of the institution and distribute information on its performance and achievements." Inside the grand system of relationships, the institutional set helps ICDPs








74

in such roles. Farm households as individuals, units and community also communicate among them about ICDPs, as do local, regional, national and international media.

At the ICDP field level, the beliefs, values and incentives of decision-makers, managers, field agents and farm households are "inputs" that feed into ICDPs in the grand system of relationships. These inputs also play a role in the formation of, and interactions with, the four different environments, which in turn may control or condition the success of ICDPs, e.g. infrastructure and markets. At the same time, most of these environments are also external to the grand system of relationships. Yet, they also feed "inputs" into the grand system by directing and shaping the goals, objectives and actions towards the conservation and development systems, in particular the introduction of development activities at the field level.

Because of such diversity in institutions and actors, resulting in disparity and imprecision in concepts and causal relationships about the conservation and development paradigm, it is argued that the efficiency, success and sustainability of a SEMES of ICDPs depends on interrelations, linkages and synthesis of beliefs, values and incentives of the different institutions and actors at different levels of decision-makings4. The ICP evaluation model is a tool and methodology where a framework is set, and actors input




4 "Donors may not be referring to "funding" sustainability, but rather developing behavior changes and activities which local people can adopt which will lead to sustainable use of natural resources.... This is a long-term objective, and donors generally have short-term funding horizons.... We have learned that multiple "operators" do not lead to good management of program activities.... Maintenance of institutional identities and unique "approaches" seems to be at the core of the problem.... We have also learned that multiple donors pose problems for coordination and management of development activities in a peripheral zone...." (Swanson, 1996, pp. 19-20)








75

beliefs, values and incentives. A synthesized shared and operational "direction" is then obtained.

The concepts and causal relations that build from the conservation and development paradigm and the grand system of relationships may raise some ethical, equity and sustainability issues closely tied to diverging beliefs, values and incentives.


Ethics, Equity and Sustainability


Ethics and equity issues stem from both the conservation and the development conceptualization of sustainability. From environmental and human perspectives in a grand system of relationships, sustainability requires that the needs and derived activities of the present generation do not compromise the satisfaction of the needs of future generations relative to resource, production and welfare opportunities. The time scale of sustainability is rather vague. We cannot determine or bound the end of all life, nor can we predict the unforeseen future changes in ecosystems or household systems.

Resilience of the protected area and farm household systems is a key component in the intergenerational concern for sustainability. The use of renewable and nonrenewable resources must be sustainable. This is particularly true for the resources required for development, including development activities to be introduced to farm households. Also, population growth, and corresponding derived needs and activities, factor into this sustainability situation.

Gill (1991) has provided an extensive appraisal of the climatic, biological, infrastructural and technological natures of seasonality within year and their negative








76

impacts on the allocation and use of resources in agriculture in the developing world. Such factors are very important to the well-being of Malagasy farm households. Frankenberger (1985) has emphasized that the hungry season is a difficult period for the nutritional well-being of low-income farming households, trapped in a cycle of poverty. Further, Sahn (1989) has shown that year-to-year seasonal variability in Third World agriculture affects food consumption, food security and nutritional status. He has asserted that the major causes are fluctuating market prices and real income (cash and/or in kind), savings (stocks, livestock and/or cash), and food consumption behavior. These conditions are present in both rural and urban areas. Food insecurity in either or both rural and urban households occasioned by seasonal variations and seasonality have impact on sustainability of socioeconomic development in Madagascar.

To deal with seasonal variations and seasonality, high-input-agriculture for example might increase productivity, production, income and consumption for the farm household. But it might also perversely affect the environment. Ecotourism low-input activities, such as handicraft and tour guiding, might also increase income. Because of ecotourism, less time would be devoted to agricultural production, resulting in low-inputagriculture, and thereby induce more dependency towards food and non-food imports. From the perspective of the comparative advantage paradigm, which assumes a fair and sustainable exchange setting, ecotourism could be the solution to the conservation problem. However, risk from major economic fluctuations or natural disasters might jeopardize the livelihood system of people who shift their living practices and economic








77

enterprises from agriculture in expectation of high and consistent returns from ecotourism.

Further, the concept of affluence with economic growth viewed through gross domestic product in developed countries indicates a strong correlation with climate change and environmental degradation (MacKenzie and MacKenzie, 1995). Also, wealth creation through history, characterized by overconsumption in the developed world, shows that developing countries are left in a state of impoverishment, characterized by underconsumption, mass poverty and high population growth. It would appear then that the goal of extending prosperity through technology transfer and/or monetary programs from the developed to developing countries claims that the concept of economic growth, embedded in the conservation and socioeconomic development paradigm, must specify clear definitions and expectations about development activities for ICDPs.

In other words, "development activities" intrude on the traditional, indigenous Malagasy farm household system with concepts and practices of the modern capitalist market system. This situation leads to a structural transformation, "good" or "bad," at the household level in economic, social and cultural production and organization. Dualism paradigms, such as modern vs. traditional, industrial vs. agricultural, capital vs. precapital, cash vs. subsistence, urban vs. rural, complicate further the issue, nature and impacts of development activities (Hayami and Ruttan, 1986).

On the other hand, it may be possible that enforcing a preservation-protection model (Barbour et al., 1992, p. L-3) which restricts, through isolation and absolute protection, the access to protected areas from surrounding farm households, might








78

succeed for a while in conservation. But the existence of needy populations, and the required management response to establish an operational program, place in question the sustainability of such a model. The preservation-protection model argues that organizations and institutions, other than those dealing with conservation, might take care of socioeconomic development issues. The model is questioned in reference to the possibility and efficiency of separating the conservation and development issues in the Malagasy poverty context.

The systemic, adaptive, and principal-agent approaches to the conservation and development paradigm show the diversity and complexity of beliefs, values, and incentives that ICDP must deal with in its environments and in carrying out its mission in the field. Resulting diverse perspectives raise ethical, equity, and sustainability concerns about development activities to be introduced. Imprecision and confusion, and sometimes conflicts, about these beliefs, values, incentives, and perspectives render ICDP management inefficient, and to the extreme controversial.

A convergence in apprehending concepts and relationships in the conservation and development paradigm appears necessary for ICDP efficiency and management considerations.













CHAPTER 5
SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION MODEL The Institutional Cognitive Pattern


The people of Madagascar hold perceptions from experience about living from day-to-day and year-to-year within a local to global environment. They relate to nature and each other in complex ways, and may not always agree with those who grant assistance. Adding to the complexity, local, national and international institutions also relate to the issues of conservation and development in different ways. From the standpoint of the grand system of relationships involved with conservation and development in Madagascar (Figure 4.3), shared (though imprecise) concepts, perceptions, and ways of addressing needs and aspirations are depicted. The system leads to missions, strategies, causal relationships, and actions of institutional organizations and actors in the integrated conservation and development paradigm. Actual convergence of concepts and causal relationships toward design and implementation of conservation and development activities and actions may or may not exist, but is needed. The present research deals directly with concepts and causal relationships.

The planning, monitoring and evaluation work of the ICDPs is conducted by the institutional set (donors to ICDP) in the grand system of relationships (Figure 4.3). The management of changes could be traced with the institutional cognitive pattern (ICP)







80

based on fuzzy cognitive map (FCM) theory and neural network algorithm (Kosko, 1986, 1988, Taber, 1991), further developed by Fajardo (1993). Such a methodology relates the institutional dimension of change directly to the SEMES which focuses on the relationships between the rural household and the protected area; that is the intersection of all systems and subsystems in the grand system of relationships confronted by the ICDP. Identifying the concepts ("nodes") and causal relationships ("edges") in the ICDP systems constitutes a foundation for the SEMES. In so doing, it applies the basis of the institutional cognitive pattern methodology and analysis, the "signed digraphs (directed graphs) of a fuzzy nature with feedback." (Fajardo, 1995, p. 49-61, Kosko, 1985, 1988, Taber, 1991)


The Model


The ICP evaluation model is based on information about the ICDP system, and conservation and development, collected from various sources. Information is drawn from works done in Madagascar, especially from Richard Swanson (1995, 1996), an institutional-technical advisor to the Malagasy National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP), and from the extensive and detailed multidisciplinary survey conducted by Russell Barbour et al., (1992).

Concepts and relationships are depicted from such sources to provide a signed digraph with feedback which expresses and simulates causal relationships under various circumstances. Figure 5.1 shows such a signed digraph with feedback for the Malagasy







More
.. .................................................... Government Requests
:(-) :1 increase ............................... oAssist c
SUSAID Fundings (+ C12

(+)1 Protection/
Creates ANGAP ................................. Preservation ......
(ICDP Program) 2C15 C14 More
(+) Individual/Group Development
Activities


More (
Community ..
eomm ... More Resources Needed High % (-) Development
Population Growth . . Activities Land, Pasture, Nat. Res.
Population Growth ......:.. Atvie
C1 : ..... C17 C5

(+) (- (-)v
Increase Weak Local Marketing Decrease Farm Price of(Food/Non-Food Systems And Practices Agricultural Products ........ " I
Demand C10 Ci1
C2
Increase Revenue
Alternatives
More + )

Food/Non-Food Improved Standard Of Improved Supply Incre
Availability Living, Health, Education Of Food/Non-Food
C3 C4 I c9 +)


N ..........
(+)














(-)T
aEnvironmental Degradation Of Primary Forests,
Biodiversity






(+)

Loss Of Soil Fertility through Soil Erosion
C7





ase Agricultural


Figure 5.1. Signed digraph with feedback for Malagasy ICDP


......... O- (ICDP System)
W (Traditional System)







82

ICDP. It traces the traditional system and an ICDP system with a conservationist model. The concepts are the numbered Cs, while the arrows and signs are the causal relations from Ci to Cj. A positive sign supposes that Ci will increase Cj, while a negative sign supposes that Ci will decrease Cj.


The Traditional System


Population growth (C,) increases food and non-food demand (C2z), which decreases food and non-food availability (C3). When more food and non-food items are available

(C3), farm household standard of living, including such domains as health and education

(C4) is improved. Improved farm household standard of living, including health and education (C4) is thought to induce a decreasing use of resources (C5). It is the increasing needs in resource use (C5) that cause environmental degradation of primary forests and biodiversity (C6). An important implication is that environmental degradation of primary forests and biodiversity increases secondary vegetation for the farm household subsistence base. Degradation of primary forests and biodiversity itself (C6) increases secondary vegetation through mainly slash and burn practices, and increases the loss of soil fertility through soil erosion (C7), which impacts negatively on agricultural production (Co). If agricultural production (Cg) is not increasing, greater pressure from (C8) to (C9) to (Cz) to (C4) will increase the resources needed for production such as land (C5). However, increasing agricultural production (Ca) increases the supply of food and non-food items

(C9), which increases their availability (C3). In a setting of weak infrastructure, weak marketing systems and practices (CI0) decrease food and non-food availability (C3), but







83

at the same time decrease farm prices of agricultural products (C11). Decreasing farm prices of agricultural products (C1 ) has negative effects on standard of living, health, and education (C4), while at the same time decreasing supply of food and non-food items from farm households (C9), and increasing resources used (C5), especially in the protected area.


The ICDP System


Environmental degradation (C6) and decreases in food and non-food availability

(C3), as well as decreases in agricultural production (C8), create requests to the government (C12), which seeks outside assistance (C13), as well as conducts actions, including policing, for protection and preservation (C15). Funding agencies (C13) respond to government (C12) by creating an institution (Cl4) to conduct conservation and development activities (C15), (C16), and (C17), destined to curb targeted bottle necks (C),

(C4), (C5) (C6), (C7), (C10), and (Cs), in the conservation and development paradigm. Thus, the goal is to establish sustained integrated conservation and development.


Analysis


Approaches


The protection-preservation approach (C15), including policing, relies on other institutional organizations and approaches, such as integrated rural development, to solve the development problem of the farm household system. Individual-group-community development activities exist but are not directly tied to the problem of conservation. In








84

that sense, the relationship between the improvement of standard of living and resources needed is not really addressed, as no connection is made between demand and supply of food and non-food items. Protection-preservation activities are assumed by enforcing agencies to motivate people to find other sources than protected areas to meet production, income and/or consumption needs.

In the ICDP approach, people are induced to improve resource allocation efficiency and to increase productivity and profitability through individual-groupcommunity development activities brought about by ICDP. In other words, increasing food and non-food deficit, declining agricultural production, and environmental degradation increase the demand from farm households to government, which in turn calls for assistance to conduct development activities. Example of Tavy in the Masoala Case Study


The environmental pressure of tavy (slash and burn) has been identified by the Masoala ICDP team as the primary pressure in the protected area (C6). This research identifies the cropping system as the determinant subsystem in the livelihood system (C, C4) of peripheral zone farm households around the Masoala protected area. Tavy is directly tied to, and is an integral part of, the cropping system. Removal of this practice, as specified in the linear program analysis (Chapter 3), would be very difficult for Masoala farm households.

In the signed digraph of Figure 5.1, a protection-preservation policy (C15) alone does not answer the need to substitute a viable alternative for tavy in the farm household








85

livelihood system. Indeed, it has been shown (Chapter 3) that prohibition of the tavy practice decreases dramatically the well-being of farm households, measured in terms of annual discretionary cash spending. In the absence of substitute alternatives as responses to the need for more resources (C5) to replace the supply of rice foregone from tavy (C9), while also removing environmental degradation (C6) and the increase of secondary vegetation, it is expected that farm households would bypass the preservation policy if possible. Socio-political problems might arise to further confound the socioeconomic issues. It becomes an ethical and equity issue that farm households be given compensation for sacrificing their livelihood for the well-being of humanity.

The introduction of development activities (C14, C16, C17) under the ICDP model brings with it other causal relationships (noted as discontinuous arrows). The rationale of the ICDP development strategy is, in a sense, to disturb the "traditional" setting (in continuous arrows) by introducing "improved" environment-friendly activities, technologies and/or technical processes (in C5, C7, CI0, Cs18) directly tied to the pressures and designed to reduce environmental decline. Again, it is assumed that introduced development activities "better" the rural household system. The incremental gain with the improved system will compensate or exceed directly the loss from the "traditional" system, particularly in the use of natural and biological resources in the protected area. It follows that introduced individual-group development activities are socioeconomically and culturally "better" than "traditional" activities.

Thus, the types of development activities to introduce in farm household systems must be tied closely to the types of environmental degradation in protected areas. By the








86

same token, these development activities are assumed to take care of marketinfrastructure-institutional failures. Further analyses might be needed when considering such issues more closely.


Beyond the Masoala Case Study


Prioritization of pressures is expected to help identify the types of development activities which directly address these pressures and their causes. It is thought that if the individual-group-community development activities are directly tied to the problems in the protected area system and their causes, then rural household welfare will improve and human pressures on the protected area will decrease and/or cease.

It is obvious in this conceptualization of an institutional cognitive pattern for Madagascar conservation and development paradigm that it is not enough to simply increase goods for the needy. Indeed, population growth is also a cause of the problem, as well as market and institutional failures. It is assumed that community development activities, such as improving human health, family planning, education about the environment, and farmer organization are simultaneous requirements with individual and/or group economically oriented development activities.

Other assumptions are embedded in this framework. Development activities induce market and infrastructure availability to provide inputs and food, non-food, income and other goods and services, and absorb outputs and income earned from production. A more subtle assumption is that markets and infrastructure will integrate the rural household into a market economy with free and open access, in place of the subsistence








87

economy. This will decrease the tendency toward self-sufficiency and increase interdependency in the exchange economy based on money and "balanced" income distribution. In this reasoning, the money-based economic system (in continuous and discontinuous arrows) will form new cycles, breaking the vicious circle of poverty and environmental degradation in the traditional system, and lead to a new form of development. That is, if the individual-group-community development activities are tied directly to environmental degradation and directly address its causes, resources needed for production will be stabilized by market and infrastructure, thereby decreasing environmental decline. This of course assumes that market cycles will not become so pronounced as to force farm households back to tavy practices as the source for their livelihood.


Conclusion


The ICP evaluation model as an ex-ante evaluation tool intends to improve:

1. the design, consistency, focus and implementation of conservation and development programs;

2. the assessment of interactions among the different environmental, socioeconomic and developmental factors;

3. the bases for decision-making at all levels;

4. the self-regulating potential for sustainability of integrated conservation and development systems;







88

5. the chance that resource utilization increases farm household welfare and reduces negative impacts on natural resources and biodiversity in protected areas; and

6. the information needed for the formulation and selection of sound conservation and development policies in the decision-making process.

An institutional cognitive pattern methodology and analysis for Madagascar conservation and development paradigm can act as an ex-ante evaluation tool. For the ICDPs, it will focus on the evolution of concepts and derived strategies resulting therein as well as the expected impact of changes in the concepts and strategies. It can be carried out in a form of workshops involving the actors from donors to ICDP, where LPM and STAT are bases of discussion, and expected outcome is a "consensus" on direction and intervention focus.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EJL53S6JM_QFQ04B INGEST_TIME 2015-04-13T19:45:50Z PACKAGE AA00029951_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

DESIGN OF A SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM TO MANAGE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN MADAGASCAR By HENRI LUCIEN ABEL-RATOVO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

PAGE 2

Copyright 1997 by Henri Lucien Abel-Ratovo

PAGE 3

To My Children.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The fulfillement of this dissertation has been the product of events and people. The events were "good" and "bad", but always have been enriching in their various circumstances. I would like to thank people for making this achievement happen despite uncertain events and circumstances. I wish to express my sincerest appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Chris O. Andrew, chairman of my supervisory committee, for his guidance and sound advice, patience, support, and most of all, for his caring. This never would have happened without him. Special thanks are due to the other members of my committee, Drs. Peter E. Hildebrand, Clyde F. Kiker, Larry W. Libby, and Art Hansen, whose expertise, assistance, helpful comments and suggestions, and support contributed a great deal to the completion of this work. Numerous drafts and committee meetings have happened, but my committee members were there, patient and supportive. I wish also to thank many people related to the integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP) in Madagascar for their assistance and support. A few of them are Mr. Director General of ANGAP, Raymond Rakotonindrina, ANG AP/TR&D ' s Dr. Richard Swanson, and all the staff of ANGAP and TR&D. In the same way, my thoughts go to the staff of the following ICDPs: Masoala, Montagne d'Ambre, AndasibeMantadia, Ranomafana, and Andohahela. In particular, I want to thank Dr. Claire iv

PAGE 5

Kremen, Raymond Lemaraina, and the staff of Masoala ICDP for their support and efforts to provide me with the data for this study. I also wish to thank the University of Florida for its supportive environment, in particular Associate Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Richard Lutz, and the Graduate School, as well as Dr. Richard Downie and the International Student Services. My thoughts go to the faculty members, fellow graduate students, and friends at the University of Florida and in Gainesville, in particular Drs. John Gordon and Thomas Spreen, and the Food and Resource Economics Department (FRED). I spent much of my time at the FRED computer lab support center. My special thanks to its staff, in particular Carlos Jauregui for his attempts with the ICP program. Dr. Marianne Schmink, Peter Polshek, and Nina Hoffer are singled out for their genuine friendship. Finally, I cannot forget Sensei Alex Heyman and his Martial arts sessions. He helped me sustain my body and mind systems in stressful circumstances. This work has put its toll on my family. I thank them, especially my children, for their support and patience. Life continues and so do our lives. Above all, I thank God for His Mercy and His Plan. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x ABSTRACT xi CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Problematique: The Malagasy Conservation and Development Paradigm . 1 Overview of Problems and Causal Relationships 3 The Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) . . 7 Research Problem 14 Hypotheses 15 Objectives 17 Procedures 18 2 MADAGASCAR UNDER STRESS 23 Socioeconomic Situation 24 Access to Food 24 Food Insecurity and the Economy 26 Seasonal Rice Production and Food Insecurity 27 Rice as a Commercial Crop 29 Conservation 29 Conservation And Development 33 Measures Taken 33 Implementation and Design of ICDP Activities 34 Lessons Learned 35 The Masoala Peninsula ICDP 36 vi

PAGE 7

3 EVALUATING THE FARM HOUSEHOLD AND PROTECTED AREA: A LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL 40 Linear Programming Model (LPM) 41 The Basic Mathematical LPM 45 Procedure 46 Assumptions 47 The Data 48 Analysis 49 The Basic Simulation Model: Rice 1 and Tavy, and Purchase of Tavy Allowed 50 Alternative Model: Rice 1 Without Tavy and Purchase of Tavy is Not Allowed 52 Conclusion and Implications 53 4 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 54 The Basic Systems in the Conservation and Development Relationships . . 54 Decisions, Goals and Strategies in the Grand System of Relationships: A Principal-Agent Paradigm 60 Differences in Perspectives 64 Ethics, Equity and Sustainability 75 5 SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION MODEL 79 The Institutional Cognitive Pattern 79 The Model 80 The Traditional System 82 The ICDP System 83 Analysis 83 Approaches 83 Example of Tavy in the Masoala Case Study 84 Beyond the Masoala Case Study 86 Conclusion 87 6 SUMMARY AND FOUNDATIONS OF A SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR THE ICDP IN MADAGASCAR 89 An Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System 89 Evaluation System 94 Monitoring System 96 Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation System (SEMES) 99 vii

