Conservation issues and priorities in the Mikea Forest of south ...

Oryx Vol 34 No 4 October 2000

Conservation issues and priorities in the Mikea Forest of south-westMadagascar

Nathalie Seddon, Joe Tobias, James W. Yount, Julien Remi Ramanampamonjy, Stuart Butchart andHiarinirina Randrianizahana

Abstract The dry forests constitute one of the mostdistinct, yet least protected, ecosystems in Madagascar,an island renowned for high levels of endemism. Theyhave generally been considered one of the most intact ofMadagascar's climax vegetation types and accordinglyhave received little conservation effort. In particular, theMikea Forest, a unique area between the Mangoky andFiherenana rivers, currently receives negligible formalprotection. It contains remarkably diverse plant andreptile assemblages, including several taxa that are foundnowhere else, plus the only populations of two threat-ened bird species: the subdesert mesite Monias benschiand long-tailed ground-roller Uratelornis chimaera. Fromsatellite imagery we estimate that primary forest coverdeclined by 15.6 per cent from 1962 to 1999, and that therate of deforestation has increased from 0.35 per cent

per annum in 1962-94 to 0.93 per cent per annum overthe past 5 years. The most important factors underlyingthis process are slash-and-burn maize cultivation in thenorthern Mikea Forest and charcoal production at itssouthern fringe. Given these alarming circumstances,we suggest that combinations of conservation measuresare required to safeguard the biological diversity of thearea. Specifically, we recommend the establishment ofa large protected area to the north of Manombo, a co-ordinated network of community-based conservationareas throughout the Mikea Forest, developmentprojects to improve agriculture, and a regional researchand education centre.

Keywords Biodiversity, dry forest, Madagascar, MikeaForest, threats.

Introduction

The dry forests of south and south-west Madagascar,previously referred to as 'West Malagasy Deciduousthicket' (White, 1983), 'South Malagasy spiny forests'(Stattersfield t'f a\., 1998) and 'Deciduous Dry SouthernForest and Scrubland' (Du Puy & Moat, 1996), stretchfrom the Mangoky river on the west coast to c. 40 kmwest of Fort Dauphin on the south-east coast. Theseforests were described as 'only too easy to clear andburn', such that little of their original cover remained(Curry-Lindahl, 1975). Further research resulted in the

Nathalie Seddon (corresponding author) andStuart Butchart Department of Zoology, Downing Street,Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. E-mail address:[email protected]

Joe Tobias BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road,

Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK

James W. Yount Land Resources Program, University of Wisconsin,Wl, USA

Julien Remi Ramanampamonjy Pare Botanique et Zoologique de

Tsimbazaza, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar

Hiarinirina Randrianizahana Ministere des Eaux et Forets,Naninsana, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar

Revised manuscript accepted for publication 19 June 2000

© 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304

more optimistic view that they are 'the most nearlyintact of Madagascar's climax vegetation types' (Stat-tersfield et a/., 1998). This optimism perhaps explainsthe fact that, although they have often been considereda high conservation priority (e.g. Domergue, 1983;Nicoll & Langrand, 1989; WCMC, 1991; Raxworthy,1995; ZICOMA, 1999), they have received very littleconservation effort. Protected areas cover onlyc. 2 per cent of the total remaining forest in this regioncompared with c. 5.3 per cent for lowland evergreenrainforest (Du Puy & Moat, 1996).

Within these dry forests there are a variety of uniquehabitats supporting very different assemblages ofplants and animals (Nicoll & Langrand, 1989; WWF &IUCN, 1994). One important area, the Mikea Forest, isfound between the Fiherenana and Mangoky rivers(Fig. 1). Whilst the name 'Mikea Forest' is usuallyapplied exclusively to the forest between the Manomboand Mangoky rivers, for simplicity we also allow theterm to cover similar natural vegetation between theManombo and Fiherenana rivers (Fig. 1), includingareas previously referred to as 'PK32' (Nicoll & Lan-grand, 1989) or 'Toliara' forest (Ganzhorn et ah, 1997).We refer to the dry forests south of the Fiherenanariver as the Southern Dry Forests. The Mikea Forestsupports a rich flora and fauna with numerous locallyendemic taxa that do not extend into the Southern Dry

