Community Forestry in Madagascar: An Analysis of the Policy Process (Ferguson HB 2003 MSc Thesis UEA...

Barry Ferguson, MSc in Environment and Development Dissertation, 2003

1

Community Forestry in Madagascar: An Analysis of the Policy Process

H.B. Ferguson

A Dissertation Submitted to the School of Development Studies of the University of East Anglia in Part-fulfilment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

September 2003


2

Word Count : 8018 Chapter 1 : 450 Chapter 2 : 1278 Chapter 3 : 1609 Chapter 4 : 4251 Chapter 5 : 430


3

Contents

Cover 1 Contents 3 List of Figures 4 Abbreviations 4 Acknowledgements 5 Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Background 6 1.2 Dissertation Focus and Outline 6

Chapter 2 – Community Forest Management

2.1 Local Participation in Natural Resource Management 8 2.2 Community Management of Forests 9 2.3 Environmental Politics and Community Forestry in Madagascar 10 2.4 Understanding Policy Process 12

Chapter 3 – Methods: Policy Process Framework and Research Tools

3.1 Overview 14 3.2 Policy Process Analysis Framework 14 3.3 Stages of the Framework 17 3.4 Research Tools 19

Chapter 4 – Application of the Framework

4.1 Key Policy Milestones (Step 1) 22 4.2 Political and Governance Context (Step 2) 24 4.3 Key Policy Issues and Forest Management (Step 3) 26 4.4 Policy Development Process and Outcomes (Step 4) 28 4.5 Implementation Process (Step 5) 31 4.6 The Future : A Longer-term View (Step 6) 34

Chapter 5 – Conclusion 40 References 42


4

List of Figures Figure 2.1 The Spectrum of Community Forest Management Policies 10 Figure 2.2 The Policy Process Model 13 Figure 3.1 The Policy Process Analytical Framework 15 Figure 3.2 Evaluating Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts 18 Figure 3.3 USAID Enabling Conditions for CBNRM 19 Figure 3.4 Key Stakeholder Interviews 20 Figure 4.1 Roles of Policy Actors at Multiple Levels 29 Figure 4.2 GCF Implementation Procedure 32 Figure 4.3 Evaluation of Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts of CFM 33

Abbreviations ANGAP – National Association for the Management of Protected Areas BINGO – Big International NGO CANFORET – Cantonment of Water and Forest Ministry (also CEF) CBNRM – Community Based Natural Resource Management CFM – Community Forest Management CI – Conservation International CIRAD – Centre for International Cooperation on Agronomic Research CIREF – Circonscription of Water and Forest Ministry COBA – Basic Community COGE – Community Management Committee FED – European Development Funds GCF – Contracted Forest Management GEF – Global Environment Facility GELOSE – Secure Local Management GTZ – German Agency for Technical Cooperation ICDP – Integrated Conservation and Development Project IRG – International Resources Group MEF – Ministry of Water and Forests MinEnv – Ministry of the Environment NEAP – National Environmental Action Plan NGO – Non Governmental Organisation ONE – National Environment Office PADR – Rural Development Action Plan PE1 – Environment Plan Phase 1 PE2 – Environment Plan Phase 2 PE3 – Environment Plan Phase 3 PFM – Participatory Forest Management PRSP – Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PSDR – Rural Development Support Program SMB – Multi-Donor Secretariat UNDP – United Nations Development Program USAID – United States Agency for International Development WCS – Wildlife Conservation Society WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature


5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of many people. Firstly I would like to thank the donors who made the study and work it analyses

possible: The ODG Overseas Study Fund provided financial support for the research presented here, The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and the BP

Conservation Programme have each provided financial support for the community forestry interventions which the Libanona Ecology Centre (CEL) and the

Tandroy Conservation Trust(TCT) have been engaged in southern Madagascar which provided the case study information.

The partner organisations of the CEL and the TCT also deserve thanks for their support advice and orientation. I would like to convey my thanks particularly to

Circonscription des Eaux et Forets(CIREF) de Fort Dauphin, WWF Madagascar, ONG Kiomba.

Many individuals involved with forestry in Madagascar have provided extensive support information and advice contributing to this study, in alphabetical order I

thank Andrew Cooke, Joanna Durbin, Sylvain Eboroke, Tom Erdmann, Mark Fenn, Lisa Gaylord, Roy Hagan, Frank Hawkins, Andy Keck,

Christian Kull, Manahira, Mihavitsara, Martin Nicoll, Rabemanjaka, Daniel Ralaivao, Victor Rasolonirina, Flavien Rebara, Bob Simpson, Remanintsy

Tompotany. I also thank the staff of the Jardin de la Mer Hotel in Mananjary and the Castel Motel in Anjozorobe for providing quiet retreats in which to write

up what is presented here.

Finally I convey sincere thanks to John McDonagh for his patient and insightful supervision of this dissertation and to Kate Brown and Eddie Allison for their

advice during the conception of the study.


6

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Madagascar has been widely identified as one of the planets highest biodiversity conservation

priorities due to its uniquely high levels of endemic species and the pressures being imposed

on them by the islands poverty stricken population. The selection of Madagascar as a top

priority ‘Biodiversity Hotspot’ (Myers et al. 2000) and that it contains 5 of the priority Global

200 Ecoregions (WWF, 1998) demonstrates the current attention being given to the

conservation of country’s biodiversity.

The large attention that has been given to Madagascar’s environment has produced a

complex process of environmental politics. With much of the islands biodiversity being

terrestrial there has naturally been a range of programmes implemented to ensure the

conservation and sustainable use of the various extant terrestrial habitats. Much of these

efforts have been focused on the management of the various types of forest found on the

island because of their important role in maintaining biodiversity. In the period since the

publishing of Madagascar’s National Environmental Programme in 1989, the political

process surrounding forest management has included the emergence of a dichotomy of

policies promoting both strict protection for forests in protected areas as well as community

based management of natural and plantation forests outside this network of protected areas.

1.2 Dissertation Focus and Outline

During the first two phases of its national environmental program the Malagasy authorities

responsible for forestry were supported in developing a range of legislation intended to


7

facilitate the implementation of community forestry. Two of these legislated tools have been

used across the island to affect co-management of forests outside the network of formally

protected areas. The GELOSE (Gestion Locale Sécurisée [Secured Local Management]) and

GCF (Gestion Contractualisee des Forets [Contracted Forest Management]) acts in 1996 and 2001

respectively have been developed and used in programmes funded by various international

donors and implemented by governmental and Non governmental organisations.

With this context in mind this dissertation aims to investigate the policy process behind the

development, implementation and evolution of Gestion Locale Sécurisée (GELOSE) and

Gestion Contractualisée des Forets (GCF) and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of

the more recently introduced GCF legislation.

In order to fulfil these aims a presentation of the general context and rationale of community

forestry is made in chapter two. In chapter three an analytical framework is constructed in

order to allow the analysis of the context development and implementation of community

forestry policies. Chapter four presents the application of the resulting framework with

particular attention given to experiences of the use of the GCF. In the final chapter

reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of Madagascar’s Community Forestry Policies

are synthesised and opportunities identified for improvements to the implementation and

policy evolution process.


8

Chapter 2

COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT

2.1 Local Participation in Natural Resource Management The general discourse of the importance and validity of increasing community participation

in natural resource management has led to the emergence of the term Community Based

Natural Resource Management (CBNRM). In identifying the rationale for developing such

policies it has been realised that the drive for CBNRM grew out of the realisation that:

a) Unsustainable local practices often drive resource degradation in Africa.

b) Existing legal, social and economic policies, in particular the absence of nationally recognised

individual or communal tenure rights inhibit sustainable resource use.

c) Governments in developing countries often lack the financial or institutional resources to

adequately manage or regulate natural resources.