PAGE 8

7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 110 Conclusion 110 Approach Ill The Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation System (SEMES) . 1 12 The ICDP 113 Recommendations: Prelude to Implementation 114 The SEMES 115 The ICDP 116 APPENDIX A LPM: RICE 1 AND TAVY, PURCHASE OF TAVY 120 B LPM: RICE 1 AND NO TAVY, NO PURCHASE OF TAVY 127 REFERENCES 134 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 138 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2.1. Development activities strategies and activities of the ICDP Masoala (compiled from PCDI Masoala, 1996) 38 3.1. Results of the basic simulation model with rice 1 and tavy 51 6. 1. Analytical Framework of Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation of ICDP in Madagascar 102 ix

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1.1. Map of protected areas in Madagascar 6 1.2. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The basic sets 8 1.3. The socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) 21 3.1. Schematic of debate on effects and impacts of ICDP development activities 43 4.1. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The systems and subsystems 55 4.2. Poverty and environmental degradation 69 4.3. The grand system of relationships in conservation and development: The environments 72 5.1. Signed digraph with feedback for Malagasy ICDP 81 6.1. Planning-monitoring and evaluation model 90 6.2. Differences in perspectives, goals and objectives of actors in ICDPs 95 6.3. The technology innovation process (TIP) and ICDPs' actors 98 6.4. The socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) 100 x

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DESIGN OF A SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM TO MANAGE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN MADAGASCAR By Henri Lucien Abel-Ratovo August 1997 Chairperson: Chris O. Andrew Major Department: Food and Resource Economics The issue examined is how to sustain socioeconomic development, while simultaneously conserving resources and the environment for human population livelihoods in general, in the short term, and across generations in Madagascar. The focus is on a grand system of relationships composed of resources, people, and institutions. A socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) provides a methodology for sustainability analysis of integrated conservation and development in Masoala, northeastern Madagascar. It considers the Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) manager's concern for maintaining resilience of the protected area along with the well-being of nearby farm households. The SEMES, a package of management tools, is composed of three systemic parts: 1) a linear xi

PAGE 12

programming model (LPM); 2) an institutional cognitive pattern (ICP) evaluation model; and 3) statistical analysis (STAT). It is argued that changes, and/or constancies, of welltargeted indicators signal positive or negative effects on sustainability of integrated conservation and development, allowing for efficient management of development activities conducted in the ICDP system. Also, signals provide tools to decision-makers, especially the ICDP managers, for management and policy making purposes. A human pressure (slash and burn or "tavy" in this case study) made in the protected area by a farm household is tied to a farm production subsystem, itself related to other subsystems in the farm household's livelihood system. The farm production subsystem is targeted for change. Results of LPM in the Masoala ICDP case study show that farm households rationally perform tavy culture because of their constrained possibilities. Prohibiting tavy decreases farm household welfare dramatically. A specific development activity, including its constraints and performance, introduced by the ICDP to respond to farm household needs and the pressure can be evaluated, monitored, and managed efficiently with the SEMES management tools. The ICP evaluation model shows that if no intervention is made in the "traditional" setting of farm households, population growth and increasing food and nonfood demands lead to the increase of secondary forests, and depletion of primary forests, natural resources, and biodiversity. However, the success of ICDP interventions with development activities might not be sustainable unless infrastructure and marketing systems are improved.

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Problematique: The Malagasy Conservation and Development Paradigm Socioeconomic activities in food and non-food production and consumption alter the environment, natural resources, and biodiversity in Madagascar. The desire of the human population in conducting the activities, of course, is to better its livelihood. A fundamental issue is how to lay a basis for sustainable development, 1 while simultaneously conserving resources and the environment for production, consumption, and human population livelihoods in general, in the short-term and across generations. The problematic relationships in Madagascar's resource conservation and socioeconomic development paradigm are complex and urgent. As farm households' needs and production practices lead to disappearance of unique and endemic natural resources, biodiversity in protected areas is seriously threatened. Poverty, food security, and environmental degradation are legitimate concerns for policy and decision-makers, 1 "Today, there is still a real need to enable die operational ization of sustainability concepts. Farmers, researchers, and extension workers need a definition of sustainability that is scientific, open to hypothesis testing, and practicable. A general methodology for sustainability analysis does not exist at any level, though more progress has been made at some levels (e.g., the field level) than at others." (Kelly, 1995, p. 1-2) "Sustainable development is itself something of a paradox. The phrase implies that something must change but that something must also remain constant. The paradox appears in a number of forms, and its resolution can provide the direction to seek for investments mat could sustain development." (Holling in Gunderson et al., 1995, p. 25) 1

PAGE 14

international donors, national and international planners and investors, and Malagasy producers and consumers. This work designs a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) that has broad adaptability. It provides a methodology for sustainability analysis of the Masoala integrated conservation and development in northeastern Madagascar as an example of its use. This location provides empirical evidence for the design and methodology of the SEMES. Through socioeconomic indicators at different levels in a "grand system of relationships," the evolution of the Masoala integrated conservation and development can be monitored and evaluated. The proposed methodology for ICDP management combines conventional (data analysis) and participatory (participating actors) monitoring and evaluation approaches, and considers the concern of the ICDP managers and decisionmakers for sustainability and resilience of the protected area and farm household systems. The issues are addressed simultaneously, and studied in a grand system composed of resources, people and institutions. The proposed socioeconomic indicators of sustainability focus on 1) the behavior of farm households in the peripheral zone of the Masoala protected area; 2) the institutional setting and environment of the integrated conservation and development; and 3) changes in the farm household, the protected area, and the institutional systems. It is argued that changes, and/or constancies, of the indicators signal positive or negative effects on sustainability of integrated conservation and development. Signals allow for rectification, improvement, modification and/or reorientation of activities conducted in

PAGE 15

3 the ICDP system. Also, signals provide tools to decision-makers, especially the ICDP managers, for management and policy making purposes. Overview of Problems and Causal Relationships The Masoala ICDP (micro level) evolves in the socioeconomic situation of Madagascar (macro level). Witnessing "extreme human poverty" among the rural population during trips around ICDPs in the northern region of Madagascar, a USAID evaluation team (Barbour et al., 1992) suggests that unless the macroeconomic environment is improved, the ICDPs will always encounter hinderances in their conservation and development efforts. Recognizing this perspective, this work provides a descriptive macro background about Madagascar, but focuses on the analyses of the micro level situation as depicted in the case of Masoala. According to World Bank (1995) figures, Madagascar is among the poorest and most environmentally at risk countries in the World (Chapter 2). Poverty and environmental degradation co-exist in the agriculture-based economy. About 75% of the Madagascar population is estimated to be farm households. Poverty prevails in both the urban and rural sectors. Population growth and socioeconomic factors interrelate, and mutually reinforce environmental and biodiversity degradation. Increased demand for food and non-food items for a growing human population is not met by equal changes in the supply from agricultural production in Madagascar. As a corollary, low purchasing power for farm households, along with weak infrastructure and marketing systems, limits access to

PAGE 16

4 available food and non-food items. As a result, resources from primary forests and biodiversity are exploited to compensate for the gap between demand and supply from production and/or purchase. Major concerns to the national and international communities are the competitive relationships between conservation of Madagascar's disappearing unique and endemic natural resources and biodiversity, and socioeconomic development of the human population. As illustrated by the Masoala situation, but holding true around all protected areas in Madagascar, human pressure 2 on the environment constitutes one of the leading threats to conservation. Pressure is especially exerted by peripheral zone farm households in the protected area for purposes such as food production and consumption, income, and energy (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992; Kremen et al., 1997; PCDI Masoala, 1996). It is believed that the Malagasy farm household looks for the best alternatives, among those available to it, in production, income, expenditures, and consumption. That is, the household is socioeconomically and culturally rational. Farmers attempt to improve household welfare, given the resource constraints they face in production, in geophysical and socioeconomic environments, such as land availability and land characteristics, and in markets and institutional settings in which they must function. In order to achieve its objectives and goals subject to resource constraints in production, the farm household is assumed to maximize its annual cash balance available for 2 The pressures are destructive actions exerted by the rural households in the protected areas, such as "Tavy" (slash and burn) culture, collecting and gathering natural resources (honey, wood and plants for different purposes, bamboo, crayfish, frog and other items), hunting (lemurs, wild pigs, and other animals) and forest pasturing of cattle.

PAGE 17

discretionary spending. In such a framework, presented with resource constraints and a constrained overall environment, the farm household forms its behavior with the best available information it possesses; that is, farm household circumstances result from various possibilities and constraints. By understanding the limited production, income, and consumption possibilities available to farm households, it is possible to understand how poverty of the farm household is a result of resource constraints, and consequently, why and how the protected area is depleted. One pressure, the "tavy" (slash and burn practice of rice culture), is chosen for specific consideration, and the cropping system of Masoala farm households is simulated with a linear programming model (Chapter 3). To address the concerns of conservation and development simultaneously, the USAID funded Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) were initiated in 1989 under the Sustainable Approaches to Viable Environmental Management (SAVEM) program (Swanson, 1995). Madagascar depends heavily on international aid and assistance for the conservation of its environment and its socioeconomic development. Concepts and causal relationships about conservation and development dealt with by the ICDP derive from different levels of influence, intervention, and perspectives, i.e. international, national, local, and individual. Such differing perspectives influence the ICDP activities. The Masoala ICDP is one of 37 protected areas designated as functioning or potential ICDPs in Madagascar (Figure 1.1).

PAGE 18

Figure 1.1. Map of protected areas in Madagascar. Source: Tropical Research and Development, Inc., Gainesville, 1996.

PAGE 19

7 The Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) Paradigm. The Malagasy conservation and development paradigm can be conceptualized as systems of resources and people (Chapter 4). The concept of integrated conservation and development emerged from the relationships between those systems. Farm households in the peripheral zone around a protected area exert destructive pressures on natural resources and biodiversity through their livelihood activities. These pressures are caused by constraints faced by the farm households to satisfy their basic needs, such as production, income, consumption, and energy. In other words, the problematic in this paradigm points to these relationships between the resource systems (protected area) and people (peripheral zone farm household). Basic systems. The integrated conservation and development paradigm by itself is a grand system of relationships as sketched in Figure 1.2. Four sets, each of which is a system with subsystems, interrelate and interact in the grand system. They include 1) the institutional set—international and Malagasy institutional and organizational systems, and the ICDP system; 2) the protected area set-natural systems; 3) the farm household set-livelihood systems in the peripheral zone; and 4) the introduced development activities set— varied types of activity systems and subsystems. Institutions and development activities are introduced in the conservation and development paradigm, leading to the ICDP scheme.

PAGE 20

8

PAGE 21

9 The self-regulation of, and interrelations and interactions among, these sets and their subsystems determine their own and the overall system's structure, organization, internal and external linkages, resilience 3 and sustainability. They constitute the grand system within which the ICDP is expected to manage change. In this framework, the grand system of relationships is said to be sustainable when the synergy among the sets and their subsystems maintains the viability, durability and operationality of the system in space (physical location) and time (from season and year to across generations). Some subsystems will work positively and others negatively toward sustainability. Boundaries being necessary for systemic approaches, it is evident that many other subsystems and factors are relegated as secondary. From an ICDP management and socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation point of view, the subsystems described are thought to contain the leading factors for integrated conservation and development sustainability. Goals and expectations. Framers of the ICDP concept expected it to provide new Sustainable Approaches to a Viable Environmental Management (SAVEM) program, promoted and applied by USAID in Madagascar (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992). The approaches stress the importance of the role and impact of peripheral zone farm households in the management of protected areas by involving them through introduced development activities. Introduced development activities are expected to meet the basic needs of these farm households. The ICDP expects farm households will 3 Resilience is defined as the capacity and ability of the system in question to absorb exogenous and endogenous destabilizing factors, and/or to adjust for continuity in its survival pattern relative to those factors.

PAGE 22

10 consequently decrease and/or cease the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity in the protected area. Thus, these approaches are designed and expected to reduce the conflict over sustainable use of natural resources by integrating the knowledge base and strategies for socioeconomic development with the conservation challenge. In other words, the ICDP applies the socioeconomic development knowledge base and strategies to approaches for identifying and achieving the complementary goals and objectives of conservation and development. As such, a simultaneous goal of the ICDP, besides conservation of the protected area, is to improve the standard of living 4 of the farm households in peripheral zones. The hope is that this improvement will decrease and/or cease the pressures exerted by farm households in protected area. Actors in the institutional and farm household sets (Figure 1.2) do not have the same expectations, objectives and goals (Chapter 4, 5, 6). For example, conservation stands as a priority for donors, but relatively short-term food security concerns are at the core of the socioeconomic development issue for peripheral zone farm households. In between donors and farm households, actors see the problematic in the conservation and development paradigm from other perspectives, such as input and total factor productivity and sustainability. In other words, global goals and objectives of conservation and development might be shared, but specific objectives and strategies as priorities and concerns differ in the field. Adding a time dimension, where perspectives on specific 4 The households' standard of living refers to the satisfaction of their socioeconomic and cultural needs, such as levels of production, revenue, consumption, schooling and health.

PAGE 23

11 objectives and strategies change due to changes in institutional structures and actors, renders the problem more complex. Development activities. The ICDPs introduce development activities to the farm households and communities in peripheral zones that exert destructive pressures in the protected area. These activities provide production, revenue, consumption, and/or sociocultural infrastructure alternatives. Development strategies in the ICDPs often include many activities which target a combination of the components of the problematic relationships in the systems of resources and people (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992). However, it is possible that expectations and the ICDP goals may not be reached because of field implementation problems, resulting from uncertainty, vagueness and conflicts in the definitions of what is to be done and how (Swanson, 1995, 1996). Insuring the efficiency, viability, and sustainability of the new integrated conservation and development approach requires managerial provision for sustainable socioeconomic alternatives directly related to the pressures exerted by the farm households in the peripheral zones. Further, goal achievement means providing a suitable environment for socioeconomic activities, as well as involving farm people in the management practices of their own resources, as they become involved with the varied socioeconomic alternatives. One aspect of the present research is to focus on a framework to evaluate and monitor the allocation and use of resources by peripheral zone farm households. It is assumed that other community development activities, such as health and education, are

PAGE 24

12 conducted as a part of the ICDP efforts. This work will then look at individual and group-oriented development activities, focusing on farm household production, income and consumption. It also assembles a methodology which can be applied to development activities related to conservation of the environment under various circumstances in Madagascar. As such, the socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) to be proposed constitutes a fifth set (Figure 1.2), which would evaluate and monitor the effective linkages at the intersection of the existing four sets-institutions, peripheral zone farm household, protected area, and introduced development activities (Chapter 6). The goal is to ensure efficient and lasting management of sustainable environmental and socioeconomic systems, in the face of complex and unpredictable events. The Masoala Peninsula ICDP. The Masoala peninsula was among the first priority sites in the Madagascar Environmental Action Plan in 1990. It is located between the Toamasina and Antsiranana provinces, in the "Fivondronana" (districts) of Maroantsetra and Antalaha. The size of the peninsula is 520,000 hectares with 11 watersheds. A population of about 45,000 inhabitants live in a peripheral zone to 110,000 hectares of primary forest. A national park composed of a terrestrial part of 210,000 hectares and a marine part of 6,000 hectares constitutes the main block to be protected by the ICDP (PCDI Masoala, 1996). While the Masoala ICDP is now run by a consortium of international NGOs (CARE, Wildlife Conservation Society and the Peregrine Fund) under the guidance of DEF (governmental Direction of Waters and Forestry) and ANGAP (National

PAGE 25

13 Association for the Management of Protected Areas), it began differently. The DEF started in 1989 as a USAID funded conservation and development project with national NGOs. Objectives were not met and the project was suspended in 1991. A transitory phase of conceptualization and reorientation was conducted by CARE International in 1992, leading to the USAID SAVEM funded Masoala ICDP in 1993 (Kremen et al., 1997). The goal of the Masoala project is to ensure "the long-term health of the biological and human spheres." Three midand long-term objectives are as follows: 1) the conservation of Masoala biodiversity by the year 2000; 2) adoption by 50% of pilot zones' population of one or several practices for sustainable management of resources in 1996; and 3) a supportive local, regional, national and international institutional environment to ensure the continuity and continuance of integrated conservation and development activities in the Masoala region by the year 2000. To attain the goal and objectives, four strategies are followed: 1) management of the protected area (delimitation and park management); 2) sustainable exploitation and use of natural resources; 3) organization of rural communities; and 4) institutional development at different levels. The lessons learned from 1995 point to the desire of the Masoala ICDP to harmonize the goal and objectives of the project with the interests of the local population. A felt need to reinforce the internal (within project) and external (local, regional, national, international) communication emerged and called for an effective and supportive

PAGE 26

14 institutional environment. In response, the Information-Education-Communication (IEC) unit was created. Research Problem Insuring the management and operationality of the linkages between development activities and conservation is a requisite for the efficiency, viability, and sustainability of the integrated conservation and development approach. This can be monitored and evaluated through the socioeconomic effects of introduced development activities on the farm household standard of living and the impacts of these activities on its use of natural resources in the protected area. These programs must consider the needs and aspirations of people. However, lack of sound information on target groups and target areas presently hinders the design, consistency, focus, implementation, and management of conservation and development programs. Understanding production, income generation, food consumption and food security issues at the farm household level in the peripheral zone, and cognizance of the institutional setting of the ICDP are therefore needed. The desired knowledge should give insight into various policy questions and general beliefs which remain crucial in identifying, defining and evaluating socioeconomic development and conservation strategies and consequences. Such information helps strategists and decision-makers anticipate and understand changes, derived pressures and stresses brought on by introduced development activities. The need for information arises at all levels, from the senior decision-makers at the national coordination and international donor levels to the

PAGE 27

15 grass-roots and individual levels. In our case, this translates from ANGAP, DEF and USAID to the ICDPs 5 and to the farm household members. Well-defined and appropriate indicators and methods for assessing interactions among protected area, peripheral zone farm household, and ICDP institutional environment are needed. Lack or insufficiency of such indicators and methods precludes solid bases for decision-making at all levels. This deficiency detracts from a self-regulating sustainability of integrated conservation and development systems. Further, the scarcity of scientific research findings in socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation of the development process jeopardizes the chance that resource utilization will improve farm household welfare and reduce negative impacts on protected areas, natural resources and biodiversity. Finally, rarity of reliable farm level information prevents the formulation and selection of sound conservation and development policies in the decision-making process. Hypotheses Best and sufficient information, from a socioeconomic theory perspective, is one prerequisite for optimum decision-making at the farm, ICDP, and national management levels. The following hypotheses are designed to express the broad need for knowledge 5 ICDPs are defined as the organizational entities which manage the projects at the field level, such as CARE International, World Wildlife Fund, and so on. The National Association for die Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP) is a Malagasy institutional organization coordinating the management of all protected areas, and so all ICDPs in Madagascar. DEF is the Malagasy government Direction of Waters and Forestry. USAID is the main donor of the ICDPs considered in this study.

PAGE 28

16 of linkages from farm households to the national and international levels. For purposes of illustration, specific observations concerning the hypotheses apply to the Masoala case. 1. It is expected that the identification, evaluation, and monitoring of development activities, which are technically, environmentally, socioeconomically, and institutionally feasible, by well informed managers will improve the well-being of peripheral zone farm households and decrease and/or cease the pressures exerted by them in the protected areas. That is, a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) will have a positive impact on farm household welfare and reduce human pressures in the protected areas. 2. Building from the farm household level: a. If the production activities thought to deplete the protected area are restricted, then the welfare of farm households in the peripheral zone will decrease, ceteris paribus. b. Households that diversify their agricultural activities and buy rice are at least as well off as households that produce enough rice to meet their subsistence needs. 3. The understanding, description, and analyses of concepts and their relationships (including linkages at various levels) about conservation and development will converge and focus the values, beliefs, and incentives of the institutional organizations and actors involved in the ICDP interventions.