287

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.xDownloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.70.40.11, on 03 Jan 2019 at 09:10:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x

https://www.cambridge.org/core

288 N. Seddon et al.

Forests. For example, it hosts the only populations oftwo threatened endemic bird species: the long-tailedground-roller Uratelornis chimaera (Plate 1) and the sub-desert mesite Monias benschi, as well as particularly richcommunities of endemic reptiles (Raxworthy, 1995) andplants (Phillipson, 1996; Razanaka, 1996). The MikeaForest has long been identified as extremely importantfor its biodiversity (e.g. Domergue, 1983; WCMC, 1991;

Ganzhorn et al., 1997), yet the area of natural habitat iscontracting in size, becoming increasingly degradedand receives negligible formal protection (Nicoll & Lan-grand, 1989; ZICOMA, 1999).

Collar & Stuart (1988) judged that 'a study to deter-mine the extent and type of habitat destruction in thearea, with a view to identifying one or more key areasfor protection, is urgently needed'. In this paper we

300 km

Morombe

*5 ^Bfort Dauphin

Fig. 1 (a) Location of Madagascarrelative to the African mainland, and(b) distribution of the Mikea Forest(grey) and the Southern Dry Forests(black) in south-west Madagascar. Theprotected areas are: 1. ReserveNaturelle Integrale deTsimanampetsotsa, 2. Pare Nationald'Andohahela, 3. Reserve Speciale deCap St Marie, 4. Reserve Speciale deBeza Mahafaly, and 5. Reserve Priveede Berenty.

> 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x


Conserving the dry forests of south-west Madagascar 289

Plate 1 Long-tailed ground-roller with food for young, PK32,December 1998 {Joe Tobias).

Plate 2 Characteristic dry forest tree flora: Didicrea madagas-cariensis (back right) and Adansonia fony (left) (Stuart Butchart).

present the results of two such studies carried out in1997-2000. We highlight the biodiversity value of theMikea Forest, present approximate estimates of forestcover from satellite imagery taken around 1962 and1994, and estimate current forest cover on the basis offield surveys and imagery taken in 1999. We give anaccount of relevant threats, describe areas where con-servation attention would best be focused and discussthe potential structure of conservation programmes.Our aim is to stimulate discussion and action amongparties interested in, or capable of contributing to, thelong-term protection of wildlife and habitat in the area.

Background

Regional biogeography

The Mikea Forest is thought to have originally formeda coastal strip 30-60 km wide and 200 km longbetween the Fiherenana and Mangoky rivers at 0-200 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1). The climate is dry, tropical and

stochastic with 100-1300 mm of rainfall per annum,over 85 per cent of which falls between November andMarch (in 1999, mean + SE = 780 ± 91 mm, range =490-1267 mm, n = 9 rain gauges located in the northernMikea Forest between Vorehe and Ankindranoka; B.Tucker, pers. comm., 2000). This contrasts with thec. 350 mm per annum in the Southern Dry Forests(recorded for Reserve Speciale de Cap St Marie;ZICOMA, 1999). Rainfall increases northwards andeastwards, a factor that, along with the heterogeneousgeology (Du Puy & Moat, 1996), may be largely respon-sible for variations in vegetation structure found alongthis axis. The mean annual temperature is 26 °C, with apeak of 42 °C in December (Salomon, 1987). The soilsgenerally consist of unconsolidated sands, with finewhite sands predominating in the coastal plain, andred sands rich in sesquioxides predominating inlandtowards the calcareous plateau that delimits the easternboundary of the forest (Salomon, 1977). The sandysubstrate of the Mikea Forest distinguishes it edaphi-cally from the Southern Dry Forests to the south, whichoccur principally on a limestone plateau (Du Puy &Moat, 1996).

The vegetation forms a complex mosaic but largelycomprises a dense, highly xerophytic flora attaining amaximum height of 6 m towards the coast and 8-12 mfurther inland. This flora is characterized by succulentand spinescent plants, most notably the endemic familyDidiereaceae (in particular Didierea madagascariensis; seePlate 2). The tree flora additionally includes woodyeuphorbias (e.g. Euphorbia stenoclada near the coast andEuphorbia laro inland), baobabs (chiefly Adansonia fony,but also Adansonia za in some areas; see Plate 2), andseveral species in the genus Commiphora. Other conspic-uous tree species of the upper stratum are Givotiamadagascariensis, Delonix adansonioides, Pachypodium spp.and Dalbergia tricolor. The mid and lower strata aredominated by a variety of lianas, commonly Diospyrosspp. and an exceptionally high diversity of Euphorbi-aceae and leguminous plants. Within 2 km of the coastthe vegetation becomes more sparse and scrub-like andE. stenoclada and Aloe divaricata dominate. North-west ofAntseva, c. 300 sq km of forest is distinguished from therest of the Mikea Forest by its greater stature (10-12 m)and the presence of flora common to the dry westernforests north of Morombe (e.g. Hildegardia spp.,Commiphora mafaidoha, and Adansonia za; Reau, 1996;Razanaka, 1996).