(Bickel et al., 2003:2)

Proponents of CBNRM express populist environmental sentiments which they support with

a range of theories. Agrawal (2000) promotes the general idea that ‘Community is Good’ and

that their empowerment will form part of a transition from being ‘colonial subjects’ to ‘post

colonial citizens’. This argument deems it more appropriate to give the opportunity for the

local community, who know best the local context, to autonomously manage their own

natural resources. This is contrary to traditional top down or autocratic management

approaches which are perceived as a relict of former colonial states such as those from the

East India Company’s Forest Conservancies (Grove, 1995:11) or in the French colonial

administrations ownership of forests in west Africa (Benjaminson, 1998:1). Since the firm

establishment of CBNRM as an approach for sustainable resource use, democratic

decentralisation, or the transparent transfer of power from national to regional and local


9

institutions, has been considered as the principal means by which it can become effective

(Ribot, 2002:1).

Participatory resource management is also seen as a solution to the problems of open access

to scarce resources first promoted by Hardin (1968) as ‘the Tragedy of the Commons’ where it

may bring legal security to land tenure and will hence provide a motivation to manage the

resources in a sustainable manner (Ostrom, 1990). When CBNRM is considered in the

context of resource conservation, it is deemed to be a worthy alternative to failed state

managed and fortress approaches to conservation (Hulme and Adams, 1998).

2.2 Community Management of Forests

Since the early 1990’s Africa has been undergoing a period of major change in its forest

management practice (Wily, 2002). An important aspect of this change has been increasing

participation in forest management, given the established ubiquity and perceived

effectiveness of implicating the local community forest management today, it is deemed fair

to consider Participatory Forest Management (PFM) as a significant means of securing

sustainable forest management in the continent (ibid). As illustrated in Figure 2.1 below,

community participation in forest management takes a great diversity of forms, in cases such

as Lesotho, forests may be entirely transferred to local communities, while Community

Forest Management (CFM) in Ghana (Kyem, 2002:228) and the Ivory Coast (Lorng,

2000:166) is largely limited to consultation of communities with somewhat limited transfer of

power.

Sustainable CFM, indeed sustainable community management of any natural resource, relies

on the presumption that the community concerned meet three basic requirements. Bickel et

al. (2003) summarise these as communities who:


10

a) are assured of their ownership of the natural resource.

b) are allowed to use the resources themselves and/or benefit directly from others use of them.

c) are given a reasonable amount of control over management of these resources.

Figure 2.1 The Spectrum of Community Forest Management Policies

Level of Community Involvement/ Control

Development of Forest Management Policy in the Philippines (a)

Typologies of PFM determined from comparisons across Africa (b)

Use and non-use values determining community control of community conservation in Africa (c)

Consultation (Ghana and Ivory Coast) Co operant Management (Zimbabwe and Zambia) Contractual Partnership (Mali and Cameroon) Consigned Management (Gambia and Tanzania)

Lowest Highest

Colonial State Control Scientific Forestry Commercialisation Community Based forest policies

Community Based Forest Management (Lesotho and Malawi)

Policy is resource conservation driven (use value) or wildlife conservation driven (non-use value) Policy is resource development driven (use value) or to achieve cultural conservation (non uses such as sacred groves/taboo forest)

Developed from: (a) Gauld, 2000; (b) Wily, 2002; (c) Adams and Hulme, 1998

2.3 Environmental Politics and Community Forestry in

Madagascar

As described in chapter one, Madagascar has been the focus of much attention from

environmentalists. Marcus and Kull (2000) describe how an international conference in 1985

and the subsequent preparation of the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) in 1988


11

are the basis for the most recent trends in environmentalism on the island. One feature of

the NEAP was to encourage the creation and consolidation of protected areas in

Madagascar. This approach to conservation itself has gone through an interesting evolution

since it was pushed in Madagascar at the end of the 1980’s. The protected areas network

originated from the 1930’s when forests were gazetted by the French colonial administration

(DeCosse, 2001:2) and as such excluded communities around the park peripheries from

resource use within the boundaries of the park. In Madagascar the 1980’s saw a similar

approach to the creation and management of protected areas continuing to be used. This so

called ‘Yellowstone Model’ (Marcus and Kull, 2000) was perceived locally as serving only

conservation and not meeting the economic and resource needs of local communities, and

so was not well received by the population who considered it to be a follow on from the

colonial era where they are excluded from resource use inside the park. The period

following the publication of NEAP coincided with a global trend to developing alternatives

to the Yellowstone Model and gave birth to Integrated Conservation and Development

Programmes (ICDP’s). Here attempts to integrate local economic development needs with

biodiversity and forest conservation were made. In Madagascar there are several examples

of ICDP’s, notably Ranomafana National Park in the eastern rainforest (Wright, 1998),

Andohahela National Park in the South-Eastern Humid-Dry Transition Zone and the

Mananara Biosphere Reserve in the North-East (Rakotonindrina, nd; UNESCO, 2003).

This trend of increasing community participation in forest conservation and management

extended outside the protected areas network in the 1990’s with the realisation that there was

a need to conserve more than just a network of parks and reserves. These efforts to develop

a new and more appropriate regime of forest politics for Madagascar gained the support of

several large international development donors (including USAID, the French and Swiss

Development Cooperation’s, German Technical Assistance (GTZ) and the World Bank) as


12

well as international NGO’s and research institutions (including French CIRAD, WWF and

CI) (DeCosse, 2001) within the context of the first phase of Madagascar’s Environment

Programme (PE1). The result of these new forest politics programmes included various

governmental decrees including those providing for GELOSE and GCF and legitimising

traditional Malagasy agreements (Dina’s) (Cooke et al., 2003). These mechanisms provide a

means by which local communities are empowered to manage their forests and currently

cover an estimated 200,000 hectares of forest in Madagascar. It is the process of the policy

development and implementation of GCF which will receive much of the analytical focus in

chapter four of this dissertation.

2.4 Understanding Policy Process

There are various approaches to gaining an understanding of the process of development

and implementation of any chosen policy, each approach having its own advantages. In

order to address the aim of a given study, one must ensure that the research approach is

appropriate and will generate the desired results. The ‘new’ approach to policy analysis as

described by Blaikie and Sadeque (in Blaikie and Soussan, 2000:7) considers policy in a more

holistic and wide ranging context and so provides an opportunity to identify policy

constraints and opportunities. Perhaps more significantly it allows the researcher to engage

with the perspectives on the realism, legitimacy and efficiency of a policy at multiple levels.

Figure 2.2 below depicts how policy process is a complex process where various

circumstances and stakeholders will influence the process in different ways, as Springate-

Baginski and Soussan (2002) emphasise that the process is ‘iterative and ongoing’ as seen by the

arrows feeding back from all the stages to the influences which will be altered dependant on

the evolution of the policy, how it is interpreted and acted on, and particularly dependant on

the impacts produced that those with influence perceive.


13

LEAVE THIS PAGE BLANK TO INSERT FIGURE 2.2 (POLICY PROCESS MODEL)


14

Chapter 3

METHODS: POLICY PROCESS FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH TOOLS

3.1 Overview As described in the previous section and depicted in Figure 2.2 the examination of a policy

process depends on a conceptual understanding of the process in addition to clarity in the

objective of the examination. With the aim of this study being to understand the

development and implementation of CFM policy in Madagascar in order to identify the

strengths and weaknesses of GCF and so provide recommendations to ameliorate its use for

improved forest management for the Malagasy people. This chapter describes the

framework and research tools which will be used in the subsequent chapter to analyse the

policy process.

3.2 Policy Process Analysis Framework

To proceed from a policy process model to a method of analysing the process one must

choose the methodology based on feasibility and the questions being addressed. The model

that has been adopted for this study (Blaikie and Soussan, 2001 – Figure 2.2) was developed

with the aim of understanding how livelihoods feature in policy process. While this study

does not disregard the role of livelihoods in the policy process it is more specifically

concerned with the effectiveness and appropriateness (or the impact) of community forestry

policy in Madagascar. Simply stated the analysis will be used to determine the impacts of

CFM policy to contribute to their goal – namely sustainable forest management. With this in


15

mind the model will remain largely unchanged but the means of process analysis will replace

‘livelihood’ with ‘sustainable forest management’.