PAGE 29

17 Objectives The goal of this research is to contribute to the success, efficiency and sustainability of new approaches to viable environmental management. This will be achieved by providing perennial management tools through a socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) that can detect success or failure, efficiency and sustainability of development activities in reducing human pressures in Madagascar's protected areas. Situation analysis, mission, strategies, planning, and project/activity design are considered. Evaluation and monitoring provide feedback to the real world situation when observing the products and impacts of project activities. The research methods include: 1) a linear programming model (LPM) that describes and analyses the peripheral zone farm household cropping systems, examining especially production, income, and consumption, and 2) an institutional cognitive pattern (ICP) 6 evaluation model that describes and analyzes the institutional setting of the ICDP. A tool not used in this research but necessary for a long-run management approach is 3) a statistical (STAT) analysis using data as indicators to monitor for sustainability in an 6 "The nature of people's aspirations, needs, values, beliefs and preferences and their representation is a debatable, but unavoidable, issue due to its implications for research.... Thus, a premise is established that representations of aspirations, needs and knowledge are selectively chosen and formulated as causal concepts in the process of specifying a problem and opportunity domain for action in the solution of an identified social problem.... As a decision-making framework such a [institutional cognitive] pattern can bring values, beliefs, knowledge, processes, policies and objectives into a causal representation; all of these representations or concepts are selected and formulated by the decision makers with a shared sense of commitment and, also, as determinants of their behavior." (Fajardo, 1995, pp. 35, 36, 41)

PAGE 30

18 ICDP. Some of these indicators are presented in a summary statement for the overall framework (Chapter 6). This research proposes a SEMES which looks at the links among the ICDP development activities, the well-being of peripheral farm households and their exploitation of protected areas. The concepts and methodologies developed are designed to be useful to the ICDP managers and decision-makers, ANGAP, DEF, and the donors (USAID) for optimum decision-making in conservation and development management. As a further extension, the outcomes are also expected to be applied to and improve how the peripheral farm households manage their production systems. The Masoala location is selected because it contains the largest block of near intact primary forest with numerous biological treasures on the east coast of Madagascar. Further, it is among, if not the first ICDP where at least limited socioeconomic data for monitoring and evaluation purposes are available. Procedures Because concern is primarily for analysis of the relationships among the peripheral zone farm households, the pressures in the protected area, and the institutional setting surrounding the Masoala ICDP, systems procedures and adaptive management concepts are used. 7 The systems management approach allows identification and delimitation of 7 "While systems can be conceptualized at any of many scale levels, a systems approach defines a specific scale of interest and an appropriate boundary of analysis. The systems approach to analysis is marked by recognition of the whole system and the interactions within that system rather than looking only at a system part.... Systems may be grouped together to form a larger system, and each system is itself made up of component subsystems. This structure is referred to as the systems hierarchy." (Kelly, 1995, p. 9)

PAGE 31

19 the domains and relationships of analysis. An adaptive management approach provides the necessary flexibility in time and space to consider "uncertain" interactions among resources, people and institutions. The aim is to propose a SEMES that evaluates and monitors development activities at the peripheral zone farm household level. Such a SEMES is expected to help manage 1) the effects of development activities on farm household production systems and standard of living and 2) the impacts of these activities on household behavior towards the protected areas. For the sake of understanding, presentation, and operationality of a very complex task given to the ICDP field managers, the LPM and ICP evaluation, and long-term STAT indicators proposed in this work are maintained as simplified as possible. Also, such simplicity is dictated by the amount and nature of data available. Elements in each analytical subsystem can be increased and made more complex as needed for broader analyses, and as more data become available. Successful management of ICDPs calls for an underlying assumption for the framework adopted. That is, the SEMES established will remain in place on a long-term basis. Thus, the SEMES can provide a permanent link among sets within the grand system of relationships (Figure 1.2). Evaluation and monitoring focus on these 7 (continued). "The basic tenets of adaptive management all deal with the unpredictable interactions between people and ecosystems as they evolve together.... The primary expectation of adaptive management is the unexpected. That is, systems are unpredictable.... Surprises are inevitable; hence policies must always be adaptive. . . . Recognition of processes at die appropriate space and time scales is reported by all the case studies as a clear bridge to improved management.... One of die challenges is to develop understanding and methodology that spans across space and time scales." (Gunderson, Holling, and Light, 1995, pp. 491, 528)

PAGE 32

20 relationships by design. Management elements of the SEMES are expressed as interrelated tools or closely related subsystems (Figure 1.3). The "real world" is conceptualized through the grand system of relationships. This complex "real world" is depicted as an ICP evaluation model and a set of STAT indicators. A linear programming model (LPM) identifies and evaluates relevant indicators to analyze the behavior and constraints of peripheral zone farm households. The LPM can be viewed, for analytical purposes, as receiving signals from, as well as sending signals to the ICP and STAT. The ICP (ex-ante) evaluation model is a matrical iteration process based on concepts and relationships of institutional actors. 8 The "ICP evaluation model" is defined as the causal interrelations (patterns) among selectively chosen concepts shared by the institutional set (Figure 1.2) and the knowledge of linkages/relationships among those concepts (cognitive). It provides direction and initial, midand long-term periodic evaluation to the integrated conservation and development process. The concepts and relationships in the model are based on the literature and the experience of the researcher, concerning the issues that are evolving within the conservation and development paradigm in Madagascar and elsewhere. An analytical framework of an ICP evaluation model leads to the definition of the indicators to be evaluated and monitored, and to the specification of the monitoring model. It is a term given to a representation of a structural core made up of causal concepts and broad relationships that influence collective human behavior (Fajardo, 1993). It finds its source in Kosko's (1986, 1988) Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM) theory.

PAGE 33

21

PAGE 34

22 Statistical (STAT) indicators can contribute to both the ICP evaluation model and the LPM, and results of each can be statistically tested and monitored over time to observe how expectations and reality change. This requires of course time-series indicators which are not presently available. This research is divided into 7 chapters. The present chapter introduced the study of a case to validate tools and a conceptual framework (SEMES) to be used by ICDP managers. A descriptive background of conservation and development in Madagascar and the Masoala peninsula as a basis for the remaining chapters is introduced in Chapter 2. Socioeconomic indicators to help in understanding household behavior are identified in Chapter 3 using a linear programming model (LPM). The LPM provides a basis for 1) a conceptual framework of the "real world" in Chapter 4, and 2) an analytical framework of the ICP evaluation model for understanding institutional relationships as an ex-ante approach to evaluation (Chapter 5). Criteria to be monitored and evaluated are defined, and the foundations for a successful SEMES for the Masoala and Malagasy ICDPs follow in Chapter 6, putting together the linkages among the systems within the overall framework of the SEMES, including the LPM and ICP models, and STAT indicators. Conclusions and recommendations based on the research and analyses of data from the Masoala ICDP are given in Chapter 7. Thus, issues in the conservation and development paradigm are investigated and insights on policies for regulating and affecting ICDPs are provided.

PAGE 35

CHAPTER 2 MADAGASCAR UNDER STRESS This chapter provides a general background on Madagascar, followed by a description of the Masoala peninsula ICDP domain. The macroeconomic indicators described, drawn mainly from World Bank (1995), give a rough idea of the country's socioeconomic stress. Madagascar is now one of the poorest countries in the world. Related to this, it has also become one of the most environmentally at risk countries in the 1990s. Some measures have been taken to protect the environment and to promote population welfare. Although part of one of the well endowed regions in terms of resources, the Masoala peninsula follows the general trends of the country's indicators. Because of its "extreme poverty," Madagascar depends heavily on international aid and assistance for the conservation of its environment and its socioeconomic development. The World Bank (1995) estimates that the country's total external debt grew from US$ 1,223 million in 1980 to US$ 4,594 million in 1993 (US$ converted at official exchange rate). 23

PAGE 36

24 Socioeconomic Situation Access to Food Madagascar is classified by the World Bank (1995) as a low-income, severely indebted, exporter of non-fuel primary products, with a declining GNP per capita. In 1993, GNP per capita stood at US$ 220. At the same time, total population was estimated at 14 million, of which about 74% are rural people. Total population is projected at 17 and 34 million in 2000 and 2025, respectively. Performance indicators for the economy during the periods of 1970-80 and 1980-93, relative to the average annual growth rate of population, suggest reasons for concern. Food security can be defined as permanent access by all people to sufficient food for their well-being (World Bank, 1986). It follows that Madagascar has been experiencing food insecurity. This food insecurity is partly caused by insufficient production as related to the population growth. Indeed, if the Malagasy population growth rate is 3.3%, then food production should increase at the same rate, at least, for Madagascar to meet food security requirements without dependence on aid, world markets, and external debt. In production, fertilizer consumption has regressed from 2,900 grams per hectare of arable land in 1979/80 to 2,500 grams in 1992/93, while land in production has increased. Food production per capita during the period 1980-93 indicates a negative average annual growth rate (-1.5%). These figures suggest that growth of factor

PAGE 37

25 productivity in agriculture is stagnant and/or low. The insufficiency in production is also shown by cereal imports which amounted to 110,000 tons in 1980 and 111,000 tons in 1993. Further, food aid in cereals increased from 14,000 tons in 1979/80 to 58,000 tons in 1992/93. Besides insufficient production, a second factor which restrains access to food in Madagascar is the population's low purchasing power. GNP per capita declined annually by 2.6% in the 13 years from 1980 to 1993. The level of GNP per capita at US$ 220 in 1993, considered low by World Bank standards, when combined with inflationary prices, exacerbates family purchasing power. The average annual rate of inflation was 9.9% during 1970-80 and increased to 16.1% in the 1980-93 period. While the consumer price index rose from 30.46 in 1980 to 211.47 in 1993, the agricultural domestic price index increased from 29.59 in 1980 to 203.47 in 1993. The overall (GDP) price index was 29.50 in 1980 and 220.07 in 1993 (1987 = 100). The annual average conversion factor, Malagasy francs (FMG) per US$, "feeding" the inflationary situation, increased from 211.279 in 1980 to 1922.85 in 1993, and stabilized around 4,000 after 1994 when "liberalization" of the economy was in effect with structural adjustment programs. It reached FMG 5,000 per US$ in 1997. Difficulties prevail for efforts to counter inflation in the unstructured economic setting. As might be expected, terms of trade (export prices f.o.b over import prices c.i.f) also deteriorated by declining from 121.4 in 1980 to 68.2 in 1993. The share of primary commodities in exports in 1970 was 84%, and it declined to 73% in 1993. The value of exports (f.o.b), from US$ 203 million in 1973, increased with a high of US$ 402 million

PAGE 38

26 in 1980, before declining to US$ 267 million in 1992. Finally, the share of food in the value of merchandise imports was 12% in 1970 and 11% in 1993. As a third factor repressing access to food, it is suspected that unequal wealth distribution as well as resource endowments, common among the rural population, limit food production and purchase (Mercado, 1989; Zeller, 1993; Abel-Ratovo et al., 1988, 1996). Thus, the majority of the population is expected to live in poverty. In short, the macro data suggest insufficient agricultural production and the inability of people who must purchase food to acquire enough of it. Deteriorating production processes and output volume, unequal wealth distribution, low income, stagnating food imports, and increasing food aid suggest the majority of the Malagasy population cannot access enough food. Alarming rates of deficiencies in some essential micronutrients in different regions of Madagascar have been reported by the National Program of Food and Nutrition Monitoring (PNSAN) of the Malagasy Ministry of Scientific Research (1993). Food Insecurity and the Economy The gap between the growth rates of population and production is aggravated by the characteristics of Malagasy agriculture and a weak infrastructure favoring exploitive marketing channels and practices at the farm level. Such weaknesses lead to low prices for producers and high prices for consumers, deteriorating terms of trade at the farm level, declining farm income and suspected increasing inequality in wealth distribution (Barbour et al., 1992; Abel-Ratovo et al., 1996). Weak industrial sector and service

PAGE 39

27 sector growth place further pressure on agricultural areas. These combined factors contribute to the extreme poverty of Madagascar, affecting food security. Poverty impacts directly on the allocation and use of resources in agriculture, and on the use of natural resources in protected areas. Seasonal Rice Production and Food Insecurity A fourth cause of food insecurity in Madagascar is the temporary decline in seasonal access to enough food. Insufficient production and the population's low purchasing power interact with the effects of both "hungry" and "normal" seasons in a given year at the farm household level. The "hungry" season occurs during a part of the rainy season and a part of the dry season, at the pre-harvest period of irrigated rice. The shortage of rice, the staple food, during that period raises its price, making rice consumption inaccessible to much of the consuming population. At the farm household level, those people who are expected to be in difficulty experience a combination of the following circumstances: no or insufficient production, no or insufficient storage, and sold output at low prices for cash needs in the previous "normal" season. During the hungry season, the World Bank (Kahn, 1990) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (Zeller, 1993) suggest that over 40% of Malagasy rural households they surveyed consume less than 80 percent of the recommended 2,100 daily calories per capita as defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) for a healthy and active life. In other words, food

PAGE 40

28 insecurity is transitory 1 in Madagascar. Furthermore, it appears in its worst form (World Bank, 1986); that is, it produces famine in Madagascar as evidenced by facts in recent years in different regions. The World Bank and IFPRI studies suggest also that food insecurity occurs during the "normal" season, which takes place during the post-harvest period of irrigated rice. During this period of the year, a little over 30% of the rural households surveyed consume less than 80% of the daily recommended 2, 100 calories per capita (World Bank, 1990; Zeller, 1993). An anthropometric measurement of preschoolers aged six months to six years followed the same patterns as calorie consumption in terms of malnutrition during both seasons (Zeller, 1993). These findings indicate that food insecurity is also chronic 2 in Madagascar. Food insecurity in Madagascar is probably based on rice which is the primary and staple food in the country. It has been estimated that Malagasy people consume about 172 kilograms of rice per capita per year (Mercado, 1989). Sixty percent of the caloric intake of rural households is derived from rice alone, although large variations prevail by region (rice-based producers or not), season (hungry, normal and intermediate seasons within year), and level of wealth (Zeller, 1993). 1 The World Bank (1986) suggests transitory food insecurity as being a temporary decline in a household's access to enough food. 2 The World Bank (1986) suggests chronic food insecurity as being a permanently inadequate diet due to the inability to acquire food.

PAGE 41

29 Rice as a Commercial Crop Besides its importance as a staple food, rice is also one of the most important crops in terms of production volume and as a commercial crop. Most farm households are semi-commercialized; that is, they produce part for subsistence, and part for sale. From a net exporter of rice in the 1960s, Madagascar has become increasingly a net importer. This shift from exporter status is thought to be due to the rapidly growing population and to stagnant paddy yields (Mercado, 1989). Mercado (1989) studied the constraints on rice production in a rice-based farming system in the northwest region of Madagascar and concluded that the farmers behave rationally as profitmaximizers after their food consumption needs are satisfied. This region is rice self-sufficient and exports rice to other (domestic) regions. However, she estimated that a yield per hectare increase of at least 40% was necessary for existing "improved technologies" to be adopted by farmers. Under prevailing prices, their adoption was not profitable. How these changes in technology would influence broad conservation concerns, resource allocation and use beyond yield per hectare, and broader socioeconomic concerns has not been investigated. Conservation Madagascar has become one of the most environmentally at risk countries by the 1990s. People exploit natural resources and biodiversity in protected areas for reasons such as production, income, food, and energy needs. Consequently, the environment is

PAGE 42

30 deteriorating. Among the most important types of pressures identified in protected areas are the following broad categories: production by "tavy" (slash and burn), grazing, tree cutting, collecting flora, hunting fauna, and mining (PCDI Masoala, 1996; Swanson, 1995; Kremen et al., 1997). Often, one farm household engages in one or a combination of these practices. Production by "tavy" is a widespread slash and burn practice. Farmers clear and burn parts of forests. Among others, there are two main reasons for this practice: socioculture and land constraints. It has been a Malagasy tradition in many regions to grow rice and other crops using the "tavy" techniques. Ashes from the burnt plants are considered as easy-to-get and no cost fertilizers. Also, the slash and burn practice facilitates land clearing, preparation, and maintenance for crop growing. Similarly, farmers practice "tavy" to extend their farm size. This second reason is true mainly for people around protected areas where indeed land constraints prevail. A review of the data on Masoala farm households suggests both irrigated rice and "tavy" areas exploited are positively related to farm size. Another important pressure in protected areas is related to livestock raising. To feed the animals, farmers either burn land for pasture or send their animals into protected areas. The "tavy" and livestock raising practices result in soil impoverishment, forest clearing, and progressive destruction of protected areas. Tree cutting, the next broad type of pressure in protected areas, provides for farmers' income and personal needs. Business in tree cutting consists of selling precious and/or non -precious woods, or charcoal. Tree cutting is also practiced to satisfy personal

PAGE 43

31 needs, such as for home construction and for energy. As a result of tree cutting, trees and flora experience continuous depletion which, of course, impacts also on the habitats of fauna. The next broad type of pressure in protected areas is the collection of flora. Certain plants are gathered for medical and food purposes. In particular, select wild racines and tubers, such as "ovy ala" or forest potato, are greatly appreciated during the "hungry" season. In addition, select flora can be used for commercial ends. In short, flora collection contributes to the on-going demolition of natural resources and biodiversity in protected areas. Another important type of pressure in protected areas is destruction of fauna and biodiversity through hunting practices. Because of their inability to access food, farmers hunt forest animals, including endangered ones, for consumption and sale. For example, lemurs, birds and bats are slaughtered for their meat or sold as live animals. Snakes, chameleons and other endangered species are either sold or killed for income purposes. As a result, the fauna in protected areas is disappearing. Hunting practices also place pressure on biodiversity as areas where hunting takes place are often cleared. By the same token, spreading of pollen through birds and bats may decrease. Mining in some parts of Madagascar has an impact on the environment, in particular on natural resources and biodiversity. These impacts are many fold. Among them are pollution and destruction of the immediate environment about the mining sites, which often are proximate to and/or inside protected areas. In addition, mining industry workers often exert destructive pressures similar to those of farmers to complement their

PAGE 44

32 livelihood. Beyond these destructive practices, socio-political forces provide incentives to mining exploitation in view of expectations for "national socioeconomic benefits." Thus, national and international demand for mining products, flora as well as dead and/or alive fauna exacerbate the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity. These destructive actions result in deforestation and continuous extinction of fauna and flora. On an area of 587,000 km 2 for the whole country, the remaining total forest area changed from 171,000 km 2 in 1980 to 158,000 km 2 in 1990, with an annual deforestation rate of 0.8% of total forest area (World Bank, 1995). Thus, damaging "artificial" shocks to the "equilibrium" of the ecosystem are on-going. It follows that these many pressures heavily affect the resilience and sustainability of ecosystems in Madagascar. Further, the regeneration of primary forests in Madagascar is very slow (Barbour et al., 1992), making the recovery of lost natural heritage unlikely. The overall bleak situation in the relationship between human development and conservation of Madagascar's environmental biodiversity has made of this country one of the most environmentally at risk in the world. Nash (1994) illustrates this situation: The magnitude of the problem is daunting, for virtually everything Madagascar's 12 million people do in their daily struggle against hunger can harm the island's delicate ecosystems. . . . Unfortunately, there is not much time left. Madagascar has one of the highest birthrates in the world, and its population is expected to double over the next three decades, putting excruciating pressure on the shrinking supply of arable land. So many of the slopes have been denuded of trees that by 2015, scientists predict, half of what remains will be lost,... and soon, some of the world's most magical forests and magnificent animals seem destined to disappear forever. Actions are underway to protect the environment, preserve natural resources and biodiversity, and promote socioeconomic development simultaneously.

PAGE 45

33 Conservation And Development Measures Measures Taken The challenges to conservation and development are thought to have existed in Madagascar for a long time. Hence, the resources, production and people paradigm is a universal and all-time situation. Population growth, increasing socioeconomic needs and relations, poverty, rate of deforestation, soil impoverishment and erosion, and international awareness make them more acute nowadays in Madagascar. Preservation, by strict policing and isolation of protected areas, has been conducted with mixed results in Madagascar. Barbour et al. (1992) report successes and failures of this policy on the conservation side. Failures of most integrated rural development strategies and continued environmental degradation have also been reported, and put a question mark on the efficiency and efficacy of such policies alone. To address the concerns of conservation and development simultaneously, the Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) system was put in place in 1989 (Swanson, 1995). The physical domains of the ICDPs are delimited protected areas, surrounded by peripheral zones where farm households are located. There were 37 nationally protected areas in 1993 on 11,200 km 2 , which represent 1.9% of the area of the country (World Bank, 1995). Existing protected areas are classified as national parks, integrated natural reserves and special reserves (Figure 1.1). The Andranomena special reserve (6,420 hectares) was the first one created in 1955. Most of the protected areas were created

PAGE 46

34 around the end of the 1950s, late 1960s and late 1980s. Their sizes vary from 600 hectares (Beza Mahafaly special reserve created in 1986) to 300,000 hectares (Masoala national park created in the late 1980s, classified in 1997), with a mean of 40,886 hectares. Ten protected areas are under the ICDP program. The size of peripheral (buffer) zones, and the population of surrounding local communities vary depending on the regions. The delimitations are still under discussion (Swanson. 1995, 1996). Geophysical situations, mixed with socio-cultural, legal and political issues, render these delimitations problematic. Each ICDP is run by a consortium of international NGOs (WCS, Peregrine Fund, CARE in Masoala) led by one principal operator (CARE in Masoala). These NGOs operate under the guidance of Madagascar's ANGAP (National Association for the Management of Protected Areas) and government DEF (Direction of Waters and Forests). Implementation and Design of ICDP Activities The activities of ICDPs can be summarized into three broad categories: 1. Conservation, including such activities as the establishment of national parks, and the development and implementation of parks management; 2. Development, including the introduction of community, group and individual development activities to improve the socioeconomic welfare of farm households in the peripheral zones; and 3. Research studies that support the conservation and development units.