There are, in addition, several wetland areas withinthe Mikea Forest. Two of the most important are thesaline Lake Ihotry, Madagascar's second largest wet-land, in the north (21°80'S, 43°40'E), and the freshwaterLake Andranobe in the south (23°03'S, 43°37'E). Thereare other (largely seasonal) smaller areas of wetland in

© 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



the Namonty basin to the west of Lake Ihotry, and inthe forests north of Manombo.

Faramalala (1988, 1995) and Inventaire EcologiqueForestier National (IEFN) (1997) classify both the MikeaForest and Southern Dry Forests as dense dry forest orxerophytic scrub. However, the floristic compositions ofthese two areas differ considerably (Phillipson, 1996;Razanaka, 1996). One such difference is that whilst thedominant species of Didiereaceae in the Mikea Forest isDidierea madagascariensis, in the Southern Dry Foreststhis species is largely replaced by Alluaudia ascendensand A. procera (see Rakotovao et al., 1996).

Socio-cultural context

The region is populated largely by people who classifythemselves in three separate, though flexible, group-ings: Vezo, Mikea and Masikoro. The coastal fringes areinhabited by the Vezo, a people whose cultural identityand economy are largely based on harvesting marinewildlife. While they practise some cultivation and live-stock rearing along forest edges, they primarily ex-change fresh or dry fish, crustaceans and molluscs foragricultural products (Astuti, 1995). Inland areas southof the Manombo river and east of the Mikea Forest areinhabited by the Masikoro: farmers and cattle herders.Between the coast and the inland savanna lies theMikea Forest, an area traditionally inhabited by theMikea. The Mikea are predominantly Masikoro and Vezoin origin, although their identity is complex and flexible(Yount et al., in press). They are mainly characterized by aforest lifestyle involving the hunting of wildlife (e.g.birds, lemurs, tenrecs) and gathering of fruit, tubersand moisture-bearing plants. However, all Mikea com-munities participate extensively in non-foraging activ-ities including livestock-rearing and agriculture, andcurrently their diet is dominated by maize and manioc(B. Tucker, pers. comm., 1999). In addition to thesethree groups, there are significant numbers of Tandroyand Mahafaly immigrants from the south who practisemainly hatsake (slash-and-burn maize cultivation)throughout the region, particularly in areas of densered sands (Reau, 1996).

The biological importance of the Mikea Forest

BirdsA total of 98 bird species (45 breeding) have beenrecorded in this region's forests and wetlands, of which40 are endemic to Madagascar (ZICOMA, 1999). Whilethis total is relatively modest, it includes the subdesertmesite and long-tailed ground-roller, two monotypicgenera restricted entirely to the Mikea Forest (Stat-tersfield et al., 1998), that have been classified as threat-

ened (Vulnerable) by BirdLife International (2000).Lakes within the zone (the most important of whichis Ihotry) attract the threatened (Vulnerable) Mada-gascar grebe Tachybaptus pelzelnii and Humblot's heronArdea humbloti (ZICOMA, 1999), whilst the coastalfringes support breeding populations of the near-threatened Madagascar plover Charadrius thoracicus.With a total of four threatened and six near-threatenedspecies, and eight species in total that are restricted tothe 'South Malagasy spiny forests Endemic Bird Area'(Stattersfield et al, 1998; Table 1), the Mikea Forest isvital for the conservation of Madagascar's avifauna. Ac-cordingly, the region was classified as 'exceptionallyimportant' for bird conservation by Ganzhorn et al.(1997), while ZICOMA (1999) identified both LakeIhotry (in conjunction with the Mangoky delta) and theMikea Forest as Important Bird Areas. ZICOMA (1999)further asserted that in terms of preserving the 'geneticdiversity of birds, the Mikea Forest will be considered asupreme priority in Africa'.