Following the development of the policy process model itself Springate-Baginski and

Soussan (2002) developed a methodology for its analysis. The six stages of their framework

is presented in the left hand column of Figure 3.1 below and remains unchanged from

Springate-Baginski and Soussan’s matrix except for the replacement of ‘livelihoods’ with

‘Sustainable Forest Management’ in stages three and five. Each stage represents part of the

process model presented in Chapter 2.

Figure 3.1 The Policy Process Analytical Framework

Research Tools Used

Stage of Policy Analysis D

ocu

men

tary

R

evie

ws

Stak

ehol

der

In

terv

iew

s

Gro

up

D

iscu

ssio

ns

Par

tici

pant

O

bse

rvat

ion

Act

ion

R

esea

rch

1

Key Policy Milestones

√

√

2

Political and Governance Context

√

√

√

3 Key Policy Issues and their relation to Sustainable Forest Management

√

√

√

√

4 Policy Development Process and Outcomes

√

√

√

√

5

Implementation Process: Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts for Sustainable Forest Management

√

√

√

√

√

6 The Future: A Longer Term View

√

√

√

√

√

(Adapted from Springate Baginski and Soussan, 2002)


16

The research tools implemented as shown in right hand side of figure 3.1 have been more

significantly adapted for this study considering the time constraints, available data and the

context in which the author is placed in the policy process in Madagascar (see 3.4.4). Several

key themes to be addressed through the use of these research tools were identified at the

outset of the study and were aimed to allow comparison with other CBNRM case studies

which had been found to have weaknesses. These themes and their origin were:

a) The rationale for community forest management in the eyes of stakeholders

at multiple levels. This arose because of the perceived different institutional

mindsets of the Malagasy Forest Administration (sustainable management of

productive forests) and of the donors and implementers engaged in the process such

as USAID and WWF (conservation oriented).

b) The motivation of those involved for participating in CFM. As well as

linking with theme a, this relates to those communities who were not seen to have

any direct economic benefit from participating in CFM.

c) The functioning of a feedback loop for policy development from grass roots

level to policy making level. This relates to the identified gap between

‘participation rhetoric’ of donors such as the World Bank (2002:2) and NGO’s and

the reality of participation on the ground (Hildyard et al., 2001).

d) The degree of policy ownership by the Malagasy People. This links with

theme c and relates to the major reliance of expatriate technical expertise in the

environment sector during the early 1990’s (USAID, 2002a)


17

3.3 The Stages of the Framework

The policy analysis methods presented below are based on the format described by Blaikie

and Soussan (2002) which was presented in more detail with community forestry examples

by Springate-Baginski et al (2001) where they used it in Nepal. It has been adapted for use in

the context of this study (ie a focus on sustainable forest management rather than

livelihoods) and the choice of research tools adopted also relates to some degree to

opportunities within the constraints of this study.

3.3.1 Stage 1 - Key Policy Milestones

This stage is concerned with setting the context for the policy being investigated and as such

information on the policy history, governmental acts and political events is consolidated. In

the context of this study data was gathered from published literature, and interviews with

people with a history of engagement with the policy development (see Figure 3.2 for details

of the stakeholder interviews conducted). The milestones identified are presented as a

chronological sequence.

3.3.2 Stage 2 - Political and Governance Contexts

Building on the previous stage this looks at the context within which institutions, donors,

existing capacity and innovation and environmental conditions act as catalytic or impeding

factors for the development of policy. The emerging results from literature review,

interviews and group discussions will represent the ‘Policy Drivers’ illustrated in Figure 2.2.

3.3.3 Stage 3 - Key Policy Issues and their relation to Sustainable Forest Management

This stage consists of the identification of the principal policy issues affecting all policy

development in the domain and how these relate to sustainable forest management and

therefore what the objectives of policy are. These issues are what compose the drivers

determined in step two and are typically predominant discourses discovered through

document review, interviews and discussions as well as participant observation.


18

3.3.4 Stage 4 - Policy Development Process and Outcomes

This stage relates to the actual debate and discussions over the formulation of specific Macro

Policies such as who was lobbying for a particular policy. The roles of the key actors are

identified and information was collected mainly through interviews, group discussion and

participant observation and to a lesser extent document review.

3.3.5 Stage 5 - Implementation Process: Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts for

Sustainable Forest Management

The fifth stage involves an analysis of the implementation process of a given policy and the

actions taken to reach policy outputs their outcomes and resulting impact for sustainable

forest management. Documentary reviews of policy implementation methods and consultant

evaluations were consulted and key stakeholder interviews allowed a more insightful set of

results to be obtained. Participant observation and action research approaches consolidated

the data set and allowed independent assessment by the author regarding policy impacts.

The evaluation of Output, Outcome and Impact were conducted in the manner outlined by

Oakley et al. (1998:33) see figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Evaluating Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts

Measurable Factor

Indicator

Output Effort Implementation of policy

Outcome Effectiveness Use of outputs and sustained production

of benefits Impact Change Difference from

original problem situation

(Oakley et al., 1998:33)


19

3.3.6 Stage 6 - The Future: A Longer Term View

This final stage used all the chosen research tools to enable forward reflection on the

envisaged future for CFM policy in Madagascar, the ten enabling conditions defined for

USAID by Bickel et al (2003) (see figure 3.3 below) were used following the understanding

gained in steps one to five to help evaluate needs for future development of the policy. It

was at this stage that the four themes from section 3.2 are considered. This stage enables

initial recommendations to be made regarding future policy direction as well as means of

improving policy implementation.

Figure 3.3 USAID Enabling Conditions for Community Based Natural Resource Management

1. Clarified or Improved Land Tenure 2. Local Community Commitment and Capacity 3. Experienced NGO and Government Partners 4. Targeted Technical Assistance 5. Regional Resource Management Plans setting limits of acceptable use 6. Workable environmental monitoring and mitigation plans 7. Access to markets and credit 8. Social Cohesion in Communities adopting CBNRM practices 9. Effective resource monitoring and policing 10. Genuine economic benefits to the community

(after Bickel et al. 2003: 3.4)

3.4 Research Tools

3.4.1 Documentary Reviews

Literature searches for published academic articles were conducted, donor consultant reports

were sourced from the internet, colleagues and those with whom interviews and meetings

were held. Particularly useful was the Multi Donor Secretariat (SMB) in Madagascar which

holds a large number of consultant reports prepared during phase two of Madagascar’s

environmental programme.


20

3.4.2 Stakeholder Interviews

Figure 3.4 below indicates those people with whom interviews were held in person and

information solicited by email communication, interviews were semi-structured in that at the

outset of each interview a range of key themes had been identified which would be discussed and

a number of pertinent questions prepared (Young, 1996:4). For ‘in person’ interviews the

interviewee was asked at the outset if they minded the interview being recorded, however as the

content of the interview included personal opinion, speculation and future reflections all

interviewees declined to have the interview recorded. Perhaps this reticence for being recorded

indicates the sensitive nature of donor – NGO – government dynamics in forest policy making

in Madagascar.