PAGE 47

35 ICDPs and/or rural communities conceive and generate development activities. Actions are initiated by the ICDPs under two forms: 1. "Integration" ("portes d'entrees") activities are designed to consolidate the presence of the projects into the local communities through, for example, socio-cultural infrastructure, information-education-communication on conservation and development matters and issues; and 2. Individual or group activities generate alternatives for production, revenue and/or consumption, such as tourism-related activities, agroforestry, and an Intensive Rice Culture System ("SRI"). These activities are directly linked to possibly reducing the production, revenue and/or consumption problems that cause pressure in the protected areas by farm households. Lessons Learned It is agreed that enforcing a preservationist model alone is not desirable. The livelihood of people surrounding protected areas needs to be taken into account in the conservation and development paradigm (Swanson, 1995, 1996; Barbour et al., 1992; Kremen et al., 1997). It is assumed that the conservation motive must be integrated with the socioeconomic conditions. Among the activities called for by the ICDPs are monitoring and evaluation of the ICDP itself, conservation and development. Organization charts of all ICDPs, and ANGAP, show these management divisions. Actors in the ICDPs agree on goals but differ in crucial design and implementation of actions to be undertaken. Failures in measures and actions may result

PAGE 48

36 from a lack of shared beliefs, values and incentives. Consequently, ICDP measures may fail to reach overall goals because of a lack of sound and agreed upon socioeconomic criteria for monitoring and evaluation strategies. Good monitoring and evaluation in conservation cannot succeed by ignoring socioeconomic concerns. Consequently, ICDP actions will fail in the long run if socioeconomic aspects related to environmental protection are overlooked. Thus, there is a need for a sound strategy in socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation. The purpose of this research is to suggest this strategy, and identify and clarify the linkages in the grand system of relationships in the conservation and development paradigm. The Masoala Peninsula ICDP 3 During the phase of reorientation of the conservation and development project in the Masoala area in 1993, different pressures and their reasons, intensity and distribution in the protected area were identified by the project team (ICDP Masoala, 1996; Swanson, 1995). In 1994, the project team determined and ranked, in terms of severity, the following human extraction pressures 1) "tavy" culture (slash and burn farming); 2) illicit forest exploitation (logging); 3) cash crops in the protected area (coffee, cloves, vanilla); 4) removing wood for construction; 5) removing secondary forest products (plants, eels, shrimp, crabs); 6) fishing; 7) hunting (lemurs, crocodiles, birds); 8) pasturing of cattle within the protected area; and 9) prospecting for minerals. 3 This section draws heavily on Kremen et al. (1997), ICDP Masoala (1996) and Swanson (1995, 1996). Prior ization and ranking of pressures and their causes are different in ICDP Masoala (1996) and Swanson (1995). We show the ICDP Masoala version.

PAGE 49

37 The prioritized principal causes of these pressures are 1) satisfaction of food needs; 2) traditional land tenure system; 3) demographic pressure; 4) lack of, or insufficient, community structures; 5) lack of technical information; 6) custom and tradition of slash and burn agriculture; 7) lack of protected area surveillance and patrol system; and 8) financial needs. The development activities of the Masoala ICDP are mainly under the department of Rural Animation and Development, but exist also in other departments such as the unit Information-Education-Communication (IEC). The strategies and activities of this department are reported in Table 2.1 (PCDI Masoala, 1996). It would appear that assumptions and expectations about the development activities are debatable when employed for design and implementation.

PAGE 50

c o a a v | a T3 •40 LiriH uni CA S 3 I w 0 and 0 a a | 0 '40 .& 0 '€ CS ictu 0. c local the st tU e fa p 3 CA 1 a W ein 1o H E § & O M -2 > S *3 o0 3 a 1> en a a « a> « S • a 5 cu 2 § 11 u a 5 *> a > 4) in CU V t> is, £ * O § o w CO 3 . o a o a > c 0 o 1 a > -5 0 (0 > c o > a 5 o C a a 0 B 3 "8 > c p. B I if a cu c b a CU CA a u 2 a cu cu cu G a c 11 o o !« cU CI. • o > a -a o o o ecs 5 & S CA a s 9 .g I I > a _0 cu 1 2 * o » J3 £ cu i 1 CU Q. a 3 -3 -§ 0 a 3 M o, a 9 I « 2 a 0 o 3 CO a. > '> o « s a s cu * c« a a o cs -j3 a cs a 0 js .2 -a ». i? ? i .1 § i ° .as a V £ 00 . X CA a v a g jg S s a cu I § S3 5 a
PAGE 51

15 c c ca c v| 0 •B c c a o — 5 01 1 £ "3 Oh d 1! 5 0 > 1 . o > s « i t-» ^ » « b o a a i i a 1 s 8 > c t-H a, E £ 3 a » OJ s Q •j g > a d c .a « 8 a i | 8 o 4> 3 « "9 O. o 8 5. 1^ u o 3 a i o •-2 'C > « g 1 sft 1 I •a » E C '> x 6 > — 9 x p > c 6 3 d as 1 £ £ 5 u 1 i Pa B £ 5 c oe — a a * * 1 39 i B 2? a a s a § tu "3 _ I § e 3 „ 1> 2 « E 1 £ B a " £ 5 a > « a 2 .s >> a •O m .53 £ M | c a V -C s. C u I I e 4> TO C P. O t4_ N o 13 to ft «> 5 c o S CQ d o § J3 3 .2 -o B p 3 b N B to 0) Ml I 5 n u p a. 1 I a | Pa X S 3 5 O q pq "8 a c c o 0 »r a a> TO « ass 2 .> •§ ill a« a i •§ 3 s ^ « M 43 Pa

PAGE 53

CHAPTER 3 EVALUATING THE FARM HOUSEHOLD AND PROTECTED AREA: A LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL One purpose of this research is to provide to managers of the Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) in Madagascar a system of tools for evaluating, monitoring and managing socioeconomic development activities. Within the context of farm household potentials and capabilities, the resilience of the protected area, and the broad-based institutional environment, these tools will assist managers in clarifying the components and relationships in the conservation and development paradigm. They also will identify the determinant relationships among these different sets, facilitating managers' work in targeting groups and activities for the sustainability of the ICDP. ICDP managers thus can provide a vital link among international and national policy and decision-makers, program supervisors, and the project level farm households. The tools proposed are designed to be operational, flexible, and manageable. The ex-ante socioeconomic evaluation system is a two-stage approach with: 1) the linear programming model (LPM) at the interface of evaluation, monitoring and management; and 2) the ICP evaluation model. This Chapter is focused on the LPM. 40

PAGE 54

Linear Programming Model (LPM) 41 Swanson (1996) summarizes one of the main problematics of socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation of ICDP: we are presumably implementing certain development activities, at certain scales, in certain areas, with certain people, based upon some kind of expectation linked to project objectives.... In many cases, the expected impacts have not been thought out clearly enough for major activities to permit the kind of targeted monitoring necessary. Experience has shown that the "conservation" and "development" components of projects have operated independently of each other, like separate subprojects. The "development" has tended to be unfocused "regional rural development," and not within a clearly defined peripheral zone around the parks and reserves.... (p. 13) This statement has been confirmed over the last few years in monitoring and evaluation meetings through harsh debates on why, what, and how questions on approaching the relationships between protected areas and farm households. On the one hand, proponents of a broad or general ("shotgun") approach argue that the systemic and dynamic nature of the farm household and protected area systems make it impossible to distinguish and narrow the effects of any one development activity on any one specific pressure. They contend that development activities also are systemic in their relationships, effects, and impacts among themselves, and on farm household and protected area systems. Thus, a targeted approach in the extreme would be quite unacceptable. On the other hand, proponents of a specific or targeted ("silver bullet") approach argue that, when pressures and their causes are well-defined and understood, it is possible to test the hypothesis that a specific development activity affects positively farm

PAGE 55

42 household livelihood and behavior, and decreases and/or ceases the pressure it was mainly designed for. However, no decisive methodology exists to test these hypotheses. The objectives of the LPM are to clarify the components, or subsystems, of the protected area and farm household sets, identify the determinant relationships between them, and analyze alternatives to propose for problem resolution. In so doing, the "division" of the sets (Figure 1.2) into subsystems is helpful. Indeed, it is expected that when the identification and causes of each environmental pressure are specified, the pressure can be identified with a specific subsystem in the production, income, consumption, and/or other systems of the farm household (Figure 3.1). The LPM is designed to allow partial analysis of each subsystem containing a specific pressure. Subsystems can then be combined for more complex models. As an example in the Masoala case, one identifies "tavy" rice culture as a main pressure. Tavy is an integral part of the farm household cropping system, the main subsystem in the farm household production system. Tavy touches production, income, if rice is sold, and consumption systems from its place in this rice-based cropping system. A "partial" analysis of the cropping system (model presented in this work) with and without tavy can be performed with the LPM. For a resource (personnel, equipment, capital, and the like) constrained ICDP, such partial analysis can prove useful for the managers in anticipating the effects of the decrease and/or cessation of the tavy on farm household welfare. Introducing one or a package of "improved rice culture" techniques in the model, with and without tavy, would help identify appropriate development activity to introduce,

PAGE 56

44 and provide insights into expected changes in the cropping system, and farm household livelihood with the development activity. This phase is not done in the present study because data are not yet available. Suppose that activities in ecotourism are to be considered with the objective of increasing income and decreasing cash crops in the protected area. Cash crops are also part of the cropping system. Ecotourism activities will affect labor distribution, as well as allocation and use of resources in the cropping system, and thereby disturb the farm plans in production, income and consumption. Ecotourism activities can be inserted into the simulated farm model, and issues about farm household welfare, and alternatives and/or "technology" introduction can be analyzed. Situations with and without tavy and/or cash crops can be analyzed, as well as with and without improved rice culture and/or ecotourism activities, and so on. We can think of targeted blocks of matrical subsystems composed of activities and constraints that can be assembled and disassembled as needed without losing the essence of the whole system. More detailed and complex models are part of future research and not included in the present effort. The particular case of Masoala ICDP illustrates the operationally of the proposed socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES), as a package of management tools for managers of the ICDPs. Thus, the case has no intent of studying or resolving at once all the farm system problems of the household. As an illustration, it is accomplished under stringent data constraints. Important as well is to keep in mind the resources and constraints at the ICDP field management level. Further complexity might

PAGE 57

45 be achieved in the future as needed and desired with improved information, as linear programming possesses many flexible features. The Basic Mathematical LPM The LPM draws heavily from the basic mathematical model in Hazell and Norton (1986), and is adapted and applied to a relatively "average" Masoala farm household. It is acknowledged that farm household behavior, through its objectives, activities and constraints is much more complex than the model presented here. That is, the farm household forms its behavior from all the possibilities, resource requirements, and constraints it faces. The choice of activities, as well as allocation and use of resources, depends on household objectives and all of the activities and constraints present in the household. However, it is argued that prominent subsystems tied to predominant pressures, or vice versa, determine the farm household behavior and livelihood with regards to conservation. Max Z = Y n . c, X i such that SL ±j Xj
PAGE 58

46 (CASS), consumed (CASC), purchased (CASP); sugar cane produced (SGC), sold (SGCS), consumed (SGCC), purchased (SGCP); banana produced (BAN), sold (BANS), consumed (BANC), purchased (BANP); taro produced (TAR), sold (TARS), consumed (TARC), purchased (TARP). Cash crops: coffee produced (COF), sold (COFS), consumed (COFC), purchased (COFP); cloves produced (CLO), sold (CLOS); vanilla produced (VAN), sold (VANS). Cash flow: cash transfer from beginning year to semester 2 (CSH1); cash transfer from semester 2 to end year (CSH2). Cj = value of a unit of the jth activity. ajj = quantity of the i^ resource required to produce one unit of the activity: hectare (ha) for land; days (days) for labor; Malagasy Franc (Fmg) for cash; kilogram (kg) for the quantity of output produced, sold, consumed, and purchased. i = Land: rice land (LdRI); tavy land (LdTV); land for subsistance crops (LdSBS); land for cash crops (LdCSH). Labor: January labor (LbJA); February labor (LbFB); March labor (LbMR); April labor (LbAP); May labor (LbMY); June labor (LbJN); July labor (LbJL); August labor (Lb AG); September labor (LbSP); October labor (LbOC); November labor (LbNV); December labor (LbDC). Yields, consumption and purchase: rice 1 produced (RI1), consumed (RI1C), purchased (RI1P); rice 2 produced (RI2), consumed (RI2C), purchased (RI2P); tavy produced (TAV), consumed (TAVC), purchased (TAVP); cassava produced (CAS), consumed (CASC); sugar cane produced (SGC), consumed (SGCC); banana produced (BAN), consumed (BANC); taro produced (TAR), consumed (TARC); coffee produced (COF), consumed (COFC); cloves produced (CLO); vanilla produced (VAN). Cash: cash at beginning of year (CSH1); cash in semester 2 (CSH2); cash at end of year (CSH3). b ; = quantity of the i^ maximum or minimum constraint. Procedure The use of the LPM to analyze various potential actions is based on first simulating existing representative livelihood systems. After a base model that adequately

PAGE 59

47 simulates a given livelihood system has been created, it is then used to analyze alternatives by incorporating them into the base model. Assumptions The base LPM simulation concerns only the cropping system of the farm. According to the data available, this subsystem in the production, income and consumption systems of the Masoala farm household set appears to be the determinant of the farming system and the household's behavior. Other activities, such as livestock, fishing, and non-tavy activities in the protected area, can be included later as needed. A more complex model is possible and subject to further research. The present choice of production activities is also driven by the desire to understand the main pressure, tavy culture in the protected area, which can be thought of as an integral part of the farm's cropping system. For purposes of linear programming, the most realistic objective of this type of farm household has been found to be to maximize annual discretionary cash available for spending, without violating any of the resource or consumption constraints (P.E. Hildebrand, personal communication). Annual discretionary cash available for spending can be thought of as the end of year cash balance minus beginning year cash balance. The cash balance is defined as that amount of money available for all other purposes, after production costs, food and other required uses for cash related to the subsystem considered (cropping system) have been deducted.

PAGE 60

48 Building a complex model requires the understanding of each subsystem and the circumstances surrounding its presence in the farm household. Besides ranking pressures by severity in the protected area, it is argued that subsystems that determine the farm household livelihood also can be prioritized. This prioritization of the farm household subsystems allows partial analyses. The present model will provide a useful glimpse of farm household circumstances, and of the posssibilities offered by the model in relation to managing the SEMES for the ICDPs. Preliminary analyses, for example, can reflect alternative farm household circumstances resulting from the presence or absence of tavy in the cropping system, and from the diversification of farm activities. The Data The data are from the Masoala peninsula ICDP. Distributed in 4 watersheds, 167 Masoala farm households 1 were interviewed in the sample by the ICDP socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation team. The cropping system can be categorized based on rice production, and the practice of rice tavy. Seven farm types (percentage given is over a sample of 153 farm households) can be delineated: 1) rice 1 only (17%); 2) rice 2 only (4%); 3) tavy only (11%); 4) rice 1 and 2 (21%); 5) rice 1 and tavy (33%); 6) rice 2 and tavy (8%); and 7) rice 1 and 2, and tavy (6%). 1 The number of farm households actually interviewed was 167, of which 153 were chosen for die purposes of this analysis.

PAGE 61

49 The base or simulation model for the present analyses is based on an aggregate "average" farm which corresponds to average farm type 5. Any type of farm can be examined however with this model. This research has been performed with limited funding and scarce data. The data were sent from the Masoala ICDP, Madagascar, to the University of Florida, USA, with various time, logistical, and communication constraints. Inconsistent and incomplete observations were difficult to identify and correct in a timely manner for the present research. Secondary data were complemented with observations from key informants and other sources, including an Internet network of Malagasy scientists and students. Much of the complementary information comes from the author's personal experience and knowledge. Analysis Two models are utilized for the analysis. The basic simulation LPM includes rice 1 and tavy production and purchase of tavy is allowed. The alternative is production of rice 1 without that of tavy, and purchase of tavy is not allowed. Both models contain the same objective (maximization of annual discretionary cash income), activities (production, sale, consumption, and purchase of rice, subsistence and cash crops), and constraints (land, labor, cash, consumption). Land is constrained to 1 hectare of rice 1, and 0.5 hectare of cash and 0.5 hectare of subsistence crops. No limit is put on tavy land exploited in the base model. Labor has been distributed on a monthly basis, and the amount is constrained to one adult male and

PAGE 62

50 one adult female in the farm household, with half time available for production activities for the female. No hired labor is available. Cash available at the beginning of the year has been constrained to the amount needed to produce one hectare of rice 1. Consumption is based on an average household size of 6 persons. Purchase is allowed for any 3 types of rice in the base model, but not for tavy in the alternative model. However in that later case, storage in rice 1 and transfer of rice 1 to rice 2 are allowed. Subsistance crops are either sold or consumed, and cash crops are sold only except some for coffee consumption. Prices were estimated by the author from available data to follow seasonal variations in rice: low prices in the normal season, high prices in the hungry season. Also selling prices are less than purchasing prices. Seasonal trends are realistic but the magnitudes should be interpreted with caution. The Basic Simulation Model: Rice 1 and Tavy. and Purchase of Tavy Allowed The results show that when tavy is allowed (Table 3.1), most of the rice 1 land is used, and all subsistence and cash crop land is used. In addition, 1.8 ha of tavy are exploited. Surplus rice 1 (normal season) is sold, 516 kg consumed, and no purchase of rice is made in that season. All rice 2 consumed is purchased. Tavy production compensates for the deficiency in rice 2, with 1.8 ha produced, a significant 700 kg sold, 258 kg consumed, and none purchased. All subsistence crops including cassava (0.087 ha), sugarcane (0.1 ha), banana (0.27 ha), taro (0.04 ha) are produced and consumed, but only surplus banana is sold.

PAGE 63

Table 3.1. Results of the basic simulation model with rice 1 and tavy. 51 Item Unit Rice 1 + Tavy Rice 1 only ixlCC 1 dlCil ha 0 974 1 Kice l proauceu Kg 78Q 810 iSlCC 1 MJ1U Kg 271 o Ripp 1 nnrrhsisp-.fi ke o 222 Rice 1 consumed kg 516 516 Rice 1 stored kg 0 516 IVlLC L dldX ha i id. o o yj is. ice z. piuuuccu Kg o o Pipp 9 sold ke o o Rice 2 purchased kg 258 0 Rice 2 consumed kg 258 258 Tavy area ho na 1 807 1 .OU / o lavy proauceu Kg QS8 7JO o o lavy soiu K g n Taw nurchased ke 6 0 0 Tavy consumed kg 258 258 Banana area ha 0.27 0.27 Banana sold kg 746 746 Coffee area ha 0.264 0.5 Coffee sold kg 241 468 Vanilla area ha 0.236 0 Vanilla sold kg 105 0 Available labor days 75.1 197 Ending cash balance FMG 2,524,810 1,623,676

PAGE 64

52 No cloves are produced, while coffee (0.26 ha) is produced, and some sold and consumed, and vanilla (0.24 ha) is produced and sold. Labor constraints exist in the months of April, June, and July, although all months, except January and August, are quite active though not binding. Less than 20% of total available labor is not used. All food consumption needs are satisfied, and annual discretionary cash of FMG 2,524,810 (about US$ 631) remains for all other purposes to the farm household. The model concerns only the cropping system of the farm, yet it is considered that this model adequately simulates the representative farm livelihood system against which to evaluate alternatives. Alternative Model: Rice 1 Without Tavy and Purchase of Tavy is Not Allowed The prohibition of tavy production and purchase in the cropping system (Table 3.1) would decrease the annual discretionary cash available for spending by about 35% from the original situation, to FMG 1,623,676 (about US$ 406) if no other sources of income were available. All available cropland is used for rice 1, subsistence and cash crops. The farm household would have to purchase 222 kg of rice 1, and store 516 kg for consumption in the rice 2 and tavy consumption periods. Crop diversification would decrease because only coffee, and not vanilla or cloves, would be produced. Available labor would increase by more than double to 197 days.

PAGE 65

53 Conclusion and Implications Thus, everything else being the same, the farm household performs tavy culture for income, and to compensate rice consumption and purchase during the hungry season. A significant amount of land (1.8 ha of tavy for a 3.8 ha farm size) is devoted to the activity. The prohibition of tavy production would decrease welfare and productive employment on the farm. If compensating income and other use for this labor were not found by alternative ICDP activities, the farmers might employ the available labor in other extraction activities in the protected area.