ReptilesThe Mikea Forest harbours a rich reptile fauna: a totalof 49 species have been recorded (Raxworthy, 1995).This figure is comparable to the highest found in otherwestern forests (e.g. in the Bemaraha and NamorokaReserves, Morondava region) and makes the area oneof the more diverse for reptiles in Madagascar (C.Raxworthy, pers. comm., 1999). In addition to fourthreatened species (Table 1), the region harbours manyextremely poorly known and locally endemic reptilesincluding a chameleon Chamaeleo belalandaensis (onlyknown from a few individuals recorded between theFiherenana and Manombo rivers), true skinks (e.g.Voeltzkowia petiti from the littoral dune systems), asnake (Liophidium chabaudi) and geckos (e.g. Pliyllo-dactylus brevipes and a recently discovered new speciesParoedura sp. nov.; Raxworthy, 1995). Owing to thepresence of such rare animals, the preservation of thesouthern Mikea Forest (PK32 area) has been deemedessential (Raxworthy, 1995). Whilst further work is re-quired throughout the region, the Mikea Forest isclearly important for reptiles.

MammalsThe diversity of mammals in the Mikea Forest has beendescribed as 'moderate' (Garbutt, 1999). Three threat-ened species are known to occur in the Mikea Forest(Table 1) although none are limited to this habitat andnone are common in the area because of high huntingpressure. As no published mammal surveys have beenconducted in the Mikea Forest, it is difficult to assess itsimportance for this group. Further research may revealthe existence of mammals of conservation significance

i 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



and is considered a 'very high' priority (Ganzhorn et al.,1997). In December 1998, we recorded a Lepilemur sp.resembling the white-footed sportive lemur LepilemurIciicopiis, rather than the expected red-tailed sportivelemur Lepilemur ntficaudatus (Garbutt, 1999), highlight-ing the need for further mammal surveys.

Plants

Within the broad vegetation types recognized in Mada-gascar, there are many distinct plant communities butowing to a lack of basic research there is no systematicclassification at a community level (WWF & IUCN,1994). Nonetheless, sufficient data are available to iden-tify south and south-west Madagascar (the 'southerndomain'; White, 1983) as having the highest plant en-demism of all domains in Madagascar (WWF & IUCN,1994; Phillipson, 1996). Within this domain, tree andshrub endemism is greatest within the dry forests (61.4versus 28.3 per cent for riverine forest and 20.8 per centfor wooded grassland; Phillipson, 1996). Few publisheddata are available for the Mikea Forest although highlevels of plant endemism are to be expected given the

variation in geology and climate within the region, thepresence of wetlands and of transitional zones support-ing species from the western forests. Certainly,Ganzhorn et al. (1997) describe the botanical importanceof the Mikea Forest north of the Manombo as 'veryhigh', and that north of Toliara as 'exceptionally high'.They further identify the entire forest as a 'very high'priority for botanical research.

Methods

In addition to the studies of Domergue (1983), Raxwor-thy (1995), Razanaka (1995, 1996), Reau (1996) andCNRE (2000) we gathered information during three6-month field seasons (1997-2000). We compiled inven-tories of birds, plants and reptiles at two forest sitessouth of the Manombo river (Fig. 1): Mangily(23°07'00S, 43°37'40E, 120 ha) and PK32 (23°04'80S,43°37'25E, 200 ha), and these form the basis of ourhabitat description and biodiversity assessment. Fur-thermore, we carried out semi-structured interviewswith local people from within and around these sites to

Table 1 Species of conservation concern in the Mikea Forest

Group

Birds

MammalsCarnivoresPrimates

ReptilesGeckosSnakesTortoises

Species

Tacln/baptus pelzelniif

Ardeola idaef

Ardea humblotif

Lophotibis cristatai

Phocniconaias minori

Accipiter nmdagascariensis

Accipitcr henstiiManias benschi\

Clwradrius thoracicus%

Coua cursor

Uratelornis diimaera%

Xenopirostris xenopirostris

Monticola imerinus%

Nesillas lantzii

Thamnornis cMoropetoides

Newtonia archboldi

Cri/ptoprocta ferox

Lemur catta

Propithecus verreauxi

Phelsuma standing!