Figure 3.4 Key Stakeholder Interviews Held Name Present Role Organisation Lisa Gaylord Head of Environment Programme USAID Andrew Cooke Director Resolve Consult Victor Rasolonirina Chef CIREF Fort Dauphin CIREF Mark Fenn Technical Advisor WWF Bob Simpson Technical Advisor ONG Fanamby Tom Erdmann Technical Advisor WWF/CAF Helen Crowley Director: Madagascar WCS Roy Hagan Independent Consultant Oryzopsis Andy Keck Natural Resources Specialist IRG Joanna Durbin Director: Madagascar DWPT

3.4.3 Group Discussion

During June and July 2003 two workshops were organised in the south of Madagascar. The first

(17/18 June in Amboasary-Sud was co-hosted with WWF) included representatives of local

communities, NGO’s, government departments and donor organisations. During this workshop

opportunities for using community forestry policy were discussed at the various levels. At the

time of writing of this dissertation the report is in preparation by WWF. The second workshop

was held in Ambovombe on the 22/23 July and featured fifteen representatives of NGO’s and

Governmental Organisations with an interest in community forestry. One of four discussion


21

sessions was devoted to community forestry in the Androy region and the most appropriate

approaches for its implementation the report is in preparation.

3.4.4 Participant Observation

As described by Young (1996:5) the author participated in various community forestry activities

between September 2000 and July 2003. At the time of writing the author was responsible for a

community forestry programme in the Androy region of southern Madagascar with a Malagasy

National NGO (Centre Ecologique de Libanona) and a British NGO (The Tandroy

Conservation Trust). The activities participated in which contributed to this study include:

information meetings on GCF policy at sub prefecture and commune level, discussion

workshops on forestry policy, the process of transfer of forest management (managing a field

team implementing: information campaigns, local institution creation, forest delimitation, forest

use zoning and signature of contracts). This dissertation particularly draws on experience from

the two case studies described in the Action Research section below.

3.4.5 Action Research

The action research referred to for this study applies to two particular case studies of the use of

GCF which the author has been implied and has direct knowledge of. As Madagascar is at a

relatively early stage in community forestry and given that the CFM policy process is deemed to

be iterative and evolving this work is considered action research as the lessons learned are being

fed back to central policy makers in Antananarivo the capital of Madagascar. The two case study

forests are located in the Androy region of southern Madagascar and are characterised by dry

spiny forest: 1. The Ifotaka forest had its GCF contract completed in mid June 2003 following

work in the region on CFM since 2000. 2. The Ankodida forest where work was also initiated in

2000 is in the final stages of completion of its GCF contract which is anticipated by the end of

2003. The experience of these two cases is particularly useful for Step 5 of the policy process

analysis framework where knowledge of the implementation and impacts is required.


22

Chapter 4

APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK

4.1 Key Policy Milestones (Step 1) 1896: France Colonises Madagascar. 1896: Service des Eaux et Forets [Water and Forest Service] created by the French colonial administration. 1900: Declaration by colonial administration all forests are state property. 1927: Madagascar’s first protected areas are declared - Reserves Naturelles Integree [Natural Integrated Reserves] These excluded all outsiders from entry with the exception of authorized scientific researchers. 1960: Madagascar gains independence from France, creation of first Malagasy environmental laws which provide the basis on which all subsequent legislation is developed. Dinas (traditional local agreements) incorporated into national legal framework 1968: Madagascar adopts the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Strategy for classification of protected areas. 1972: Nationalist Malagasy Government began impetus to break away from ‘conservationist options’ of colonial and neo-colonial periods. 1984: National Strategy of Conservation and Development is adopted by Madagascar. 1985: International Conference in Madagascar focused attention on conservation 1988: Preparation of National Environmental Charter carried out. 1989: Madagascar’s 15 year National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) is published. 1990: CEM Malagasy Environmental Charter (Charte Environnementale Malagasy – CEM) is adopted through the passing of law No 90-033. The charter is to be implemented through the Plan d’Action sur l’Environnement (PAE) [Environmental Action Plan]. The charter makes the first mention of moves towards local participation in natural resource management. 1990: Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protegees (ANGAP) is created [National Association for the Management of Protected Areas]. 1991: PNAE put into action by a broad coalition of donors (Germany, France, Switzerland, USA), international agencies (GEF, IDA, UNDP) and NGOs (WWF, Conservation International). 1991: Political Unrest resulting in suspension of Structural Adjustment programme until 1994 1991 – 1996: Phase one of PNAE (known as PE1) is implemented with launch in 1992. 1997 : Service des Eaux et Forets becomes Ministere des Eaux et Forets


23

1994 Office National de l’Environnement established (ONE [National Environment Office]) to oversee all environmental matters and the implementation of PNAE. 1994: The passing of Malagasy laws 94-001 to 94-008 begins formal moves towards political decentralisation through the decentralised collectives (‘collectivité decentralise’). The law 94-008 aimed to improve the legal recognition of traditional agreements (Dina’s) which were already legitimate in the eyes of rural communities. 1996: The GELOSE (Gestion Locale Securisee [Local Secure Management]) Act 96-025 (30/09/96) is passed allowing the legal transfer of management of natural resources to local communities through environmental mediators. 1997: Revision of forest legislation is carried out through the passing of law 97-017 are adopted by the Malagasy government with a revised national constitution. 1997: The first transfer of management through the GELOSE mechanism is completed in the Andapa region of Northeastern Madagascar with WWF and European Development Fund (FED) (Bertrand, 2000). 1998: The Constitutional revision begun in 1997 leads the way to the creation of Autonomous Provinces. 1997 – 2001: The second phase of PNAE is implemented (known as PE2) focusing on consolidating the work done in PE1 and in putting the newly created Malagasy institutions in leadership roles (ANGAP, ONE, MinEnv). 2000: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Drafted (PRSP). 2000-2001: Rural Development Action Plan Developed (PADR). 2000 : Adoption of law 2000-383 granting secure rights to land which is reforested by a community member. 2001: Gestion Contractualisée des Forets (GCF [Contracted Forest Management]) Act is passed (2001-122) which operates within GELOSE Act (96-035) and streamlines the process of transfer of management of forest resources to local communities. 2001: (July) Provincial Governers elected from shortlist. 2002: Political Unrest resulting in humanitarian, economic and environmental crisis (new President - Marc Ravalomanana in effective power by July 2002). 2003: Integration of the Ministries of Water and Forest (Ministère des Eaux et Forets) and of Environment (Ministère de l’Environnement) EFE and ongoing preparation of third phase of Environment Program (PE3). Sources : Literature : Henkels (1999), Marcus and Kull (1999), Kull (2002), GCF Guide (2002), GCF Meeting Mantasoa (Andrianjafy et al, 20090), Cooke et al. (2003) Garreau (1999) Bertrand (2000) USAID (2002b) Interview Data : Cooke, Gaylord.


24

4.2 Political and Governance Context (Step 2) Madagascar became a focus of global environmental attention towards the end of the

1980’s (Marcus and Kull, 1999), it has become a global biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al.,

1999), is one of a limited number of megadiversity countries and this environmental

priority position combined with the fact that it is one of the poorest nations on the planet

gives the island nation a unique context. In terms of forest resources Madagascar is host

to a diversity of endemic and threatened habitat types, in general terms the forest biome

can be characterised with four major native forest types as well as plantations predominated

by exotic eucalyptus species. Madagascar’s natural forests on the east coast are typified by

rainforest, in the west by dry deciduous forest, the central high plateau by montane forests

and the semi-arid south of the island by xerophytic dry spiny forest.

Following its independence from its former colonial power, France in 1960 Madagascar

spent almost the following three decades being dominated by a socialist regime and as such

its relatively modern democratic government is deemed to be fragile, in the late 1980’s

Madagascar began adopting more pragmatic economic policies (World Bank, 2002) The

political crises of 1991 and 2002 demonstrate the relative fragility of the country’s political

system. The forest sector as with many other parts of the Malagasy administration is a

victim of the lack of government resources and inappropriate management and is

particularly renowned to be fraught with corruption.

The institutional aspect of Madagascar’s forests political context owe much of their current

format to efforts by the international community during the first phase of the national

environmental program (PE1) from 1991 - 1996. During this time a number of new

institutions were created to govern the challenging environment sector. The principal

governing bodies which were created to supplement the Ministere des Eaux et Forets


25

(MEF) were l’Office Nationale de l’Environnement (ONE), the Ministere de

l’Environnement (MinEnv) and l’Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires

Protegees (ANGAP). Other research, advice and support institutions were created

including the Centre Nationale pour la Recherche sur l’Environnement (CNRE) and the

Service d’Appui pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (SAGE).