PAGE 66

CHAPTER 4 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Managers of the Integrated Conservation and Development Projects in Madagascar are confronted with the task of finding consensus and complementarity within the concerns for conservation and development. Many relationships and systems are at stake, most important being farm households in the peripheral zones and the protected areas. Farm household behavior relative to production is motivated by concerns for security and survival. The assessment of farm level responses to changes in resource use policy, technologies and socioeconomic conditions can be studied as in Chapter 3. The present chapter is directed toward understanding the complex relationships, or overall environment, that confront farm managers and ICDP managers. It provides a basis for the institutional analysis to follow in Chapter 5. The Basic Systems in the Conservation and Development Relationships The overall conservation and development paradigm can be viewed as a grand system of relationships composed of subsystems called sets. Each set is a system on its own with subsystems. This chapter draws on Gunderson et al., (1995) and Kelly, (1995) for a paradigm to depict relationships in systems and subsystems, and their interdependencies (Figure 4.1). 54

PAGE 67

55

PAGE 68

56 In this framework, the grand system of relationships is said to be sustainable when the synergy of the sets composing it maintains viability, durability and operationality in space and time. Some systems will work positively and others negatively toward sustainability. Since boundaries are necessary to distinguish systems, it is evident that some systems are of primary interest while many other systems and factors are relegated to a secondary status. From a management and socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation point of view, the systems and factors described are thought to be primary for sustainability within the conservation and development setting in Madagascar. The conservation system. The protected area set which is a system composed of its fauna and flora subsystems is included in the conservation system. Endogenous (relations between and within subsystems and with their natural environment) as well as exogenous (natural processes such as cyclones, droughts, and/or other climatic processes) subsystems interact and influence the protected area system, and the fauna and flora subsystems. The socioeconomic subsystem also interacts with and influences the protected area through induced needs and motivations of the farm household in production, income and/or consumption. Resilience of biodiversity and ecosystems forms the main core within the conservation system. The development system. This system contains the farm household set which is composed of its production, income and consumption subsystems. Endogenous (land, capital, labor, entrepreneurship, resource allocation and use, and productivity), as well as exogenous (prices, infrastructure, and socioeconomic processes) subsystems interact with and influence the farm household system and the production, income, consumption

PAGE 69

57 subsystems. The natural processes subsystem also interacts with and influences the farm household system at the level of the production, income and/or consumption subsystems. Sustainability of productivity and profitability, as well as resilience of farm household systems, forms the main core within the development system. The resilience in space (at a local, regional, and/or national level) and time (from season to year, and generation to generation) of biodiversity and ecosystems to natural processes and human behavior systems is at the heart of environmental sustainability. By the same token, the resilience in space and time of the human household system to natural and socioeconomic processes and systems is at the heart of human and development sustainability. The issues of resilience in space and time, and of linkages between sustainable conservation and development, bring forth the idea of introducing unique subsystems as development activities for farm households who exert pressures on the protected areas. The development activities system. Substitute activities to reduce human pressure in the protected area are to be introduced to peripheral zone farm households. They constitute a system which can be viewed as a distinct set in the grand system of relationships. By introducing community, group and/or individual development activities to meet the basic needs of farm households, the ICDP expects that farm households will decrease and/or cease the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity in the protected areas, and involve themselves in conservation. It is assumed and expected that an "ethical" sense of protection responsibility toward the protected area emerges within,

PAGE 70

58 from and among farm households. The exploitation of "open access" resources therefore would be naturally and "democratically" prohibited. For example, it has been shown in Chapter 3 that farm households practice "tavy" to satisfy their rice consumption needs in the hungry season. On the other hand, it is known that "tavy" degrades the environment. If "tavy" is to be decreased and/or ceased, then development activities to respond to the removal of "tavy" should at least compensate for production and consumption foregone from that crop. The removal of "tavy" also frees labor for other purposes, in particular for such introduced activities. Among other considerations for these activities to be successful, one therefore should take into account the activities level of incremental benefits and labor used. Coupled with environmental education, such activities are thought to help farm households cope with their circumstances in an environment-friendly manner. For these reasons, most people assume these development activities must simultaneously "better" human welfare and decrease pressures and damages on protected areas. Introducing development activities can then be viewed as a technology innovation or improvement process (TIP). Formal stages of the TIP (Chapter 6, Figure 6.5) in an agricultural setting have been proposed by McDermott and Andrew, (1995). As applied to the ICDP situation, technology embedded in introduced development activities might be questioned as to technology/activity design or generation, testing and adaptation. Hence, technologies and corresponding activities must be responsive at the local level. The beliefs, values and incentives of the donors, international and Malagasy institutional organizations, and ICDPs blend into an institutional set which acts as a

PAGE 71

59 system directing and shaping the goals, objectives and actions towards the conservation and development systems. This is particularly true in setting the priorities among conservation and development issues and the introduction of development activities. The institutional system. An important factor for the success and sustainability of the ICDPs is the institutional system. Hence, decision-makers, managers, field agents and households are expected to integrate their rationale about the conservation and development paradigm into shared, meaningful and operational goals, objectives and actions. All of these participants share to different degrees the goals of natural resource and biodiversity conservation, as well as socioeconomic development of farm households. In a related topic, Kiker and Putz (1997) suggest actors "share some sensed, partial, approximate and noisy information." 1 Information about conservation and development is, by nature, diverse. Participants may differ in the emphasis given to the design and implementation of specific activities as they relate to conservation and development. The monitoring and evaluation system. As a set at the intersection of all of the above sets, the monitoring and evaluation system is where the ICDP evolves. It is conducted by the institutional organizations extending from donors to the ICDPs. The actual and future situations of the Malagasy ICDP result from an institutional dimension of change, itself resulting from the evolution of concepts built through evolution of 1 "For both the agent and the principal, knowledge of the environment is partial and approximate; sensing of the environment and the agent's actions is partial and noisy; the dynamics of the environment can be only partially predicted; and the agent's execution of actions [in the forest] is not completely reliable.... The result is that the agent needs to maintain a degree of reactivity to meet its goals in [the] face of unpredicted environmental and labor related or social situations, and the principal needs to be assured that agreed upon strategic goals and plans are being met, at least to some degree, otherwise the basis of the [certification] system collapses" (Kiker and Putz, 1997, p. 43).

PAGE 72

60 beliefs, values, and incentives in the conservation and development paradigm in Madagascar. The management of change focuses on the relationships among the different sets, that is the interdependence of all the systems and subsystems described above. One main "raison d'etre" of the proposed socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) is to "test" the hypotheses established in planning, and through implementation of development activities, for conservation and development. Again, the desire is that the well-being of the farm households will increase and the pressures on protected areas will decrease and/or cease. Decisions. Goals and Strategies in the Grand System of Relationships: A Principal-Agent Paradigm The earlier systemic framework illustrates that the introduction and nature of development activities tied to conservation mainly depend on the institutions. Receiving, adapting, and adopting the activities depend on the farm households. Within the institutional set, relationships among international (donors), national (government, DEF, ANGAP), and local (ICDP) organizations influence the goals, objectives, and strategies at the ICDP and field (protected area and farm household) levels. A multi-level principal-agent relationship exists among the actors in the grand system of relationships. Goals and strategies span from the abstract to operational, and extend from the donor level through the international and Malagasy institutional organizations to the ICDPs and farm households, finally to have an impact on all relationships in the total system.

PAGE 73

61 Donors provide funds to the Malagasy institutional organizations to carry out the conservation and development goals and strategies, with an emphasis on conservation. These donors rely on their governments (USAID) and/or the international community (World Bank) for policy direction. Malagasy institutional organizations, such as the National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP) and the Direction of Waters and Forests (DEF), supervise and coordinate the ICDPs at the national level, with priority on conservation and development. They simultaneously depend on the donors and the Malagasy government in carrying their mandate. Many other organizations and individuals, such as universities, NGOs and consulting entities, with their own beliefs, values and incentives, enter this system at different levels for different purposes. They depend and rely on the donors, the national government, and/or the ICDPs in fulfilling their objectives. The ICDPs manage the protected areas on a shortterm basis with a long-term view to conservation and development. Satisfaction of the goals and strategies of related international and national organizations, as well as farm households is the mandate of ICDPs. The principal-agent paradigm in the ICDP context possesses some interchangeable features. For example, from a participatory approach perspective, the farm households would be the principal and the ICDP the agent when identifying, designing and defining the development activities. The reverse would occur when implementing and actually conducting the development activities. This interchangeable feature can be extended to the whole institutional set. It is a looping feedback channel in the grand system of relationships. For example, at the

PAGE 74

62 design and planning phase, donors would be the principal when providing funds to the agents, the Malagasy national organizations. During implementation, the principal-agent relationship reverses. Biological and socioeconomic information is the basis for request by the now principal Malagasy national organizations, and for readjustment and reorientation by the donors, now the agent. These features suggest systemic relationships and interdependencies among institutional actors in decisions, goals and strategies of the Malagasy ICDPs. In the identification, design, and definition of development activities, farm households and communities request technical assistance and/or technology from the ICDP. The ICDP often transfers the actual activities without conducting any on-site preliminary research to test and adapt solutions to the local situations. That is, the site itself becomes a living laboratory where trial and error is allowed. This process forms the basis for adaptive ecosystem management. In the same manner, funding requirements bias the priority, design, and implementation of field actions. This situation is best illustrated by the following observations: 1. Conservation and development are two distinct departments like two subprojects (Swanson, 1995) at the ICDP level. The monitoring and evaluation unit is supposed to promote the links between them. 2. Monitoring and evaluation, as an integrated activity, is divided into three distinct "subsystems": the project, conservation and development.

PAGE 75

63 3. The project and conservation indicators are abundant and precise at the ICDP organizational level, but incomplete and difficult to implement in the real world. The development indicators are mostly left to the discretion of the ICDP which experiences different influences from institutions and actors. Such partition and imprecision in development lead to unfocused development activities. The situation in development becomes one where activities are subjected to the beliefs, values and incentives of the diverse and different decision-makers, managers and field agents. In other words, even though farm households and communities seek the satisfaction of precise needs, activities might not always respond adequately. Global goals and objectives are shared, but design and implementation differ due to beliefs, values, and incentives. Harsh debates in socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation meetings illustrate the problem. It is therefore useful to understand the perspectives on conservation and development, and make a meaningful convergence, which will be "rationalized" and "operationalized" with the ICP evaluation model. It is useful to keep in mind that donor representatives, as well as international and national institutional organization representatives, visit the protected areas and farm households from time to time. The ICDPs manage on a day-to-day basis. Monitoring refers to the short-term management of ICDPs, at most yearly, while evaluation refers to a longer period of management by donors and national institutional organizations. 2 2 "Planning is (a) the choosing of mission and objectives and (b) the development of a course of action to achieve mission and objectives. It involves ex ante evaluation. Monitoring is the observation of a plan during implementation and the taking of corrective action. It involves ex-

PAGE 76

64 Differences in Perspectives Chapter 3 has shown clearly that farm households encroach the protected area by necessity due to constraints in resources, and socioeconomic and institutional environments: in a way, a question of survival! In such circumstances, ICDPs are faced with sustaining the resilience of both protected areas and farm households. The relationships between population growth, increasing gap between demand and supply of food and non-food items, and socioeconomic and political concerns focus government priorities. National and international commercial entities related to natural resources and biodiversity are concerned about productivity and profit from their use. International donors and "green" institutions rather aim at conservation of natural resources and biodiversity. Conceptually, a moderate and probably realistic view of conservation and development would seek complementarity and integrate both extremes in the paradigm. Sustainable environmental management focused mainly on the conservation of resources must take into account those who depend on the resources for their livelihood. Likewise, socioeconomic development, focused mainly on increasing the production of goods and services, must take into account sustainability of the resources on which production and consumption are based (UNCED, 1992). present, continuous evaluation. Evaluation is the determination of the value of a completed plan and involves ex post evaluation." (McDermott and Andrew, 1995, p. D-4)

PAGE 77

65 However, two extreme ideals should not be overlooked, as their "reality" drives many institutions and actors in the conservation and development paradigm (Raustiala and Victor, 1996; Lehr, 1992). The first views conservation as a chief priority; conserving the environment, including natural resources and biodiversity, is needed and necessary. Human heritage and ecosystemic philosophy respond to an intergenerational value of conservation. Population growth, poverty and destructive production behaviors, because of, and leading to, loss of productivity, are seen as the main causes of environmental degradation and depletion. Policing and rationing are the primary approaches to satisfying this conservation and development perspective. The second view sees development as the main priority. Meeting the population needs and wants through socioeconomic development is needed and necessary. The poor are mostly the development targets because poverty and population growth impact negatively on the environment. It is proclaimed that there is no evidence for human production behavior having any detrimental effects on the environment when production is rationalized (Lehr, 1992). Mere value-judgements and normative thinking about environmental issues are seen by these development proponents as the main constraints to socioeconomic development. A free market paradigm is the resolving approach, where market forces lead to "natural" equilibrium. An array of common alternative views exists among these perspectives, giving more weight to one or the other. 3 3 "Faced with the partial understanding we have of the problems and with the conflicting views of science, it is no wonder that public concern and mistrust are great but public understanding disturbingly bad. Political responses have a weak foundation for confident action

PAGE 78

66 Blaikie and Jeanrenaud (1996) state "biodiversity and human welfare are perceived differently by a wide range of actors (international, national and local levels)." (p. 1) They define biodiversity as "the variability of life in all forms, levels and combinations within and among ecosystems, species and genetic material." (p. 3) The causes of loss of biodiversity are well documented, but estimates of loss are uncertain, deriving from extrapolations and estimates. Blaikie and Jeanrenaud summarize five general reasons for the importance of maintaining biodiversity: ethical reasons, maintaining ecosystems, material and economic benefits to people, maintaining evolutionary processes, and aesthetics. They express these in turn in terms of values which can be summarized as 1) direct and instrumental/use values comprising (a) non-market oriented consumptive use values and (b) market oriented productive use values, where conversion of value may exist between (a) and (b); 2) indirect instrumental/use values comprising (a) functions and services of ecosystems having value for society as public goods and (b) option values for present and future uses for direct and indirect values; and 3) non-instrumental intrinsic value related to moral responsibility. As well as for biodiversity, human welfare means different things for different people as shown by the increasing range of sophisticated measures of welfare such as UNDP's Human Development Index (HDI). They show that different groups have that will not make the cure worse than the disease. To whom can the public turn for insight? This is less a problem of trust in science than of trust in governance by all participants who, in the absence of firm foundations for understanding, are forced to shape their decisions by beliefs" (Holling in Gunderson et al., 1995, p. 14) "Understanding the bases of attitudes among the various publics he deals with can be helpful to the wildlife manager who faces a great challenge in coping with the conflicting views expressed, and politicized, concerning wildlife issues today." (Gilbert and Dodds, 1992, p. 49)

PAGE 79

67 differing scales of influence, sources of power, interests and aims, and means of dealing/relating with biodiversity to reach interests and aims. From the range of local farm households to international groups, the scale of influence increases in scope. According to the authors, the power held by farm households is considerably less than that imposed by international groups concerning "green conditionality." Interests and aims range from livelihood maintenance and use of protected areas for subsistence needs by farm households, to commercial profit among entrepreneurs and tourism entities, and finally to conservation as expressed by international groups. Thus, depending on the actors, welfare can take a wide range of meanings. Duraiappah (1996) points out that "until recently, there has been very little indepth coordinated empirical research in the economics of environmental degradationpoverty causality relationships." (p. 1) He suggests the existence of a large degree of subjectivity about environmental degradation based on the actors, ecosystems and values involved relative to the particular resources of concern. He proposes ecological thresholds based on physical characteristics and revealed preferences as indicators of environmental degradation. Defining poverty, the author summarizes three measurements: 1) the World Bank's household expenditure approach giving a poverty line threshold level; 2) the UNDP's Human Development Index (HDI) drawn from criticisms about the concepts of objective needs in the poverty line measure; and 3) a more encompassing approach relating to resource accessibility and the vulnerability of "low income groups who face high income uncertainty because of natural resource degradation." Accessibility and

PAGE 80

68 vulnerability are based on more subjective needs than the objective ones in 1) and 2). Duraiappah distinguishes "indigenous poverty as caused by environmental degradation" from "exogenous poverty as caused by factors other than environmental degradation." He provides an analytical framework for literature review where causality relationships (Figure 4.2: Rl, R2, R3A, R3B, R4, R1FB) between poverty and environmental degradation are postulated. "The relationships are not mutually exclusive and can be present simultaneously." From a philosophical and practical management perspective, Gilbert and Dodds (1992) categorize people's attitudes and values toward wildlife as "economic (or commercial, including recreational), socio-cultural (including aesthetic), ecological (including biological), and scientific." (p. 54) They identify many factors affecting people's opinions, attitudes, values and incentives towards wildlife, such as occupations and professions, land ownership, immigration status, degree of dependency on wildlife, degree of contact with wildlife, sex, age, income, education, residency, ethnicity and religion. In sum, social, economic, cultural and political experiences and sense of belonging build one's own concepts, norms, beliefs, values, and incentives relative to the issues of conservation and development. For example, biological scientists and ecotourists might be perceived by Gilbert and Dodds to place high values on conservation; social scientists and farm household members might be perceived to value development much more than conservation. Further, in a subsistence economy, the traditional sociocultural environment induces the farm household members to give more weight to conservation, because the household

PAGE 82

70 depends on its immediate environmental resources for survival. Open markets and infrastructure bring exogenous socioeconomic development concepts based on material manufactured goods that disturb the traditional sociocultural environment, inducing the farm household member to give more weight to socioeconomic development. Equally, a group of individuals or population sets, be it a community, society, country or international region, embodies aggregate beliefs, values and incentives resulting from those of its members. For example, because of science and media awareness, developed countries lean towards protecting the environment from depletion and degradation. Donors, originating from developed countries, and most importantly incountry executing ranks, have corresponding beliefs, values and incentives embedded in aid and assistance. Developing countries, because of population growth, poverty and "destructive" production behaviors, tend to give weight to socioeconomic development. Thus, developing countries tend to foster beliefs, values and incentives relative to their own goals that engender specific perspectives of aid and assistance (Lehr, 1992; James, 1994; Raustalia and Victor, 1996). From yet another perspective, Holling (in Gunderson et al., 1995) suggests five belief systems in conservation and development which "are driving present debate and public confusion. Each reflects different assumptions about stability and change...." (pp. 14-15): 1. the view of "Nature Cornucopian is one of exponential growth" with endless resources, assuming human creativity for substitutes is able to cope with the gradual changes of nature;

PAGE 83

71 2. the view of "Nature Anarchic is hyperbolic" where growth attains a limit followed by a decline, assuming the inability of humans to deal with their own creativity; 3. the view of "Nature Balanced is of logistic growth" where environmental and development sustainability are of simultaneous concern, assuming systemic relationships; 4. the view of "Nature Resilient is one of nested cycles organized by fundamentally discontinuous events and processes" comparable to schumpeterian economic business cycles and creative destruction, assuming shocks and waves disturb growth trends; and 5. the view of "Nature evolving is evolutionary and adaptive" where integration is the foundation, assuming a multidisciplinary perspective to the conservation and development paradigm. Obviously, the diverse, practical to abstract, perpectives reviewed so far, leading to as well diverse beliefs, values, and incentives toward conservation and development, affect the grand system of relationships through institutional organizations and actors. ICDPs at the field level take into account the beliefs, values and incentives of donors, international and Malagasy institutional organizations, scientists, local communities and farm households. On the other hand, the field level where the ICDP evolves can be situated within the context of a broader environment where all institutional organizations and actors interact. The grand system of relationships evolves in the broader environment which influences and is influenced by the grand system (Figure 4.3). The broader environment

PAGE 85

73 can be characterized into four types of environments (McDermott and Andrew, 1995, pp. IX-3 to IX-5): 1. The internal environment of the ICDP system is composed of its own ICDP organization-entity, and the individual and units that make it into an operating entity. The objectives in the internal environment are to secure and sustain farm production, income and consumption so that pressures in protected areas will decrease and/or cease. 2. The enabling environment is composed of institutions and organizations that provide resources and authority" to the success of ICDPs. These institutions and organizations are included in the institutional set, such as donors. But they exist also outside the grand system, such as agricultural industry and services, and infrastructure. Hence, new or improved technology in introduced development activities often requires infrastructure and markets for inputs in production, as well as for product sales and income absorption. 3. The normative environment "includes those institutions that defend the norms and values of society.... They speak to moral concerns and ethical consequences of [ICDPs]." Sociopolitical forces at the local, regional, national and international levels, inside and outside the grand system of relationships, interrelate, interact and often conflict at the ICDP level. The normative environment often influences mission, strategies, planning and actions. 4. The diffuse environment "is composed of organizations that help form the general image of the institution and distribute information on its performance and achievements." Inside the grand system of relationships, the institutional set helps ICDPs