Boa dumerili

Geochelone radiataPyxis arachnoides

English name

Madagascar grebeMadagascar pond-heronHumblot's heronMadagascar crested ibisLesser flamingoMadagascar sparrowhawkHenst's goshawkSubdesert mesiteMadagascar ploverRunning couaLong-tailed ground-rollerLafresnaye's vangaLittoral rock-thrushSubdesert brush-warblerThamnornis warblerArchbold's newtonia

FosaRing-tailed lemurVerreaux's sifaka

Madagascar boaRadiated tortoiseSpider tortoise

Status*

VNTVNTNTNTNTV, RRNTlc, RRV, RRlc, RRlc, RRNE, RRlc, RRlc, RR

VVV

V

VV

Threat codes

A2c,e; Cl; C2b

C2b

A2c,d; Bl + 2c,e

A2c; Bt+2c,e; Cl

Bl+2eAleA2c,d

Alc,dAlc,dAla,c,d, 2c,d; Bl + 2a,b,cBl+2a,b,c,d

* Status and threat codes follow BirdLife International (2000) for birds, and IUCN (1996) for mammals and reptiles.V, vulnerable; NT, near-threatened; lc, least concern; NE, not evaluated; RR, restricted-range (< 50,000 sq km;Stattersfield et al., 1998).t Species occurring in wetland areas within forest, i.e. Ihotry and/or Andranobe lakes.J Species restricted to undisturbed coastal scrub and dry forest interior.§ Species restricted to littoral zone.

) 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



21°30'43°15' 43°30' 43-45'

Legend

Intact and degraded forest, 1994

Intact and degraded forest, 1985

Deforestation, 1962-1994/99

Regeneration since 1962

Proposed core protected area

1999 SPOT image extents

RN9: National Highway #9

* PK32: Kilometer Marker #32

• Village

100 kilometres

Fig. 2 Approximate extent oftotal dry forest cover,regeneration, and deforestationin the Mikea Forest in 1962,1994 and 1999. The proposedlocation of a core protectedarea is also illustrated (JamesYowit).

gather information on threats, approximate rates offorest loss and the socio-economic importance of forestresources. During the course of investigating the statusand distribution of the long-tailed ground-roller andsubdesert mesite, we conducted two linear transectsacross the Mikea Forest in January 1999 and eight lineartransects in November 1999: PK32 (c. 20 km, No-vember); Tsifota-Ankililoaka (c. 20 km, January andNovember); Tsiandamba-Antseva (c. 25 km, Januaryand November); Salary-Belitsaka (c. 25 km, No-vember); Ambatomilo-Andabotoka (c. 25 km, No-vember); Ambatomilo-Befandefa (c. 10 km, November);Ankindranoka-Basibasy (c. 20 km, November); east ofMorombe (c. 10 km, November). Along the c. 200 km ofthese transects, we recorded coordinates at regular in-tervals with a GPS (Garmin 2 Plus), mapped basic soiland vegetation characteristics and recorded evidence of

human disturbance (e.g. cultivation, charcoal pro-duction, livestock rearing). In 1998-2000, J.W.Y. gath-ered data on human causes and impacts of deforesta-tion in the Mikea Forest using both traditionalethnographic methods, rapid rural appraisal (Freuden-berger, 1994), and in-field interpretation of aerial pho-tos and satellite imagery.

Maps of forest cover (Fig. 2) and vegetation types(Fig. 3) were developed from a 1962 declassified USsurveillance satellite photo (Argon mission 9034A, 1805/62), a 1994 Landsat TM satellite image provided bythe Inventaire Ecologique Forestier National (IEFN),1997 of the Ministere des Eaux et Forets (MEF), and two1999 SPOT satellite images (03120723-36587 and -28090)provided by Projet Sud-Ouest. Images were interpretedusing ISODATA automatic classification in conjunctionwith field reference data gathered during 1998-2000

' 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



and maps were prepared (by J.W.Y.) using TNT mapsGIS software. Natural spatial variations in forest den-sity and, in many instances, gradual transitions be-tween vegetation types rendered vegetation mappingmore difficult and less precise. Furthermore, the lowquality of the 1962 image made the deforestation analy-sis less accurate. Fieldwork attenuated some of theseproblems, and we estimate each spatial measurementto be within 5 per cent of the actual value. We empha-size that our aim is not to present absolute figures forthe extent of each habitat type. Rather, it is to providethe best possible estimate of change in total forest coverin 1962-94, and 1994-99. A more precise study offorest types in the region, and their changing distribu-tion, is currently being undertaken (by J.W.Y.) in col-laboration with WWF and the Missouri BotanicalGarden.