The influence of the donor sector in the development of forest politics has been

unmistakable. This sector has been dominated by the American (USAID), French

(Cooperation Francaise), German (GTZ) and Swiss (Cooperation Suisse) International

Development Agencies and the World Bank. A growing body of international researchers

have also had influence on the community forestry sector, perhaps most notably the

French through CIRAD’s in country research programme during the early and mid 1990’s

(Bertrand, 2000). Undoubtedly making a major contribution to the orientation of this

donor investment during EP1 and EP2 has been the active and vocal biodiversity

conservation lobby particularly the big international NGO’s (BINGOs) Conservation

International (CI), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Wildlife Conservation

Society (WCS).

Following the resolution of the 2002 political crisis and the widespread acceptance by the

population of Marc Ravalomanana as president several significant changes have taken place

to the governance of the environmental sector. The Ministries for the Environment and

for Water and Forests were integrated in April 2003, a merger which may prove challenging

given the fundamentally different mindsets (Conservation versus Production). PE3

however will provide an opportunity to refine the roles of these institutions of the

environmental domain (Cooke, 2003:132).


26

4.3 Key Policy Issues and Forest Management (Step 3) In defining the objectives of community forest management policy in Madagascar five

objectives are identified here each being perceived to have played a part in the evolution of

CFM policy. The general objectives have emerged following consideration of both Bickel

et al’s Enabling Conditions for CBNRM (2003) and from personal observations of the

ongoing debate over CFM in Madagascar, how and why it originated and how it is

evolving:

1. The biodiversity lobby, particularly Big International NGO’s such as WWF, WCS

and CI attempting a strong influence over forest management outside protected

areas with the objective of protecting critically endangered biodiversity.

2. State ownership of land, the forested portions of which are managed by the

Ministere des Eaux et Forets who are judged incapable of fulfilling their role due to

insufficient resources and inappropriate management systems, GELOSE for

example was judged a means of reducing costs of forest control (Babin and

Bertrand, 1998).

3. The legalisation of forest resource use by local communities which is governed by

illegal but socially legitimate rules in order to improve human livelihoods and

rationalise forest management to consider local subsistence requirements.

(Razafindrabe and Thompson, 1994).

4. Through the transfer of management rights to local communities providing tenure

security which creates a logical reason for communities to sustainably manage their

forest resources. (Moving from unowned commons to owned commons (McKean,

2000:49)).

5. Local communities are often motivated to take part in CFM as a means by which to

exclude outsiders of their village/region from exploiting their natural resources,


27

partly in recognition of the future value of these resources and partly as outsider

exploitation causes degradation of local NRM enforcement norms.

In addition to these five different objectives for CFM, there are three general drivers

behind the move towards CFM in Madagascar. Firstly that the donor community in

Madagascar have a particularly heavy influence and CFM/CBNRM was something being

encouraged by both the American (USAID) and the French (CIRAD and Co-operation

Francaise) from early in the NEAP process. In addition to this, governmental reforms

established by the donor community were very much based on introduced models from the

developed world. For example Lisa Gaylord (head of USAIDs Madagascar Environment

Program), in explaining the rationale behind the creation of ONE and subsequently

MinEnv commented that early in the NEAP process the Americans observed that

Madagascar didn’t have independent bodies for environment and forestry like in the USA,

so USAID encouraged the development of new bodies instead of dealing with what was a

‘corrupt and dysfunctional forest service’.

Secondly the forest service established by the French colonial administration near the end

of the nineteenth century has remained relatively unchanged, certainly compared to other

government departments. At the time of writing, the Ministere des Eaux et Forets was

operating on a cUS$450,000 budget when the environment sector in Madagascar operates

on cUS$20M budget (Cooke et al, 2003). This discrepancy between donor financial

influence and forest service capability leaves the forest service under equipped to grow out

of the institution conceived and created for the French colonial administration and is

representative of the effects of newly created state bodies such as ONE and MinEnv which

have perhaps undermined the forest service.


28

Thirdly the priority environmental status for Madagascar’s forests and their uniquely high

levels of biodiversity and associated threats has meant that major attention has been given

to the development of legislation and reform for the forest management policies. The

forest service has remained relatively untouched by institutional reform, perhaps the major

reason for limited implementation success with CFM policies, although this is something

which will be addressed during the third phase of NEAP (PE3) (USAID, 2003).

4.4 Policy Development Process and Outcomes (Step 4) That Figure 4.1 below depicts donors and donor co-ordination at the top level is quite a

significant feature of the policy development process in Madagascar. From information

gained during stakeholder interviews and action research several interesting pieces of

information emerged which helped identify key features of the policy process:

• The former co-ordinator of the Multi-Donor Secretariat (SMB) remarked that

‘donors did not want to be co-ordinated’ and that as the SMB was unable to

represent the donors its role was largely limited to improving communication and

providing a central repository for information. This suggests that donor objectives

are somewhat overbearing, particularly in the resource scarce context of the

Malagasy forests service.

• When questioned regarding Malagasy policy ownership, the co-ordinator of

USAID’s environment program accepted that with the large donor investments

they do weald a disproportional amount of influence in the policy development

domain, she did remark that Madagascar is comparatively very strong in terms of

policy ownership when compared to mainland African nations.


29

• When discussing the potential for support for the forest service during PE3 (from

late 2003) with a technical member of staff in the regional forest service, the

opinion was advanced that donors would continue to miss the point, directing

investment into technical assistance programs not integrated into the forest service,

not sufficiently changing the forest services institutional setup or resources and that

the end result risks leave the forest service in the resource scarce state that it is

already in.

• An independent consultant involved in PE2 remarked how Madagascar’s

Environment Programme is effectively a ‘private club’ for BINGO’s, International

Consulting Firms and Donors and so Civil Society and NGO’s have very limited

opportunity to input.

Figure 4.1 Roles of Policy Actors at Multiple Levels

Level Organisation Major role in CFM policy process Donor Co-ordination

Multi-Donor Secretariat SMB

Donor Coordination, Central Information Source, Forum for Policy Discussion.

Donor USAID Initial push for community forestry approach early in NEAP, Implementing forest policy reforms through Environmental Management Support Programme (PAGE).

Donor/Research CIRAD/French Cooperation

Preparation of GELOSE legislation, support to Malagasy government actors in policy development.

Inter-Ministerial National Environment Office (ONE)

Coordinating activities of the NEAP, support development of environmental policies.

Ministerial Ministry of the Environment

Development of National Environment Policy.

Ministerial Ministry of Water and Forests

Conception, implementation and co-ordination of national forest policy.

District Circumscription of Water and Forests (CIREF)

Overseeing implementation of CFM policy, training, quality control, supervision and technical assistance for CFM interventions.

Local Cantonment of Water and Forests (CANFORET)

Providing technical assistance for CFM implementation, quality control, legal advice for conflict resolution, evaluation and follow up.

Table format adapted from Springate-Baginski et al (2001:10)


30

The consideration of the responses and outcomes of CFM actors to the policy process

suggests three important difficulties or challenges that have been encountered. Firstly the

policy development process appears very top down or dictatorial, and unlike many natural

resource management system policies in Africa, Madagascar’s CFM policy has based on

high level discussions in the absence of a diversity well implemented and followed up pilot

projects (USAID, 2002a; Roy Hagan pers. comm.). A simple example demonstrating this

judgement is the list of attendees at a workshop in Mantasoa in 2000 to evaluate the first

steps of the GCF policy, (Andrianjafy et al 2001), where regional representatives were

largely limited to those from the region where the meeting was being held and where the

majority were based in the capital, Antananarivo.