PAGE 86

74 in such roles. Farm households as individuals, units and community also communicate among them about ICDPs, as do local, regional, national and international media. At the ICDP field level, the beliefs, values and incentives of decision-makers, managers, field agents and farm households are "inputs" that feed into ICDPs in the grand system of relationships. These inputs also play a role in the formation of, and interactions with, the four different environments, which in turn may control or condition the success of ICDPs, e.g. infrastructure and markets. At the same time, most of these environments are also external to the grand system of relationships. Yet, they also feed "inputs" into the grand system by directing and shaping the goals, objectives and actions towards the conservation and development systems, in particular the introduction of development activities at the field level. Because of such diversity in institutions and actors, resulting in disparity and imprecision in concepts and causal relationships about the conservation and development paradigm, it is argued that the efficiency, success and sustainability of a SEMES of ICDPs depends on interrelations, linkages and synthesis of beliefs, values and incentives of the different institutions and actors at different levels of decision-makings 4 . The ICP evaluation model is a tool and methodology where a framework is set, and actors input 4 "Donors may not be referring to "funding" sustainability, but rather developing behavior changes and activities which local people can adopt which will lead to sustainable use of natural resources.... This is a long-term objective, and donors generally have short-term funding horizons.... We have learned that multiple "operators" do not lead to good management of program activities.... Maintenance of institutional identities and unique "approaches" seems to be at the core of the problem.... We have also learned that multiple donors pose problems for coordination and management of development activities in a peripheral zone...." (Swanson, 1996, pp. 19-20)

PAGE 87

75 beliefs, values and incentives. A synthesized shared and operational "direction" is then obtained. The concepts and causal relations that build from the conservation and development paradigm and the grand system of relationships may raise some ethical, equity and sustainability issues closely tied to diverging beliefs, values and incentives. Ethics. Equity and Sustainability Ethics and equity issues stem from both the conservation and the development conceptualization of sustainability. From environmental and human perspectives in a grand system of relationships, sustainability requires that the needs and derived activities of the present generation do not compromise the satisfaction of the needs of future generations relative to resource, production and welfare opportunities. The time scale of sustainability is rather vague. We cannot determine or bound the end of all life, nor can we predict the unforeseen future changes in ecosystems or household systems. Resilience of the protected area and farm household systems is a key component in the intergenerational concern for sustainability. The use of renewable and nonrenewable resources must be sustainable. This is particularly true for the resources required for development, including development activities to be introduced to farm households. Also, population growth, and corresponding derived needs and activities, factor into this sustainability situation. Gill (1991) has provided an extensive appraisal of the climatic, biological, infrastructural and technological natures of seasonality within year and their negative

PAGE 88

76 impacts on the allocation and use of resources in agriculture in the developing world. Such factors are very important to the well-being of Malagasy farm households. Frankenberger (1985) has emphasized that the hungry season is a difficult period for the nutritional well-being of low-income farming households, trapped in a cycle of poverty. Further, Sahn (1989) has shown that year-to-year seasonal variability in Third World agriculture affects food consumption, food security and nutritional status. He has asserted that the major causes are fluctuating market prices and real income (cash and/or in kind), savings (stocks, livestock and/or cash), and food consumption behavior. These conditions are present in both rural and urban areas. Food insecurity in either or both rural and urban households occasioned by seasonal variations and seasonality have impact on sustainability of socioeconomic development in Madagascar. To deal with seasonal variations and seasonality, high-input-agriculture for example might increase productivity, production, income and consumption for the farm household. But it might also perversely affect the environment. Ecotourism low-input activities, such as handicraft and tour guiding, might also increase income. Because of ecotourism, less time would be devoted to agricultural production, resulting in low-inputagriculture, and thereby induce more dependency towards food and non-food imports. From the perspective of the comparative advantage paradigm, which assumes a fair and sustainable exchange setting, ecotourism could be the solution to the conservation problem. However, risk from major economic fluctuations or natural disasters might jeopardize the livelihood system of people who shift their living practices and economic

PAGE 89

77 enterprises from agriculture in expectation of high and consistent returns from ecotourism. Further, the concept of affluence with economic growth viewed through gross domestic product in developed countries indicates a strong correlation with climate change and environmental degradation (MacKenzie and MacKenzie, 1995). Also, wealth creation through history, characterized by overconsumption in the developed world, shows that developing countries are left in a state of impoverishment, characterized by underconsumption, mass poverty and high population growth. It would appear then that the goal of extending prosperity through technology transfer and/or monetary programs from the developed to developing countries claims that the concept of economic growth, embedded in the conservation and socioeconomic development paradigm, must specify clear definitions and expectations about development activities for ICDPs. In other words, "development activities" intrude on the traditional, indigenous Malagasy farm household system with concepts and practices of the modern capitalist market system. This situation leads to a structural transformation, "good" or "bad," at the household level in economic, social and cultural production and organization. Dualism paradigms, such as modern vs. traditional, industrial vs. agricultural, capital vs. precapital, cash vs. subsistence, urban vs. rural, complicate further the issue, nature and impacts of development activities (Hayami and Ruttan, 1986). On the other hand, it may be possible that enforcing a preservation-protection model (Barbour et al., 1992, p. L-3) which restricts, through isolation and absolute protection, the access to protected areas from surrounding farm households, might

PAGE 90

78 succeed for a while in conservation. But the existence of needy populations, and the required management response to establish an operational program, place in question the sustainability of such a model. The preservation-protection model argues that organizations and institutions, other than those dealing with conservation, might take care of socioeconomic development issues. The model is questioned in reference to the possibility and efficiency of separating the conservation and development issues in the Malagasy poverty context. The systemic, adaptive, and principal-agent approaches to the conservation and development paradigm show the diversity and complexity of beliefs, values, and incentives that ICDP must deal with in its environments and in carrying out its mission in the field. Resulting diverse perspectives raise ethical, equity, and sustainability concerns about development activities to be introduced. Imprecision and confusion, and sometimes conflicts, about these beliefs, values, incentives, and perspectives render ICDP management inefficient, and to the extreme controversial. A convergence in apprehending concepts and relationships in the conservation and development paradigm appears necessary for ICDP efficiency and management considerations.

PAGE 91

CHAPTER 5 SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION MODEL The Institutional Cognitive Pattern The people of Madagascar hold perceptions from experience about living from day-to-day and year-to-year within a local to global environment. They relate to nature and each other in complex ways, and may not always agree with those who grant assistance. Adding to the complexity, local, national and international institutions also relate to the issues of conservation and development in different ways. From the standpoint of the grand system of relationships involved with conservation and development in Madagascar (Figure 4.3), shared (though imprecise) concepts, perceptions, and ways of addressing needs and aspirations are depicted. The system leads to missions, strategies, causal relationships, and actions of institutional organizations and actors in the integrated conservation and development paradigm. Actual convergence of concepts and causal relationships toward design and implementation of conservation and development activities and actions may or may not exist, but is needed. The present research deals directly with concepts and causal relationships. The planning, monitoring and evaluation work of the ICDPs is conducted by the institutional set (donors to ICDP) in the grand system of relationships (Figure 4.3). The management of changes could be traced with the institutional cognitive pattern (ICP) 79

PAGE 92

80 based on fuzzy cognitive map (FCM) theory and neural network algorithm (Kosko, 1986, 1988, Taber, 1991), further developed by Fajardo (1993). Such a methodology relates the institutional dimension of change directly to the SEMES which focuses on the relationships between the rural household and the protected area; that is the intersection of all systems and subsystems in the grand system of relationships confronted by the ICDP. Identifying the concepts ("nodes") and causal relationships ("edges") in the ICDP systems constitutes a foundation for the SEMES. In so doing, it applies the basis of the institutional cognitive pattern methodology and analysis, the "signed digraphs (directed graphs) of a fuzzy nature with feedback." (Fajardo, 1995, p. 49-61, Kosko, 1985, 1988, Taber, 1991) The Model The ICP evaluation model is based on information about the ICDP system, and conservation and development, collected from various sources. Information is drawn from works done in Madagascar, especially from Richard Swanson (1995, 1996), an institutional-technical advisor to the Malagasy National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP), and from the extensive and detailed multidisciplinary survey conducted by Russell Barbour et al., (1992). Concepts and relationships are depicted from such sources to provide a signed digraph with feedback which expresses and simulates causal relationships under various circumstances. Figure 5.1 shows such a signed digraph with feedback for the Malagasy

PAGE 93

81 i ral a ~3 a Agric ductic C8 ;rease a. M C HQ t> w O o •js a. 1 rm a. H 3 U u X "3 o '8 i eo Q < + 60 s 0 0 u Mark d Prac o "m cj u Lo fifl E a 8 We Sys + A A I a « GO Q c B 1 b A A eu Q U H nj bJD u a 1 X) 5 — < i GO '•5 a c 60 iy5 in g 9 PL,

PAGE 94

82 ICDP. It traces the traditional system and an ICDP system with a conservationist model. The concepts are the numbered Cs, while the arrows and signs are the causal relations from C ; to Cj. A positive sign supposes that C, will increase Cj, while a negative sign supposes that Q will decrease Cj. The Traditional System Population growth (C,) increases food and non-food demand (C 2 ), which decreases food and non-food availability (C 3 ). When more food and non-food items are available (C 3 ), farm household standard of living, including such domains as health and education (C 4 ) is improved. Improved farm household standard of living, including health and education (C 4 ) is thought to induce a decreasing use of resources (C 5 ). It is the increasing needs in resource use (C 5 ) that cause environmental degradation of primary forests and biodiversity (C 6 ). An important implication is that environmental degradation of primary forests and biodiversity increases secondary vegetation for the farm household subsistence base. Degradation of primary forests and biodiversity itself (C 6 ) increases secondary vegetation through mainly slash and burn practices, and increases the loss of soil fertility through soil erosion (C7), which impacts negatively on agricultural production (C g ). If agricultural production (C g ) is not increasing, greater pressure from (C g ) to (C 9 ) to (C 3 ) to (C 4 ) will increase the resources needed for production such as land (C 5 ). However, increasing agricultural production (C g ) increases the supply of food and non-food items (C 9 ), which increases their availability (C 3 ). In a setting of weak infrastructure, weak marketing systems and practices (C lu ) decrease food and non-food availability (C 3 ), but

PAGE 95

83 at the same time decrease farm prices of agricultural products (C„). Decreasing farm prices of agricultural products (C n ) has negative effects on standard of living, health, and education (C 4 ), while at the same time decreasing supply of food and non-food items from farm households (C 9 ), and increasing resources used (C 5 ), especially in the protected area. The ICDP System Environmental degradation (C 6 ) and decreases in food and non-food availability (C 3 ), as well as decreases in agricultural production (C„), create requests to the government (C 12 ), which seeks outside assistance (C 13 ), as well as conducts actions, including policing, for protection and preservation (C 15 ). Funding agencies (C n ) respond to government (C 12 ) by creating an institution (C 14 ) to conduct conservation and development activities (C 15 ), (C 16 ), and (Cn), destined to curb targeted bottle necks (C,), (C 4 ), (C 5 ) (C 6 ), (Q), (C 10 ), and (C 18 ), in the conservation and development paradigm. Thus, the goal is to establish sustained integrated conservation and development. Analysis A pproaches The protection-preservation approach (C 15 ), including policing, relies on other institutional organizations and approaches, such as integrated rural development, to solve the development problem of the farm household system. Individual-group-community development activities exist but are not directly tied to the problem of conservation. In

PAGE 96

84 that sense, the relationship between the improvement of standard of living and resources needed is not really addressed, as no connection is made between demand and supply of food and non-food items. Protection-preservation activities are assumed by enforcing agencies to motivate people to find other sources than protected areas to meet production, income and/or consumption needs. In the ICDP approach, people are induced to improve resource allocation efficiency and to increase productivity and profitability through individual-groupcommunity development activities brought about by ICDP. In other words, increasing food and non-food deficit, declining agricultural production, and environmental degradation increase the demand from farm households to government, which in turn calls for assistance to conduct development activities. Example of Tavy in the Masoala Case Study The environmental pressure of tavy (slash and burn) has been identified by the Masoala ICDP team as the primary pressure in the protected area (C 6 ). This research identifies the cropping system as the determinant subsystem in the livelihood system (Q, C 4 ) of peripheral zone farm households around the Masoala protected area. Tavy is directly tied to, and is an integral part of, the cropping system. Removal of this practice, as specified in the linear program analysis (Chapter 3), would be very difficult for Masoala farm households. In the signed digraph of Figure 5.1, a protection-preservation policy (C 15 ) alone does not answer the need to substitute a viable alternative for tavy in the farm household

PAGE 97

85 livelihood system. Indeed, it has been shown (Chapter 3) that prohibition of the tavy practice decreases dramatically the well-being of farm households, measured in terms of annual discretionary cash spending. In the absence of substitute alternatives as responses to the need for more resources (C s ) to replace the supply of rice foregone from tavy (Q), while also removing environmental degradation (C 6 ) and the increase of secondary vegetation, it is expected that farm households would bypass the preservation policy if possible. Socio-political problems might arise to further confound the socioeconomic issues. It becomes an ethical and equity issue that farm households be given compensation for sacrificing their livelihood for the well-being of humanity. The introduction of development activities (C I4 , Ci 6 , C 17 ) under the ICDP model brings with it other causal relationships (noted as discontinuous arrows). The rationale of the ICDP development strategy is, in a sense, to disturb the "traditional" setting (in continuous arrows) by introducing "improved" environment-friendly activities, technologies and/or technical processes (in C 5 , C 7 , C 10 , C 18 ) directly tied to the pressures and designed to reduce environmental decline. Again, it is assumed that introduced development activities "better" the rural household system. The incremental gain with the improved system will compensate or exceed directly the loss from the "traditional" system, particularly in the use of natural and biological resources in the protected area. It follows that introduced individual-group development activities are socioeconomically and culturally "better" than "traditional" activities. Thus, the types of development activities to introduce in farm household systems must be tied closely to the types of environmental degradation in protected areas. By the

PAGE 98

86 same token, these development activities are assumed to take care of marketinfrastructure-institutional failures. Further analyses might be needed when considering such issues more closely. Beyond the Masoala Case Study Prioritization of pressures is expected to help identify the types of development activities which directly address these pressures and their causes. It is thought that if the individual-group-community development activities are directly tied to the problems in the protected area system and their causes, then rural household welfare will improve and human pressures on the protected area will decrease and/or cease. It is obvious in this conceptualization of an institutional cognitive pattern for Madagascar conservation and development paradigm that it is not enough to simply increase goods for the needy. Indeed, population growth is also a cause of the problem, as well as market and institutional failures. It is assumed that community development activities, such as improving human health, family planning, education about the environment, and farmer organization are simultaneous requirements with individual and/or group economically oriented development activities. Other assumptions are embedded in this framework. Development activities induce market and infrastructure availability to provide inputs and food, non-food, income and other goods and services, and absorb outputs and income earned from production. A more subtle assumption is that markets and infrastructure will integrate the rural household into a market economy with free and open access, in place of the subsistence

PAGE 99

87 economy. This will decrease the tendency toward self-sufficiency and increase interdependency in the exchange economy based on money and "balanced" income distribution. In this reasoning, the money-based economic system (in continuous and discontinuous arrows) will form new cycles, breaking the vicious circle of poverty and environmental degradation in the traditional system, and lead to a new form of development. That is, if the individual-group-community development activities are tied directly to environmental degradation and directly address its causes, resources needed for production will be stabilized by market and infrastructure, thereby decreasing environmental decline. This of course assumes that market cycles will not become so pronounced as to force farm households back to tavy practices as the source for their livelihood. Conclusion The ICP evaluation model as an ex-ante evaluation tool intends to improve: 1. the design, consistency, focus and implementation of conservation and development programs; 2. the assessment of interactions among the different environmental, socioeconomic and developmental factors; 3. the bases for decision-making at all levels; 4. the self-regulating potential for sustainability of integrated conservation and development systems;

PAGE 100

88 5. the chance that resource utilization increases farm household welfare and reduces negative impacts on natural resources and biodiversity in protected areas; and 6. the information needed for the formulation and selection of sound conservation and development policies in the decision-making process. An institutional cognitive pattern methodology and analysis for Madagascar conservation and development paradigm can act as an ex-ante evaluation tool. For the ICDPs, it will focus on the evolution of concepts and derived strategies resulting therein as well as the expected impact of changes in the concepts and strategies. It can be carried out in a form of workshops involving the actors from donors to ICDP, where LPM and STAT are bases of discussion, and expected outcome is a "consensus" on direction and intervention focus.

PAGE 101

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND FOUNDATIONS OF A SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR THE ICDP IN MADAGASCAR An Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System The "direction" of Malagasy ICDPs is to integrate conservation and development systems into a sustainable overall system for the resilience of present and future farm households, as well as of protected areas. Planning and implementation can facilitate progress in the direction of achieving the dual goals of conservation and development in Madagascar, and help maintain direction toward integrated programs. Maintaining "a sense of direction" in the ICDPs is the task of carefully designed and implemented monitoring and evaluation efforts, e.g. its "raison d'etre." A depiction of the challenge might involve ex ante and ex post evaluations (along with monitoring) as "nested mirror images," where desired results and impacts constitute the setting of direction (Figure 6.1). Situation analysis, mission and strategies are the basis for the expected impact. Thus, the grand system of relationships (Figure 4.3) requires consideration of complex forces, comprising socioeconomic needs and objectives, and environmental conservation. As stated by Swanson (1995), the Malagasy ICDPs' mission (goal and purpose) is "to establish sustainable human and natural ecosystems in areas of Madagascar where biodiversity is threatened, by identifying and establishing sustainable systems, including 89

PAGE 102

90 I I a ti d s? II 5^ II C P > £ £ w g 0 C o 1 1 l-H > £ < Q ! V « J m " ^ m 2 &. a. to -a a . § .2 22 o w >-> .2 CD 3 re c/5 to c/3 < 2 5o I c Ih O c o c o c o c 3 > PJ O (X X w c e o c ,o '•£3 3 13 > pj C < x PJ 1 £ g 5 2 'E o E c c • — Ph IT) ON ON C e bo 3 E 2 p =3 O c < g e < re -a •c o o E 5 ?> o >1 Q o

PAGE 103

91 institutions, methods, and behavior for management of protected areas of Madagascar and their peripheral zones." (p. 1) The situation in Madagascar is that poverty and degradation of protected areas are closely related (Barbour etal., 1992; Swanson, 1995, 1996; Kremen, 1997). Agriculture is the most important source of socioeconomic growth and employment for farm households in peripheral zones and the country as a whole. Insufficient supply and low incentives in price structure of agricultural products for seasonal consumption and income earnings lead farmers to exploit the protected area under different forms. Rice production by "tavy" (slash and burn) practice has been illustrated in chapter 3 as a compensating activity for the farm household in the hungry season. Simultaneously, natural resources in protected areas and socioeconomic development of those farm households in the peripheral zones must be managed efficiently if the system is to be sustained. The environment in which individuals function is formed by legal, political, cultural, economic, and social institutions. Institutions and their organizations, such as the ICDPs, are human arrangements that "condition" individual behavior (McDermott and Andrew, 1995, pp. IV1 IV-21). These institutions, springing from the groups, collectivities and/or society itself in Madagascar, provide incentives and disincentives to Malagasy decision-makers. Farm families in Madagascar respond as rational decisionmakers determined to survive, which is not a failing trait. A result, however, is environmental degradation. This situation gives context to Duraiappah's (1996) conclusion that institutional (and market) failure causes environmental degradation.

PAGE 104

92 The strategies of the Malagasy ICDPs are to conduct conservation activities in protected areas, and introduce development activities into the peripheral zones. Farm household systems in the peripheral zones are the targets for development activities. Development activities in turn are expected to help conservation activities (Barbour et al. , 1992; Swanson, 1995, 1996; Kremen, 1997). Planning and project selection, including the sequence of activities, provide the route to achieving the mission, where primary impacts are expected to lead to long-term impacts. The project and activity design provides the products that encourage realization of specified long-term impacts. "Hypothesis testing" 1 in both general and specific ways, where introduced development activities are pilot activities and/or trials, is an approach to maintain direction toward the mission and strategies of Malagasy ICDPs. The ICDP approach asserts a clear linkage between conservation and development activities, thus focusing on integrating sustainable human and natural ecosystems in areas of Madagascar where biodiversity is threatened (Swanson, 1995). Poverty and environmental degradation possess two-way relationships where causality and determining factors need to be tested. Evaluation is continuously present through the "direction process," and it determines progress toward products, as well as primary and long-term impacts. Monitoring occurs during implementation, and it verifies the progress toward planned activities (McDermott and Andrew, 1995, pp. D-l, D-2). A socioeconomic monitoring 1 "General ICDP Hypothesis: Economic development activities, linked to the conservation objectives of protected areas, will produce benefits which attract and focus the productive forces of a local population into sustainable and environmentally sound activities." (Swanson, 1995, p. 1) Specifically, each introduced development activity must address a specific principal human pressure that threatens a protected area, with the objective that the activity will promote human livelihood and diminish such pressure.