The second weakness in the process somewhat reiterates the first, more specifically it refers

to the poor communications of the challenges and issues arising from policy

implementation at the ground level back up to the policy making machine (USAID, 2002a;

Fort Dauphin government forester pers. comm.. Helen Crowley, pers. comm.) as Hildyard

(2001:56) demonstrates ‘the wide gap of experience between participation on the ground and the rhetoric

of development agencies’.

A third weakness has been a large dependence on expatriate technical expertise both at the

donor and policy making level but also at the intervention management level, this raises the

issue of sustainability of human resources as Malagasy nationals feel disempowered or

excluded from the process in which they will be implied for the rest of the country’s future.


31

4.5 Implementation Process (Step 5) Figure 4.2 below outlines the process of transfer of management of forests to local

communities using the GCF tool, this process with the goal of establishing sustainable forest

management strongly meets three of Colchester’s four senses of sustainability (1994): basic

subsistence needs are considered in the zoning process; the cahier de charge and operation

plans provide the local COGE (Community Management Committee) with control; the

COGE also provides a community originated institution to represent community members. The

fourth sense is to a degree limited, namely that the decisive voice in planning is subject to

minimum criteria established by the policy makers (requirements for example of

conservation zones within a GCF plan).

Figure 4.3 below demonstrates the authors analysis of the community forestry outputs,

outcomes and impacts in Madagascar. The weaknesses identified will feature in the

conclusion section of the dissertation.


32

Figure 4.2 Procedure to follow for the completion of a GCF Contract

I. Village Information Campaign II. Preparation of Request for Transfer of Gestion III. Administrative Intervention IV. Process of elaboration of instruments and of the contract of transfer V. Conclusion of Contract

Source: Translated from the French text in Andriatsilavo et al. (2002 :12)

Information/Sensibilisation

Putting in place the management structure with minutes taken, preparation of Statute and interior

Declaration of Interest in GCF by the Community

Preparation and deposition of collective demand

Administrative Accord to Request

Communal Diagnostic Study Villager Diagnostic Study Technical Diagnostic Study

Definition of Objectives

Elaboration of local agreement (DINA)

Elaboration of Implementation Plan

Elaboration of ‘Cahier des Charges’

Elaboration of Contract

On the ground study of forest resources

Elaboration of annual operation plan

Contract becomes Official

Monitoring and evaluation

Putting into place of GCF


33

Figure 4.3 Summary Evaluation of Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts of Community Forestry in Madagascar

Measurable Factor

Indicator Madagascar CFM Case

Output Effort Implementation of policy

1. Two legal mechanisms existing (GELOSE + GCF) to facilitate the transfer of forests to local communities (COBA). 2. MEF + NGO personnel trained in transfer methods. 3. 104 signed contracts covering 141,645 hectares roughly 1% of remaining forest(*)

Outcome Effectiveness Use of outputs and sustained production of

benefits

1. Capacity of COGE’s is judged to be low - large dependency on outsiders support. ** 2. Suspected that ‘paper GCF’s and GELOSE’s’ exist with insufficient management capacity at the community level to put in place management without outsiders. 3. MEF agents ill-resourced to sustain meaningful contact with COGE/COBA ***

Impact Change Difference from original

problem situation

1. To date improvement in forest management depends on continued outsider support as no improvement in capacity (despite institutional evolution COGE’s ). 2. GCF Judged to be a move in the right direction to improve forest management but long term support to MEF and COBA is required. 3. Management plans produced will be a useful resource for integration of development and conservation objectives. **** 4. Problem of limited confidence in outsiders still prevails and should be addressed. 5. Equitable participation is required ensuring that more women and marginalised people participate in COGE’s

Sources: * Razafindrakoto (2002) ** Hagan (1999) *** Erdmann (1999) **** Cooke et al (2003)


34

4.6 The Future : A Longer-term View (Step 6)

This section will first systematically consider the ten enabling conditions for CBNRM

described in Figure 3.3, following this a summary of reflections on the future will be

presented.

4.6.1 Clarified or Improved Land Tenure

GELOSE provides security of land tenure for a three year period, extendable to ten years,

this is considered to be a weakness in this policy. GCF however, provides secure land tenure

for an unlimited period provided the conditions of the contract are respected. While in

principle this condition is met by GCF, caution is urged that communities must be provided

support to ensure that they have the capacity to manage the agreements in the contract

which will otherwise be defaulted. Consider a community who is transferred forest without

the power or capacity to manage it, if they failed to manage the agreement simply through a

lack of capacity then the tenure could be lost and the community lose all confidence in

outsiders to support them, resulting in a return to the de facto access system prior to GCF

but with perhaps less motivation to manage the resource sustainably as the next move of the

forest service would be perceived as unpredictable. Another consideration is the as yet

unused decree 2000-383 which allows for families to gain the title to land should they

reforest unused land, how the implementation of this decree will interact with GCF

contracts will be watched with interest.

4.6.2 Local Community Commitment and Capacity

As described in section 4.3 many local communities are committed to the process of transfer

of management for community forest management. This motivation is often from a desire

to exclude outsiders from exploitation of scarce resources (Cooke et al, 2003) and from


35

wanting to legalise forest exploitation and so remove the risk of being fined by MEF. The

issue of community capacity however is a highly significant one, both from the authors

experience and from international consultants reports (Cooke et al, 2003:137; Winterbottom,

2001:6; Josserand,2001:3; Hagan, 2001:4,5) it is apparent that local communities do not

currently have sufficient capacity to manage GCF/GELOSE contracts. The resulting

situation is that in the absence of COGE capacity building ‘paper contracts’ exist which

cannot be operated on the ground as neither the community have the capacity nor MEF the

resources to support them.

4.6.3 Experienced NGO and Government Partners

In Madagascar there is a growing body of governmental and NGO personnel engaged in

community forest management, the early dependence during the NEAP on expatriate

technical expertise and the tendency for them to move on after short postings is a weakness.

What is considered a bigger concern is that up to the present much of the experience has

been gained in policy making and processes at higher levels with a percieved gap forming

where there are few examples of pilot projects providing experience on effective natural

resource management systems. This suggests that a focus for the future should be

consolidating on pilot CFM projects and improving the links between intervention and

policy level staff. Despite the experience present in Madagascar another concern is the

project timescale of many CFM interventions, to produce successful results donor and NGO

interventions over longer timescales are important. Another area of weakness is the limited

experience of developing COGE capacity and insufficient follow up to evaluate the COGE

performance to ensure training and support needs are met.


36

4.6.4 Targeted Technical Assistance

The targeting of technical assistance in community forestry in Madagascar, as mentioned in

4.6.3 above, has been biased towards the policy reform and development process, there is

technical assistance with BINGO’s, the regional forest service certainly appear to lack

sufficient technical support (pers. obs. Fort Dauphin). In taking CFM into PE3 it will be

important that intervention level activities are adequately supported by technical expertise

and that the flow of information up to policy level is improved.

4.6.5 Regional Resource Management Plans Setting Limits of Acceptable Use

While regional (and national) forest planning processes (zoning) have been advanced in

Madagascar it is uncertain how this relates to community forestry. As GCF contracts

typically operate over small areas (hundreds to several thousands of hectares) and are

adapted to local needs and conditions it might seem that these are two independent non

complementary processes (Edrmann pers. comm.). However the planning that occurs at the

level of GCF/GELOSE transfer does include detailed zoning, detailing for example:

traditional use, construction wood extraction, conservation and agricultural zones. These

plans do set out limits of acceptable use but the weakness is in the implementation of the

plans and support or monitoring from MEF.

4.6.6 Workable Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plans

The presence of workable monitoring plans is difficult to assess, during a training session

one regional forester responded to the question as to how monitoring of GCF’s would be

conducted with ‘its too early to think about monitoring’. Perhaps at the higher levels procedures

exist, what is certain is that at the regional level the resources do not exist within the forest

service to monitor GCF’s although there are MEF staff who inspire confidence were they

provided with the means.