PAGE 105

93 and evaluation system (SEMES) in the Malagasy ICDPs provides management tools for ANGAP as a coordinating body and for each ICDP as field operator (Swanson, 1995, 1996). It helps in setting a course of activity and in maintaining direction through hypothesis testing. The SEMES is based on determining and verifying the value of development activities in achieving sustainable human and natural ecosystems in Madagascar. The value of development activities is defined through concepts and relationships in an evaluation system, leading to socioeconomic indicators in a monitoring system. The socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) is composed of two stages: 1) The evaluation system proposed is performed both at the level of the farm household and the institutional set (Figure 4.3). It is composed of (i) a linear programming model (LPM) which helps understand the farm-level short-term (annual) impact of various policy issues, and also serves an important role in evaluation by providing feedback to the ICP where socioeconomic policy actions are taken to achieve long-term goals, and (ii) an institutional cognitive pattern (ICP) methodology and analysis (Fajardo, 1995) which provides a tool to clarify and identify concepts and causal relationships at the institutional level. The identification of the concepts and causal relations in the grand system of relationships constitutes a solid foundation for the direction of the ICDP, mission, planning and strategy clarification, and for the SEMES. 2) A monitoring effort at the farm household level is composed of cross-sectional and time series indicators to be statistically (STAT) analyzed that monitor short-term behavior of farm households in the on-going socioeconomic process.

PAGE 106

94 Evaluation System The actual and future situations of the Malagasy ICDPs result from an institutional dimension of change, itself based in the evolution of concepts built from evolving beliefs, values, and incentives in Madagascar's conservation and development paradigm. The management of change relates the institutional dimension of change to the SEMES which focuses on the relationships among the institutional, rural household and protected area sets (Figure 1.2). One main "raison d'etre" of the SEMES is to test the hypothesis established from planning about conservation and development and from introducing development activities. The desire is that the well-being of the rural households will increase, and the pressures on protected areas will decrease or cease. From the standpoint of the grand system of relationships (Figure 4.3), actors who manage organizations within the institutions and farm households share loosely defined perceptions about ways to address needs and aspirations. Mission, strategies, causal relationships, and actions viewed from each actor's perspectives influence planning, monitoring and evaluation of ICDPs. As pointed out by Gilbert and Dodds (1992) and Blaikie and Jeanrenaud (1996), each actor views, understands and experiences "wildlife" and "biodiversity" from different social, cultural and economic backgrounds and values. Differences prevail in perspectives (including values and socioeconomic observations), goals and objectives of the actors. By adapting the evaluation summary and relationships in Figure 6.1 to each organization's and actor's rationale, one obtains Figure 6.2 where foci of interests differ around a point of joint concern for Madagascar's

PAGE 108

96 present well-being and future. Donors provide money for a priority given to conservation, and view socioeconomic development as a means to achieve that goal. ANGAP, as a national coordinating body, sees improving factor and total productivity of peripheral zone farm households as a priority to achieve the goal of reducing human pressure. The ICDP manages for sustainability in dealing with field conservation and socioeconomic development. Farm households manage first for their food security (Barbour et al., 1992; Swanson, 1995, 1996). All actors are aware of the importance of resilience of ecosystems and farm households. Yet, such differing foci create divergent planning and expectation frameworks, different targeted sets (protected area set and/or farm household set) and inconsistent time (short-, mediumand/or long-term) perspectives and expectations for the managers of activities to achieve results. The SEMES, in confronting these differences, relies on the LPM at the household level and the ICP evaluation model at the institutional level as tools to provide convergence toward more meaningful and operational concepts and relationships that will assist management of ICDPs in Madagascar. Monitoring System Introducing development activities will bring new and/or "improved" technology and/or practices to Malagasy farm households in peripheral zones of protected areas. These introductions, it is believed, will improve well-being of farm households, and at the same time contribute to conservation of protected areas. The introduction of technology is a process formally sketched in a research-extension framework with the

PAGE 109

97 technology innovation process (TIP) model (Figure 6.3; adapted from McDermott and Andrew, 1995). The left hand side of the modified TIP shows the actors with their objectives, and the degree of closeness to field understanding (practical < — > theoretical). The world stock of knowledge, 2 which is the basis for the field level understanding, includes all forms of written, unwritten, experimental and reasoned knowledge. It extends in this conceptualization from theory to practice. In other words, at the level of donors, including some international consultancies, "book or shelf knowledge" predominates. Ignorance and arrogance at times can prevail in dealing with field situations. At the farm household level, "field experience" prevails. Disagreement and stubbornness might prevail in dealing with outsiders. As one moves from the donors to farm households, the share of field experience increases while that of "book knowledge" decreases. At each step of the TIP, similar donor to farm household "misunderstandings" might occur. The remaining portion of the TIP depicts the process of moving from the world stock of knowledge through research and technology generation, testing, adaptation, integration and dissemination to ultimate diffusion and adoption. These tasks are accomplished in various organizational structures, including subject-matter research, areaspecific research, technical liaison and support (sometimes referred to as extension specialist), and field extension. The actors involved in the ICDP system from donors 2 "A sociology of scientific knowledge indicates that scientific "facts" are used to support various intellectual projects, upon which reputation, promotion and consultancy fees depend. Therefore discourses take place at many different levels and by a wide cast of protagonists." (Blaikie and Jeanrenaud, 1996, p. 1)

PAGE 110

98

PAGE 111

99 through ANGAP, DEF, and ICDP management to the farm household, interact with the technology innovation process in different ways due to their goal orientations. The introduction of development activities in Madagascar is designed to induce changes in resource allocation and use, and technological and technical processes of the farm households. "Introduced" new and/or "improved" technology and technical processes bring pressures and cause stresses to the households' systems that tend to induce disequilibrium in the local culture and socioeconomy (McDermott and Andrew, 1995). Such disequilibrium might work toward reinforcing the resilience of the protected area and/or farm households. It might also weaken either or both. The LPM and statistical indicators (STAT) are monitoring tools to assist management of ICDPs in Madagascar and insure that adverse impacts of development activities are minimized, while direction is maintained toward expectations. Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation System (SEMES) The SEMES (Figure 6.4) results from combining the planning-monitoringevaluation model (Figure 6.1) with the operational model (Figure 1.3). As a result, exante evaluation comprises the ICP evaluation model, and the linear programming model (LPM) at its interface with monitoring. Monitoring follows statistical indicators (STAT) in the "real world" for maintaining direction from ex-ante evaluation. Ex-post evaluation in the future will be based on those statistical indicators. From the results of the ICP evaluation model with support from the LPM, questions are to be asked such as the nature and types of development activities, what

PAGE 112

100 Signed Digraph (ICP Evaluation Model) C12 C9 1 Farm Household Behavior (LPM Indicators) Max Farm household objectives, such that: Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3 Farm Household Level Data (STAT Indicators) I Mission Mid-term Activity Product Primary Long-term Strategy Planning Design Impact Impact 1 Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Ex-Ante Evaluation Monitoring Ex-Post Evaluation Figure 6.4. The socioeconomic evaluation and monitoring system (SEMES)

PAGE 113

101 types of household units and members benefit, what direct and indirect impacts do these activities have on the farm households and protected area. Characterizing the farm households becomes crucial as well as looking at their objectives and constraints. A LPM at the farm level helps rationalize such understanding. Finally, comparison and evolution of socioeconomic indicators derived from both the institutional cognitive pattern and linear programming models need to be monitored across farm households, and from season to season and/or year to year, with statistical tests and tools. As a general "summary" of the entire socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation process, content concerns including problems and causal relationships, research problems, hypotheses, objectives, beliefsvalues, assumptions, observation criteria, metric indicators, information measurement and analysis are summarized in Table 6. 1 . From this overview, the complete task summarized in Figure 6.4 is initiated. The presentation of problems and causal relationships is one foundation for situation analysis, leading to the focus given by mission and strategy. Further specification is given to planning and project analysis through research (problems, hypotheses, objectives), and the context given by beliefs, values and assumptions. Project activity is then determined and bounded by observation criteria, metric indicators, and ultimately information measurement and analysis. The shortto long-term results are forthcoming as early products of the program, followed by primary impacts and long-terms impacts.

PAGE 114

I K ft i a + .2 11 a 5 £. •a I P 8 "8 "9 8 § I I 2 > M a c I 2 it — S or rid ne I wo o (A V E he c a 0 a 3 '> v. daga en :rie X c es C i E CO •a a .2 "S S c 8 C H O l-i •3 5 S .5 11 0 I i 9 '3 ^ TO 13 "3 TO C 0 O Stf) as s e 1 1 > u TO i g 54 c c o 6 a J3 E D. O 5 5^ J 8 §• -5 o 5 & o a § £ •a a cs o n > > _?J <0 T3 i a to o £ a « 0 «•3 a d c 6 2 is <$, aa m II & _o ° o .22 1 ill ill 102

PAGE 115

103 I b & 1 1 S 2 i o i I P -a c 5 1,2 5 a 1 1 & s 3 3 a> n u h 111 5 -a « — 0) b 3 1 . 3 O. £ fl & a
u x i: 'SOS ! E §1 >. .o 1 £ .2 8, « 9 v u & 8 o .9 4> »5S > a -a a .S ? 3 O a | •8 a c a. o 5 "> 5 ja S -2 S a " 3 J> w ills 1> CA M V3 _ _ o « a S .1«J -Cs OS ft.

PAGE 116

104 5 I »-» o I f 1 Q S? « 1 1 1 1 S 3 Ph £ P a 1y f i 9 I, o "a> o S a T3 2 O .2 o 5 CX o. a .2 •a '35 4) CA r" !B ri t 1 4> I i

PAGE 117

105 a 5 I c 5 a 6 o ."2 "I . & R* x o If 3 -s 2 I n > c 5. 4 J * a •S 1 o o. "3 1 S 8 e § US -T-5 11 a-. J 3 « g a a 1 § 1 £ 9 a § 1 1 11 II i i 1 a" £ I i s 22 £ B u 5 t2 u a S 2 O T3 -a c CO IS * § III O. S o s. V <"3 J> a J3 — J3 .2 M _ -a * a IP 2 M O 3 « O C 9 o a 8 i a 60 V b S & 3 «> a w u i -2 pa -c c 5 c o it A 1 \ C/S G O o a a
a .a -8 1»5 a I"

PAGE 118

106 s §• & q 6 1 i 4> U all to 4) O C H <* 2 <3 o 1 * 8 o j) 3 .« J 3 4> X! fl. 2 b e$ o « I 3 O a ° O « s s _ 3 S fl II h 1 JS 5 i v. c xi a 3 u as eA g -s a i — « I a •» a & « 8 8 I P 3 O 8 3 /»» 8 I I S c I g | « I £ 1 _ o a .& a 1 a p c § I a o. JS — 3 "4> o. > o 4> 5. 3 H u .§«& *1 £ 35 -a I § a) •a o si a a > 1 a 'S >-. * •a cn 4) 4) 3 H .2 c 5 ~3 a, c a. 5 to a n I! S -S 3 a fl!3 If P o O d 2 I ;fl « H e js « o « -i 3 .2 «^ 'Sin! s -a -2 <3 S a ..3 3 s I U o 4) 3 3 .-2 Ui fl 3 4) 11 II .2 > 1 -a e fl c « .2 s a a s 4> 4) 1 •a I 1 11 4) 2 £ £ i It V ^ 5 ? « -a g « eg 3 . 3) D I 2 £ 3 SO s ( ( 3 .2 ° -5 4> P B 6 4> S > 3 t3 'I 8 a P fl 3 « 4> O 3 1 2 ~ lis a 8 * fl -8 "3 SB S fl T! 2 0 2 •S o 2 « o 8 "9 J h § "a * o * •fl 2 ® 4» fl O S T3 4) S 3 1 fl s a c« 3 1 3 o 8 a 5 s 6 S o .2 a 4) O H 3 J) d C O 4) t. « 1 2 u fl 2 a o a, •fl S § | « a a I 9 4> £ O C 4) o <-< fl g | o S s ^3 \ C C O 5 5 5 fl 1 a I .§ .2 1 « § .a a a 51 1 a "3 5 > ~o • o •fl ° 4> 3 bo -a fl 4> 5 S 3 * a o a y 13 d 4) a | 0 3 1 8 I 1 o > 11 cu o 4> BO — S 1'5 s a CO fi 4) O 1 -a > S o 2 SJ3 4) H -fl a II 2 1 ' s a 2 a o | a •a .2 fl C a £ M 9 *-> fl -S a 1) C i ^ 3 a v £ c fl > » 9 C8 N O 1 1 'a a 3 * fl > os a a a o 1 s -a l I 8 3 O 4) O l4) X! O. C —i 4> U XI 1 H _ a 4> "4> tt 1 1 •a I a a a fl •a o 8 e 4> u> fl. 4) 4) » § § •fl — o d o M B 4) ^ X! 2 3 o 1 -3 a BO o 1 3 § 8. S a V 4> .2 a B J •a > a -s 1 | 5 s 1

PAGE 119

107 5 S i e i 1 3 _C '^ C o u 1 n I a c a I hi 5 C i o 1 o 3 5, 6 "> — 'a o i "i i-, 3 a 73 M ° 1 £ a «s 5 1 2 3 1 3 O a 2 u c . .h a I -8 1 J! 3 a E 3 V ° d
PAGE 120

108 "S 5 I q .a 1 1 I | i 60 tg g S .2 It g B CO *3 1 1 0J B .2 ^ J § s '-a I— •O 60 1 1 u. S * -2 X *_ s i .2 & vO 3 2 o •& 3 9 •a 0 5 ex g x II 0 "5 "3 § § » I 3 CX ff a a o '-t-H — O O 11 a I 1 & — I fi. Si & 9* I O fl) a 9 1 1 3 3 eft eft ° la 8 a 8 3 j> 5 O £ a a 11 & s •a £ * „ o 3 tm -a B >> .9 0 3 § * 3 O 1 S 5 1 g D > 3 "8 3 C o 1 1 so XI | 8 | J3 2 i> 00 -3 O B 5 a is 1 t— I w II °"3 4> -a 1 5 BO g o .2 a a > 1> o •3 a< -2 K rj « 5 s s 3 •« H .2 &n « 1 1 '1 I T3 2 o 1 '3 13 .1 5 > 2 5 a s rf£ ^ eft I 2 8 3 X> to ° g o "2 3
PAGE 121

,0 •3 i i 6 5 M 5 1 c o c v B o. 5 1 » 9 ft TS 0 | 2 2 11 5 o. U T3 so 1 II £ <§ » ^ i c tu a a x I * I i I I a> s. 70 >> s c _o £ I 2 S si J T3 0-h o 1 11 •g 4) 'S 2 "3 J3 2 > 1 1 £ .a Mj c .2 a «j 1 2 (3 w — 2 a 1) tA T3 S 5 i i I fa c £ I c 5 C a — ' a a > t. Oh J=i Q => U « 1 c o 1 3 > -turn 5 53

PAGE 122

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion A fundamental issue in the conservation and development paradigm in Madagascar is how to sustain socioeconomic development, while simultaneously conserving resources and the environment for production, consumption, and human population livelihoods in general, in the short-term, and across generations. The focus is on a grand system of relationships composed of institutions, resources, and people. A socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES) is designed, and provides a methodology for sustainability analysis of the Masoala Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) in northeastern Madagascar. It considers the ICDP managers' concerns for maintaining resilience of the protected area, along with wellbeing of nearby farm households. A general hypothesis is: development activities introduced by ICDP will affect positively farm households' livelihoods, and change their destructive behavior towards the protected area, thus decreasing and/or ceasing the human pressure in that protected area. An overall objective of the study is to provide managers and decision-makers with the SEMES as a package of flexible, cost effective, and results-oriented management tools to meet their concerns and verify the general and other specific hypotheses. 110

PAGE 123

Ill Approach The design of this research is prompted by concerns of: 1. Efficiency and management of conservation and socioeconomic development activities at the ICDP level. 2. Present and future resource constraints of ICDP, and uncertainty at different levels of institutions. 3. Imprecision and confusion about the philosophy, definitions, and approaches and methodologies for socioeconomic development activities at different institutional levels. 4. A broad range of philosophy, definitions, and understandings concerning the conservation and development paradigm. 5. Perceptions that protected area, farm household, institutional, and developmental activities, are systemic in nature and by definition within the integrated conservation and development paradigm. This research responds to these concerns by proposing the socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation system (SEMES), illustrated by the Masoala ICDP case study where the first data on socioeconomic monitoring and evaluation is available. The research approach combines a conventional (data analysis) approach-a linear programming model (LPM) and statistical analyses (STAT)--at the household level, and a participatory (participating actors) approach— institutional cognitive pattern (ICP) evaluation model—at the institutional level.

PAGE 124

The Socioeconomic Monitoring and Evaluation System (SEMES') 112 The systemic nature of the components (protected area, farm household, institutions, development activities, and their environments) in the integrated conservation and development paradigm, calls for a systemic response (SEMES) to "resolve" conflicting situations therein. The SEMES is composed of three systemic parts. The present work involves the Masoala case study in two of those parts as a means for validating the potential for SEMES. The components parts are: 1. A Linear Programming Model (LPM), as an interface between the "real world," an institutional evaluation model, and statistical analysis. It identifies, describes and analyses farm household circumstances, and relationships with the protected area. It is shown in the Masoala case study (Chapter 3) that a prioritized pressure can be tied to a specific subsystem in the farm household livelihood system, allowing for partial and/or more complex analysis as needed. In the resource and environment constrained ICDP, such flexibility and manageability are needed. It is the basis for the institutional evaluation, and conservation and development monitoring; 2. An Institutional Cognitive Pattern (ICP) evaluation model where beliefs, values and incentives of institutions converge into shared and more precise concepts and relationships in the ICDP for meaningful and operational actions and policies. As illustrated by the Masoala case (Chapter 5), tavy (slash and burn) pressure, for example, can be analyzed in that framework; and

PAGE 125

113 3. Statistical analysis (STAT) for monitoring indicators from LPM and ICP is oriented to future monitoring and analysis. The present focus of the Masoala case study targets development activities and indicators. In so doing, LPM and ICP evaluation models prove to be helpful in evaluating the circumstances of Masoala farm households, and the institutional setting. Future changes, and/or constancies, of well-targeted indicators are expected to signal positive or negative effects on sustainability of this ICDP, allowing for rectification, improvement, modification and/or reorientation of development activities. Also, signals provide tools to decision-makers, especially the ICDP managers, for management and policy making purposes. Monitoring with STAT, which was not part of this case study, will focus on the signals as time series indicators become available. The ICDP Results of the linear programming model (LPM) in the Masoala ICDP case study show that farm households act rationally, and perform pressure activities (tavy culture in this case) in the protected area because of their possibilities and constraints. Prohibiting the pressure dramatically decreases farm households welfare. Tavy pressure can be tied to the cropping system, a subsystem in the farm household livelihood, and therefore to a specific development activity introduced by ICDP. Constraints and performance for the success of that activity can be monitored and evaluated, and therefore managed more efficiently.

PAGE 126

114 The institutional cognitive pattern (ICP) evaluation model shows that if restriction is made to the access of protected area with no compensating alternative given in the "traditional" setting of farm households, then population growth, and food and non-food demand increase will encourage the increase of secondary forests and depletion of primary forests, natural resources, and biodiversity. The success of interventions might not be sustainable unless other issues, such as infrastructure and marketing systems, are considered and improved. Recommendations: Prelude to Implementation Widespread shortand long-term production, income and food/ non-food consumption instability and food insecurity, lead to poverty for farm households. Sustainable poverty alleviation requires sufficient domestic production and/or purchasing power while conserving and preserving the resource base at the farm household level. Potentials for sustainable maintenance and surplus of input resources and product output must prevail. "Adequate" production, income earning ability and possibility, food/nonfood consumption and food security would constitute prerequisites for sustainable socioeconomic development and growth, as well as for conservation and preservation of protected areas. This emphasis on "adequacy" must compensate farm households for not using the protected area. Socioeconomic actors such as donors, international entities, national to local governments, Malagasy institutional organizations, ICDPs and farm households must be aware of the ethics, equity and sustainability issues concerning the development activities

PAGE 127

115 to be introduced. For example, donors may not agree to change their priorities and shortterm objectives from conservation, while the near starvation farm household in developing countries cannot agree today to be worse-off so that humanity is better-off in the future. Nor does it seem that households in a developed country will forego consumption excesses for the long-run goal. The SEMES The proposed SEMES can be of use soon, as it is composed of three related, and reinforcing subsystems, providing a basis for on-going assessment and management. At any initial time to, with or without the development activity, LPM and ICP evaluation identify constraints and alternatives to farm household systems. Indicators for STAT are identified. Monitoring indicators with STAT begins with LPM and ICP evaluation model, describing cross-sectionally the actual socioeconomic situation of the farm households. At a time t,, in our case a season or a year, the development activity brings changes in the farm household livelihood system and in its behavior on farm and in protected area. Both cross-sectional and short-term information will result from the indicators. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 can be tested at any time t„, and from time t„ to tn +m , n,m = 0,1,.... Findings about the indicators in time t„ and t„ +m will be the bases for hypothesis testing in time t„ +m+I , and so on.