37

In terms of environmental mitigation plans, GCF contracts also have reforestation zones

identified, provided the community have the means (through income or supporting

interventions) to implement such plans, mitigation against forest use will be workable. One

concern is that if MEF do not have improved resources to monitor and support the

communities, the NGO’s who typically (and through necessity) work over project timescales

of up to five year (and often less) will be unable to establish sufficiently firm support for

CFM.

4.6.7 Access to Markets and Credit

Madagascar is known to have among the poorest road network in Africa (Freudenberger and

Freudenberger, 2001), for forest products the access to markets is highly dependant on the

location of the producing forest in relation to the urban centres where much of the resources

extracted are used. A significant factor in considering markets for forest products is that

often GCF transfers are implemented in areas of high conservation importance and with the

objective of conserving forest not supporting commercialisation of forest resource use. To

consolidate on CFM experience in Madagascar up to date conservation and production

functions of forest ecosystems should both be sufficiently considered during the transfer

process. Limited rural credit programmes exist in Madagascar, these may well be able to

finance alternative resource uses to lessen the dependence of rural communities on forest

resource extraction, something which should be further investigated.

4.6.8 Social Cohesion in Communities Adopting CBNRM Practices

The question of social cohesion in communities is important to CFM in Madagascar, areas

with poor cohesion or local conflicts may not make good CFM sites, on the contrary CFM

may also provide a means by which resource use conflicts are mediated and resolved. One

consideration is that whether or not all community members choose to become part of the


38

COBA, they are all legally bound to abide by its forest management contract. This situation

may mean that communities without firm cohesion risk non-adherence to the contract by

certain community members and so it may be better not to transfer management until the

situation were to improve or to decrease the scale of CFM operation in order to avoid such

conflicts.

4.6.9 Effective Resource Monitoring and Policing

As mentioned in section 4.6.6 above the MEF has highly limited resources to monitor CFM

contract compliance, as part of the GCF process communities develop local agreements

(Dina’s) which are intended to control resource use and reinforce the GCF contract at the

local level. It is unsure to what degree local communities (COGE/COBA) can and choose to

monitor and police the resource use within their jurisdiction. The effective monitoring and

policing of resource use is something which merits considerable attention in the future as

without it CFM is unlikely to success.

4.6.10 Genuine Economic Benefits to the Community

In Madagascar forest management transfers have been implemented in very different

ecosystem types (dry spiny forest to rainforest and dry deciduous forest) and in different

contexts (productive plantation forest and natural forests). These different contexts will

provide economic benefits to different extents. In dry spiny forest for example, construction

and fuel wood is sold at relatively low market values and may not reflect the true

environmental costs of exploitation. This is compounded by the current situation where

CFM does not have coverage of all potential extraction zones for the urban centres and so

instead of true environmental costs being reflected the extraction zones could simply move

to the area of least resistance. As a contrasting example the plantations of eucalyptus forest

however may be able to provide higher levels of income from their extraction of higher


39

quality construction wood and charcoal. With these various possible outcomes the need to

improve the incorporation of agricultural and resource use improvements and reforestation

within CFM planning is apparent, the introduction of alternative practices would mean that

sustainable Natural Resource Management systems could become established as at present

the need for forest resources in many areas where CFM has been introduced is increasing

with the growing population.

4.6.11 Summary

In considering the future of community forest management in Madagascar is seems that

currently there are four major issues which should be addressed as priority. Firstly seizing on

the upcoming institutional reform of the forest service for PE3 (USAID, 2003) to ensure

that resources available to regional forest staff improve and that the communication between

the policy and intervention levels of the forest service is improved. Secondly, GELOSE and

GCF contracts already signed must have an effective monitoring programme implemented,

left as they are many will simple be paper contracts which in the end do not fulfil their

obligations. Thirdly and linking in to the monitoring point the community management

structures (COGE) must have their capacity built to a sufficient level in order to meet their

contractual obligations. Finally, in order to ensure that as resource needs increase with

increasing population that resource use alternatives and improved agricultural production are

adequately integrated into CFM activities so as to mitigate the environmental threats. This

final point reinforces the need to improve integration between Madagascar’s National

Environmental Action Plan, the Rural Development Action Plan and their diverse associated

funding mechanisms.


40

Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

At the outset of this study the stated objective was to examine the policy process behind

community forestry policy in Madagascar and to identify strengths and weaknesses. In

section 3.2 an additional aim was stated to investigate the rationale and motivation of CFM

stakeholders, the functioning of a feedback loop between intervention and policy levels as

well as the issue of policy ownership by the Malagasy.

Turning first to the significance of the rationale and motivation of CFM stakeholders, it has

been shown that while different actors may have different reasoning for being interested in

CFM, the goal is ultimately to ensure the sustainable management of forest resources (the

source of human livelihoods and a refuge for threatened biodiversity). During the analysis of

the process the weakness of the feedback loop between policy and intervention level actors

became apparent. The degree of policy ownership regarding GCF and GELOSE policies by

the Malagasy was difficult to assess within the bounds of this study, howver understanding

how policy ownership has developed and identifying how to ensure it is maximised during

the approaching third phase of the National Environmental Action Plan will be invaluable in

assuring long term sustainability of the policies.

In summarising the strengths and weaknesses of CFM policy the most prominent strengths

are the improved land tenure security, a strong commitment by local communities and the

comprehensive resource management planning which is part of GCF implementation. More

importantly the weaknesses which risk limiting the effectiveness of CFM are limited

community and forest service capacity to manage and monitor contracted agreements as well


41

as the disparity in policy expertise between the experiences at policy development and the

implementation levels. In addition, CFM interventions must be fully integrated with

development programs to ensure that resource use improvements and alternatives and

agricultural development can help mitigate the environmental threats posed by expanding

populations and their growing resource needs.

The consideration of the needs identified above for the betterment of CFM policy from the

outset of PE3 should see lessons learnt from field level projects feeding into the institutional

change and investment in CFM interventions as is promised by the donor community. It

should also be ensured that effective monitoring of CFM implementation and support for

communities to manage their obligations are not neglected. Given the current necessity of

redefining roles within the newly integrated Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests and

their fundamentally different mindsets, perhaps there is a golden opportunity to reorient

their perspectives to the impacts of their high level policy deliberations on actual forest

management, something which could help us look at the future of community forestry in

Madagascar in a positive light.


42

REFERENCES

Adams W.M. and Hulme, D. (1998) Conservation and Communities: Changing Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation, IDPM Working Paper No 4, Manchester, England.

Agrawal, A. (2000) Small is Beautiful, but Is Large Better? Forest-Management Institutions in the Kumaon Himalaya, India in Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. and Ostrom, E. People and Forests: Communities, Institutions and Governance, MIT Press, London.

Anderson, J, (nd) Four Considerations for Decentralized Forest Management: Subsidiarity, Empowerment, Pluralism and Social Capital, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Andrianjafy, D. Andriantsilavo, F. Carter, J. Maldidier, C. Rajespera, B. Randrianasolo, J. Razafintsalama, C. & Samyn, J.M. (2001) Les premiers pas de la Gestion Contractualisee des Forets a Madagascar : Rapport de l’atelier de Mantasoa du 28 au 30 Novembre 2000,[The first steps of contracted forest management in Madagascar] Intercooperation/MIRAY/Conservation International, Antananarivo, Madagascar.

Andriatsilavo, F. Rabenitany, Y. Razafintsalama, C. Andriambahoaka, H. Delaite, B. Rajaspera, B. Rakotoarisoa, J.N. & Rakotoniana, P. (2002) Guide Du Transfert de Gestion Des Ressources Foresieres, [Guide to the transfer of management of forest resources]Direction Generals des Eaux et Forets et Equipe MIRAY, Antananarivo, Madagascar.