PAGE 128

116 The ICDP In preparing for an effective and appropriate evaluation and monitoring system for the ICDPs, the following recommendations represent a format for consideration. 1. Identify and describe production, income and consumption patterns and relationships. Patterns and relationships are examined for farm households having different socioeconomic characteristics relative to allocation and use of resources in protected areas, development activities and farming systems. 2. Identify and describe cross-sectional and timeseries socioeconomic indicators for monitoring and ex-post evaluations of: 1) resource use in protected areas by farm households; 2) farm household livelihood; and 3) introduced development activities. 3. Analyze the determining factors of production, income and consumption with respect to natural resource use, introduced development activities and farm household farming systems. 4. Describe and analyze the extent to which peripheral zone farm households are food insecure. 5. Identify the types of farm households that are food insecure in the peripheral zone. This part of the analysis assesses the scope for "targeting" income sources of the poor and the vulnerable groups. 6. Identify and analyze the concepts and relationships in an ICP evaluation model for the ICDPs.

PAGE 129

117 7. Identify possible efficient interventions through agricultural development programs. Also as consideration for further research, changes and trends will vary by region, household unit and gender. They will define: 1) the constraints and positive factors for farm household productivity, production, profit, income and consumption; 2) farm household standard of living; and 3) the impacts of the development activities on farm household behavior towards the use of natural resources in protected areas. In application, the framework to be proposed will provide the basis for observing other propositions over time to extend the hypotheses and objectives of this research and the ICDP: Resource allocation decisions in farm household production subsystems will change as well as the activities, and operations in each activity. Total productivity and that of each activity will change, as will the role, task and share of household members in each activity. The increase in productivity with the development activity will compensate or exceed the income and consumption opportunities foregone in the protected area. With the introduced development activities, less time will be spent in the protected area, and more time will be devoted to labor or leisure, outside the protected area. Seasonal (normal and hungry seasons) and regional fluctuations in income and prices affect quantity of food demand.

PAGE 130

118 The importance of rice as a staple food and commercial crop in Madagascar makes it a primary commodity focus for study. However, rice must be viewed in a ricebased broader system. Seasons and regions influence the price (own-, and cross-) and income elasticities for rice and other staple foods. The income and substitution effects in rice consumption determine the patterns of food consumption, focusing on diet diversity and food supply, especially in the use of natural resources. Seasons and regions determine food demand and consumption patterns, and extend to natural resource use in protected areas. It is expected that the socioeconomic and biophysical characteristics of the regions herein play an important role. Supply elasticities by season and region differ because of 1) the levels of input used and levels of pressure on the use of limited lowand rainfedlands (both critical in the seasonal outcome of rice production); 2) some regional socio-cultural and economic characteristics of the households such as the level of education, assets and income; and 3) heterogeneous intraand interregional infrastructural facilities. Cross-sectional and time-series indicators of farm household allocation and use of resources in 1) natural resources, 2) introduced development activities and 3) farm household farming systems permit comparison of changes and trends stimulated by development activities. Finally, the goal is to understand the evolving situation for sustainable integrated conservation and development in the Malagasy project areas and beyond. Such

PAGE 131

119 understanding will assist project managers and policy makers, and ultimately the people of Madagascar. The people of Madagascar, possibly as much or more than any other people in the world, are challenged very directly today with the need for sustainable conservation of their environment and biodiversity, and socioeconomic development.

PAGE 132

APPENDIX A LPM: RICE 1 AND TAVY, PURCHASE OF TAVY

PAGE 133

121 |3§ooooooooooooooooooooootooooooooo
PAGE 134

122 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'o o o o o o o _ o O O ^ o b o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o p. <*> « ^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOidOOOOOOOO ?™OoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO«-*7 000000000 IB 3 8 9 ! . ^ ^5^000000000000000000000000000--OOOOOOOOOq > u _ o 1 W _ o O U O O o"oooooooooooooooooooooooooo--ooooooooooo5 taJ o — m o22ooo-o
PAGE 135

5 E 1 1 < 5 5 I i i s Hill I I 123 1 I s lOQOCOOtD,nO rsl O lD lOcOCO«COmP»WCOWCOMOO_^ 0 ^ 0 i£> 0 M 0 f^ 0 So®oi-00000 1 i ii ii I I I l I ii ii ii ii ii ii a < n n li a I I VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVA L_ (0 ™ o E • o o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOO«3 « E r ^oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'-*70 CO i CD W _ id O "rt 5_3*~-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"-Oi0O a > 1 t < S CN O O O O 6 22* i_ ooooooooooooooooo5ooo T 8 & CO _ o o S5oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo«-ooo§ o o o o ooooooooooooooooS 0000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'o o o o o ooooooooooo ooooooooooo o O O u> o u_ _ f o £ « o o o o O O O ,_ oooooooooooooo o o o o o o

PAGE 136

2 a 5 1 1 1 a 5 iS iS iS o jj s i . .. gig JJflH B « s llllllls^llfiisll 9 8 i i 1 ifigiiilMilMg oogoogoojooooogooo — © © © © *j — g5q©©orl©©r-© ? 8 ° = 1 * 3 § § § ©oooooooooooooooooooooooo = 2 h ; a n ft 5 > is is ^ tfl u 5 5 2 S a <

PAGE 137

125 z t! > cr re H 5 1 i lis > > > > > TO -£ s D_ .bAG Qco n _ i O o -Q > J3 y Q A _l 1C/RI a: = o ? o o o .£ 2 a 2 2 hgl o .* SGCC BAN BANC TAR 1 TARC COF 1 O u. O u I 5 5 E E E H o z cm ci 5 X X X > « w co CD o O CD LD o CD CM to * ^ _ a O O) h» O CJ 1-^ o o o CM CO CO 0) CO O) CD id CD ID CO CO CD CO CO CO CD r-. CO CM o 8 o q rO CO cm n O rp*. foal O Tt (N ^ i— »— cm ® s ^ 5 CO CM CM o 6 ID cn LD IX) CM CM CM CD 6 6 d 6 CM CO CD ID CO 2 CT3 rCN CM CD O) O o C ~ q q O * ' OOOOOOOOOOOO^OoOoOoOoOo -----X^^oooogggqgqgqgqg ^OcoOooOqoOoOidO osofioSBoaoto o o o o o o o o CO CO CO co to CO CO CO CO CO ogooooooo o o o o o a u ,_• o o o id 5000 I Oh 1 § ID CN r» a> o o o s s <°. g g q • m o o q 2; g q q 0**00 000000 — ^.-.oooooo ooo^qqqqq 000000000 ID LD ID ID O O CM CM O O 00 CO O o 0000000 o o o o « Irt IA r\ IA ' ID ID O ID CD O O O O CM CD O ^ O CO O O O O «f _ _ CD 8 2 X t 8 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O O ™ ID ceooooooooo *r ° o o o o o o o> z z z z z vvvvvvvvvvvvvv >>>->>->->>->->o o CO o ? o V >>> OOOOO V » V V o o o o r. _ o O O O • OJ q O ID ID > 0 0 6 0 6 0 CO 8 CM 8 CD CO 0 0 0 0 CD CO 01 CO m CM O CD LD CD CM CO O 0 0 CO q CO CD CO 6 CO oi CM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CM CN CM CO CM SSogOOggoOo ^ O 9 O oqoqopoo jo 3 ^ j o 5 0^0000 2 a. 5 i CM — WOZQOCUOCO 1*1* 8 H 8 § O o U) S 0 0 cs E E E C Ll_ IX CM CO X X X CO CO CO U U 0 I II I

PAGE 138

(M « O CM OJ tN 4; * cc S cc h en y CD u O to in SGC L> o z z Z < < a a < co < < u (J en CD CD o > (0 CM z X I < a H > o o 126 a; O 4) 1 j c E Infi Infi CN | V V O O 0 n I I e ? | 2 e ? c e e 3 SoSSnSSSSSoS c 5 1 1 S I £ I e I 8 3 ISffSfillfSlf .12 3 £ •s t i ° « C S I 1 i i i f O CN CD CD o o a o o o o o o CN o o CO 6 6 00 o o co a> o o « o o o io o eq otooo LDOOtNLDOtDLDO o o o co a> o o w q CN O ID CN CN ooooooooooo ooooooooooooqoqqqqoqpqqpooq o o o o o o oooooooooqoooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o o o o oooooooo o o o o o o I o O O O 00 o o o o o o «o o 8 8 O 05 O O CN O C*5 O O 00 '•w' oooocoqooooqqqwqq 8 8 O O o io o o o o o o io o o o o o o o 8 8 8 ooooqooooo 3 tooooooooooootoooooooooo o o o o o 1 e -> o 3 d « o o o o o o r* o o o o o o o oonooocooooo-* OOCDOOOOO O0000»-OOCN«O O o CO tDOOOO00«-0D00OOOOOOlO oocotoooniooocvi oocN^qqq->->->z z z z 8 s >V z z z z I OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o>ooooooot»oo o o o o o O 00 O O O o o 00000--00 O O CO o o o O O O O CN OCNtDOOOOOO'-CROOOOOOOOlOOCDlOOOOO A A A A « (O r S: N N w 5 CC * DC D= tr hg > 0) o < < O u_ W O ft M o 5 p I X (/> (0
PAGE 139

APPENDIX B LPM: RICE 1 AND NO TAVY, NO PURCHASE OF TAVY

PAGE 140

128 oooooooooo o o o o -70000 000000000 0000 0000 00000 ™ © © © © 000000 00000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOf3 IS 00000 0000000000000 — — 00000000000000000 0000 00000000000000 — 00000000000000000 g SSI I . * -a s o a s ©©o£ci**if*>;£ — oooo^JSooSooooooooooooooooao 000000000000000000-70000000 000000 © •I I 00000000000000000 — — 0000000000000000000 00000000000 — 000 2 1 00000000000000000

PAGE 141

129 £ 3 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o © © 1 1 © o © o © ooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o o o o 21 I © o © — o CI
PAGE 142

130 S E 1 I 1 I s O O O O O CD O O O l© 10 f; ^ 6 6 O 6 ^ CM CD CO CD CO IO ID f) N ID CM CM CM LO LO CO CM CO CO O • OOOOO qcMq£Jqqqqq o" q id q Q 2 2 b 2 S oj 9 °. o 9 to *O O O O CO o8o^^222222222222o8ooooo
PAGE 143

LPM: Rice 1 Answer Report Solution Cell Suiting Final CSH3 (Fmg) 0.000 1638676.471 Variable Ce lis Starting Final Ml 0.000 1.000 Mil 0.000 0.000 MIC 0.000 810.000 M1P 0.000 222.000 RO 0.000 0.000 M2S 0.000 0.000 M2C 0.000 0.000 M2P 0.000 0.000 TAV 0.000 0.000 TAVS 0.000 0.000 TAVC 0.000 0.000 TAVP 0.000 0.000 CAS 0.000 0.087 CASS 0.000 0.000 CASC 0.000 520.000 MC 0.000 0.103 SOCS 0.000 0.000 SGCC 0.000 175.000 BAN 0.000 0.270 BANS 0.000 746.176 BANC 0.000 65.000 TAR 0.000 0.040 TARS 0.000 0.000 TARC 0.000 260.000 COF 0.000 0.500 COFS 0.000 468.000 COFC 0.000 12.000 CLO 0.000 0.000 CLOS 0.000 0.000 VAN 0.000 0.000 VANS 0.000 0.000 CSH1 0.000 0.000 CSH2 0.000 8»2500.000 no Tavy, no Purchase of Tavy (iradicnl Increment I increment 0.000 Infinite 997500.000 0.000 300.000 Infinite 0.000 Infinite 200.000 0.000 200.000 infinite 0.000 957000.000 Infinite 1500.000 1476.852 1500.000 0.000 1500.000 infinite -1750.000 1750.000 Infinite 0.000 15000.000 Infinite 1300.000 1271.698 infinite 0.000 28.302 infinite -1500.000 1500.000 Infinite 0.000 1980000.000 Infinite 170.000 330.000 Infinite 0.000 500.000 Infinite 0.000 1300000.000 Infinite 1000.000 764.706 Infinite 0.000 1764.706 Infinite 0.000 Infinite 1300000.000 1000.000 Infinite 433.333 0.000 1000.000 Infinite 0.000 1375000.000 Infinite 250.000 211.538 Infinite 0.000 461.538 Infinite 0.000 Infinite 397500.000 0.000 Infinite 414.062 0.000 2500.000 Infinite 0.000 1995000.000 Infinite 1000.000 4925.926 1000.000 0.000 397500.000 Infinite 0.000 893.258 Infinite 0.000 66.500 Infinite 1 .000 Infinite 0.831

PAGE 144

DC CC s s < oo 2 5 < 2 I s s ft y CO o > o 1 s — „ — '.J > 5 t 5 ? * — o — o > — z. ^ ^ < CC CC CC C h U O CO to o 1 Z Z CC < < < m m tE E E wC4 m 132 O S £ £ O O O 03 CN o o o * r*. O O O CN CO m n n n P) (•) -z>->->-zzzzzzzzzzzz>->-> S3 S3 >> S3 S3 S3 S3 S S3 S3 S3 S3 >>>->->->>->•> S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 S3 o o II II V V 111 f> f»> o m f> f) r: (-> n orococotococoootocococo V V V V V o o o o o V V V V V vvvvvvvv i O O O O i"* ^OOOOOlOlOlDCOCMlO^t^CDtOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOlOO -=oooiDiD^--;*:™.<;_:.«.«»;^;ocNooooooocNor^o CO CD CN CO CO CD " O CN O O O O O O O O O *t ID ID CO CN CM CN CN CO O O O O O O CD O CN O *> = CC CC ICO CJ •> TJ -D -O t) TJ O _i i i _j i CO (0 < 00 2 < * 5 5 S > (/I B > > > to > Q 0. CJ > O < CO O a XI — 1 Xt -O Xl XI — — D» CC 0» OC £ £ E «— CM PO <cj(Jcj to -J JD 2 o I 1 > i i £ 2 <

PAGE 145

133 saaaaaa&!i-,!igssasss2!iga!iaa-,as=: ell % a 1 1 1 a I ° 1 I 1 I 1 ? J I 1 'J I i 1 ^ © © © © (3 00 00 o © © 0 } a S « 8 K 5? ^ 5 S a ft S li o § 2 J = a 2 2 S 2 S i S 3 < < ^ < < ,S ^ ^ 5 I < , J o g S , S < i y

PAGE 146

REFERENCES Abel-Ratovo, Henri L. , Fidelis Andrianilana, Desire Andrianorosoa, May Mercado, and J.C. Flinn. 1988. "Les Systemes de Production a Base Rizicole sur les Plaines de Marovoay." FOFIFA/DRD/IRRI, Antananarivo, Madagascar. Abel-Ratovo, Henri L. and Desire Randrianaivo. 1996. "Dossier Regional d'Orientation pour la Recherche Agricole dans le Faritany d'Antsiranana". Volumes I & II. FOFIFA/DRD, Antananarivo, Madagascar. Barbour, Russell, Rene Rabezandrina, Ray Daviesson, William Guyton, Nivo Rakotobe, Pepe Andrianomanana, Lala Rananjahery, and Paula Williams. 1992. "The Broken Forest: Applying the Integrated Conservation and Development Paradigm to Madagascar's Protected Areas." DAI/PACT, Synthesis Report, Maryland. Blaikie, Piers and Sally Jeanrenaud. 1996. "Biodiversity and Human Welfare." United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, New York. Duraiappah, Anantha. 1996. "Poverty and Environmental Degradation: A Literature Review and Analysis." Collaborative Research in the Economics of Environment and Development (CREED), Working Paper Series, No.8, London. Fajardo-Christen, Adrien. 1993. "The Institutional Dimension of Change in International Agricultural Research." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Frankenberger, Timothy R. 1985. "Adding a Food Consumption Perspective to Farming Systems Research. Nutrition Economics Group." Technical Assistance Division, Office of International Cooperation and Development, USDA, Washington, D.C. Gilbert, Frederick F. and Donald G. Dodds. 1992. The Philosophy and Practice of Wildlife Management. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. Gill, Gerard J. 1991. Seasonality and Agriculture in the Developing World: A Problem of the Poor and Powerless. Cambridge University Press, New York. 134

PAGE 147

135 Gunderson, Lance H., C. S. Holling and Stephen S. Light, ed. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Hayami, Yujiro and Vernon W. Ruttan. 1985. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Hazell, Peter B. R.and Roger D. Norton. 1986. Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in Agriculture. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. James, Valentine Udoh, ed. 1994. Environmental and Economic Dilemmas of Developing Countries: Africa in the Twenty-first Century. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut. Kelly, Terry. 1995. "A Bioeconomic Systems Approach to Sustainability Analysis at the Farm Level." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Khan, Qaiser. 1990. "Madagascar: Towards a Food Security and Nutrition Strategy." World Bank, Washington D.C. Kiker, Clyde F. and Francis E. Putz. 1997. "Ecological Certification of Forest Products: Economic Challenges." Ecological Economics, Vol. 20, pp.37-51. Kosko, Bart. 1986. "Fuzzy Cognitive Maps." International Journal Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 65-75. Kosko, Bart. 1988. "Hidden Patterns in Combined and Adaptive Knowledge Networks." International Journal of Approximate Reasoning , Vol. 2. pp. 377-393. Kremen, Claire, Isaia Raymond and Kate Lance. 1997. "Monitoring Human Use of Plant Species on the Masoala Peninsula, Madagascar: Interdisciplinary Tools for Adaptive Management." Paper for submission to Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Lehr, Jay H., ed. 1992. Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. MacKenzie, F.T. and J.A. MacKenzie. 1995. Our Changing Planet. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. McDermott, James K. and Chris O. Andrew. 1995. "Agricultural Program Management. " Unpublished course manuscript, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 148

136 Mercado, May D. 1989. "Evaluation of Farm Constraints to Rice Production in Marovoay Plains, Madagascar." M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Nash, Madeleine. 1994. "The Making of an Eco-Disaster. " Time Magazine, November 21. Place, Frank. 1991. "Production Agricole des Menages dans les Hautes Terres a Madagascar." FOFIFA/DRD, Novembre. PNSAN. 1993. Programme National de Surveillance Alimentaire et Nutritionnelle. MRS/UNICEF. Bulletin Trimestriel No.2, Juin, Madagascar. PCDI Masoala. 1996. "Programme Annuel de Travail." Projet de Conservation et de Developpement Integre' de la Presquile de Masoala, CARE/ANGAP, Madagascar. Raustiala, Kal and David Victor G. 1996. "Biodiversity Since Rio: The future of the Convention on Biological Diversity." Environment, Vol. 38, Number 4. Sahn, E. David. 1989. "Seasonal Variability in Third World Agriculture. Food Policy Statement." International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), No. 12, November, Washington, D.C. Swanson, Richard. 1995. "Development for Conservation: Monitoring and Evaluation." Tropical Research and Development, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. Swanson, Richard. 1996. "National Parks and Reserves, Madagascar's New Model for Biodiversity Conservation: Lessons Learned Through Integrated Conservation and Development Projects." Tropical Research and Development, Inc., Gainesville, Florida. Taber, Rod. 1991. "Knowledge Processing with Fuzzy Cognitive Maps." Expert Systems With Applications, Vol. 2, pp. 83-87. UNCED, 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992. World Bank, 1986. "Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries." Bank Policy Study, Washington, D.C. World Bank, 1995. "World Tables Yearbook." Population and Human Resources Division, Africa Country Department III, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 149

137 Zeller, Manfred, 1993. "Rural Finance and Food Security in Madagascar." Interim Report, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), May, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 150

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Henri Lucien Abel-Ratovo was born on November 14, 1953, in Antsirabe, Madagascar. After graduating from the Civil Engineering Technical High School ("Lycee Technique du Genie Civil"), Antananarivo, Madagascar, with training in building and public works, he received his bachelor's degree ("maitrise") in rural economics from "Institut Superieur des Techniques d'Outre-Mer" (ISTOM), Le Havre, France. He then completed his Master degree ("Diplome d'Etudes Superieures Specialisees") in agricultural development from "Institut d'Etudes de Developpement Economique et Social" (IEDES), University of Paris I, Pantheon-Sorbonne, France. This specialization towards the rural world led him to work as a researcher for the National Center of Applied Research to Rural Development ("FOFIFA") in Madagascar for about ten years. During that time, his professional journey around Madagascar and the world led him to pursue and complete the M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs in food and resource economics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl, USA. He is a member of Phi Kappa Phi. 138

PAGE 151

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosopji^. Chris O. Andrew, Chair Professor of Food and Resource Economics I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosopk PetefE. Hildebrand Professor of Food and Resource Economics I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Clyde F. Kiker Professor of Food and Resource Economics I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosopt la Larry W Libby Professor of Food and Resource Economics I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Art Hansen Associate Professor of Anthropology

PAGE 152

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Agriculture and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1997 Dean^College of AgriMture Dean, Graduate School