Antona, M, E Motte, J-M Salles, S Aubert & R Ratsimbarison, (2002) Property rights transfer in Madagascar biodiversity policies, BioEcon Rome Meeting May 30-31, 2002.

Babin, D & A Bertrand (1998) Managing pluralism: subsidiarity and patrimonial mediation, Unasylva 194, 49: 19-25.

Benjaminsen, T.A. (1998) Decentralisation and Management of Village Land in Rural Mali, Report to Worldbank/EDI CBNRM Initiative, 5 February 1998.

Bertrand, A. (2000) La Gestion Contractuelle, Pluraliste et Subsidiaire des Ressources Renouvelables A Madagascar (1994-1998) [Contracted pluraist and subsidiary management of renewable resources] African Studies Quarterly.

Bickel , S., Weston, F., Greenham, J., Hansmen P., Hirsch, B., Reed, J., Rosch, S., Stoughton, M., Taylor, G. and Knausenberger, W. (2003) Environmentally Sound Design for Planning and Implementing Humanatarian and Development Activities, USAID.

Blaikie, P. and Soussan, J (2002)Understanding Policy Processes, Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Working Paper 8, University of Leeds.


43

Colchester, M, 1994, Sustaining the Forests: The Community-based Approach in South and South-East Asia, in Ghai D (ed) Development and Environment: Sustaining people and nature, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.

Cooke, A. Rabesahala, V. and Nieuwkoop M.V. (2003) Madagascar – Rural and Environment Sector Review, Final Report to the World Bank AFTR1, Anatananarivo, Madagascar.

DeCosse, P.J. (2001) Forest Governance and Communications under the Environment Management Support Project (PAGE) in Madagascar: Rationale and Strategy, PAGE Report to USAID.

Erdmann, T. (1999) Rapport de l’Auto Evaluation de Projet CAF, WWF Madagascar

Fakir, S. (2001) Where to from here: Is Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) a thing of the past? IUCN Policy Think Tank Series No5.

FAO, (2000) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Community Forestry in Africa. Participatory Forest Management: A Strategy for Sustainable Forest Management in Africa 26-30 April 1999, Banjul, Gambia. FAO Rome.

Freudenberger, M.S. & Freudenberger, K.S. (2001) Contradictions in Agricultural Intensification and Improved Natural Resource Management: Issues in the Fianarantsoa Forest Corridor of Madagascar, Landscape Development Interventions Paper for USAID Madagascar.

Garreau, J-M. (1999) Protecting local management in northeastern Madagascar, pp79-86 in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Community Forestry in Africa, Banjul, The Gambia, 26-30 April 1999. Gauld, R. (2000) Maintaining Centralized Control in Community-based Forestry: policy Construction in the Philippines, Development and Change, Vol.31, pp229-254.

Gezon, L. L. & Freed, B. Z. (2000) Agroforestry and Conservation in Northern Madagascar: Hopes and Hinderances, African Studies Quarterly

Grove, R.H. (1995) Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origin of Environmentalism, Cambridge University Press.

Hagan, R, 2001, Evaluation des Projets Pilotes d’Amenagement des Forets Naturelles A Madagascar, Report to USAID Madagascar.

Hardin, G, 1968, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, Vol. 162, pp1243-1248.

Hildyard, N., Hedge P., Wolvekamp, P. and Reddy, S. (2001) Pluralism, Participation and Power: Joint Forest Management in India in: Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, London.

Josserand, H.P., 2001, Aide-Memoire to USAID/Madagascar and Partners: Community Based Natural Resource Management in Madagascar, Associates in Rural Development (ARD, Inc.)


44

Kyem, P.A.K. (2002) Promoting local community participation in forest management through a PPGIS application in Southern Ghana, in Craig W.J., Harris T.M. and Weiner D, Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems, Taylor and Francis, London.

Lorng, J-P. (2000) Participatory Management of gazetted forests in Cote D’Ivoire: the experience of the Forest Development Society. (in: FAO, 2000.)

Marcus, R. & Kull, C. (2000) Setting the Stage: The Politics of Madagascar's Environmental Efforts, African Studies Quarterly.

Myers, N, R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. de Fonesca & J. Kent (2000) ‘Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities’, Nature 403: 853-858.

Oakley, P., Pratt, B. and Clayton, A. (1998) Outcome and Impact: Evaluating Change on Social Development, INTRAC, Oxford.

Ostrom, E, 1990, Governing the Commons : The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press.

Rakotonindrina, R, (nd), Biodiversity in Development Project Case Study Series: 4. Madagascar - Mananara-Nord Biosphere Reserve Project, Report to IUCN/European Commission and Department for International Development.

Razafindrabe, M. and J. Thompson, 1994, “Local governance in Madagascar” KEPEM USAID, Antananarivo.

Razafindrakoto, B. R. (2002), Capitalisation des expériences : Gestion contractualisée des Forêts. Ministère des Eaux et Forets, Direction Générale des Eaux et Forets.

Ribot, J. (2002) Democratic Decentralisation of Natural Resources: Institutionalising Popular Participation, World Resources Institute, USA.

Springate-Baginski, O. and Soussan, J. (2002) A Methodology for Policy Process Analysis, Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia: Working Paper 9, University of Leeds.

Springate-Baginski, O., Blaikie, P., Dev, O.P., Yadav N.P. and Soussan, J. (2001) Community Forestry in Nepal : A Policy Review, Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia Working Paper 3, University of Leeds.

UNESCO, (2003) Man and the Biosphere Webpage (accessed on 27th March 2003) http://www.unesco.org/mab/nutshell/forests/participation.html

USAID, 2002a, Notes taken at the Madagascar Stocktaking Mini Workshop of June 17 2002: Theme 6: Environment Policy and Tools for Better Natural Resource Management (JS/06-18-2002).

USAID, 2002b Policy Milestones in the Environment Sector: Powerpoint Presentation for the USAID Stocktaking Exercise in Washington DC June 2002.


45

USAID, 2003, Sustainable Environmental and Forests Ecosystems Management Draft Statement of Work, May 19th 2003.

Wily, L.A., 2002, Participatory forest management in Africa. An overview of progress and issues, unpublished draft paper, 25th February 2002.

Winterbottom, B, 2001, Reflections on Improving the Management of Forest Resources in Madagascar, Report to USAID, International Resources Group.

World Bank (2002) World Bank Group Website, Countries: Madagascar History Economy Politics, The Development Picture and the World Bank Role July 2002, http://www.worldbank.org/afr/mg2.htm

World Bank, (2002) A Revised Forest Strategy for the World Bank Group, October 31st 2002, Washinton D.C.

Wright, 1998, Integrating Conservation and Development: The case of Ranomafana National Park, in Goodman and Patterson, 1998, Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar, Smithsonian Institution Press, USA.

WWF, 1998, Notes from the Ecoregional Conservation Planning Workshop, Fort Dauphin, Madagascar.

Young, D. (1996) Social Forestry Research Methodologies, Agricultural and Natural Resources Series, VSO Working Papers, London.


46


47


Policy Drivers

MACRO POLICY

Other State Agency

IMPACTS

Legislation and reform

General Goals and Priorities

MECHANI SMS

OUTCOMES

Implementing Agencies

NGO’s

Wider Civil Society

Individuals

Private Sector

Stimulate Regulate and prohibit actions by others

Specific Actions by State

State ‘Lead’ Agency

Interpretation Action of Policy or Inaction

Policy Development Policy Implementation

Influences

(Influences)

Knowledge

Agents of Resistance and Change

External Influences

Institutional Influences

Specific Events

Policy Heritage

Legal Framework

Social/Political/ Economic Context

Figure 2.2 : A Model of the Policy Process

Source : Blaikie and Soussan (2001)

Community Forestry in Madagascar: An Analysis of the Policy Process (Ferguson HB 2003 MSc Thesis UEA...

Documents

Transcript of Community Forestry in Madagascar: An Analysis of the Policy Process (Ferguson HB 2003 MSc Thesis UEA...