Nomenclature and taxonomy follow Dowsett &Forbes-Watson (1993) for birds (with recent modifica-tions following Morris & Hawkins, 1998), Wilson &Reeder (1993) for mammals, Glaw & Vences (1994) for

reptiles and the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew (1997)for plants.

Change in forest cover

In 1960, the area of dry forest (i.e. Mikea and SouthernDry Forests combined) was estimated to cover approxi-mately 29,000 sq km (Guichon, 1960). Estimates of re-maining forest cover based on 1990 satellite imageryrange between 14,000 and 17,000 sq km (Nelson &Horning, 1993; Du Puy & Moat, 1996), which suggestsa decline of 41-51 per cent in 30 years.

Focusing exclusively on the Mikea Forest, we con-tinue to estimate high rates of forest loss (Fig. 2, Table2). Between 1962 and 1999, we estimate an overalldecline in primary forest cover of 15.5 per cent, themajority ( > 90 per cent of deforestation occurring westof Route Nationale 9 (RN9) between Ankililoaka andVorehe. However, during this time there was also someregrowth (c. 116sqkm); therefore, we estimate overallforest cover to have declined by around 12.8 per cent.

22«15'-

Fig. 3 Approximate distribution ofdifferent vegetation types within theMikea Forest derived from a 1994Landsat TM satellite image (James Yount).

_ , - • Ambah ik i ly : - . - • J ' ,

^ ^ I J S c x -

Andavadoakal t • ^amonty / :'} 1 \ •, ,----1 \ • •^efandriana-Sud'':fai •' ( \ \ '•) '•-

; i Antaiurnieva: _ J •Vorehe/

Legend

Dry forest

Open dry forest

Mangrove forest

Coastal vegetation

Sand and sparse vegetation

Savannah and cropland

Water

Mikoboka Plateau forest

- RN9: National Highway #9

PK32: Kilometre Marker #32

Village

43°15'

25

43030. 43J45'

75 100 kilometres

© 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



Table 2 Extent of forest cover, regrowth and rate of deforestation in the Mikea Forest in 1962-1999

Northern Mikea Forest(Manombo-Morombe)

Southern Mikea Forest*OveralltRestricted areaj

Forest

1962

3787

46542521915

cover (sq km)

1994

3449

43838871618

1999t

3269

43737061437

Decline inoverall forest

cover(%)1962-99

13.7

6.012.825.0

Regrowth(sq km)

1962-94

116

011660

Rate of defore(% per anum)

1962-94

0.37

0.180.350.58

station

1994-99

1.04

0.050.932.24

Decline inprimary forest

cover ("'(•)1962-99

16.7

6.015.628.1

* Measurements were taken from between the coast and the eastern plateau, and from the Manombo river south to 23°15'S.t Assumes no deforestation between 1994 and 1999 outside the area covered by the 1999 SPOT image; cover estimates should, therefore,be considered minimum values.J Figures relate only to that portion of the forest covered by the 1999 SPOT image (Fig. 2).

These figures undoubtedly represent an underestimateof the total forest decline during this period because itis assumed that there was no deforestation other thanthat occurring in the area covered by the 1999 SPOTimages (Fig. 2). Focusing only on this region, we estimatea decline in overall forest cover of 25.0 per cent (0.68 percent per annum) and in primary cover of 28.1 per centfrom 1962 to 1999. These figures are lower than the23 per cent (2.3 per cent per annum) decline estimated byReau (1996) for a small area (8726 ha) of forest north ofBelitsaka between 1986 and 1996. The rate at whichdeforestation is taking place appears to be accelerating,this being especially true in the northern Mikea Forestwhere the rate has increased from 0.37 per centper annum in 1962-94 to 1.04 per cent per annum overthe past 5 years.

It should be noted that these figures consider totaldeforestation only and the extent of degradation ofremaining forest remains unquantified. Therefore, al-though around 6.0 per cent only of the dry forest southof Manombo has been totally deforested since 1962, fieldobservations indicated that the remaining habitat hasbeen severely degraded and as such deserves closemonitoring.

Given the numerous sources of error inherent inmapping vegetation cover and type from satellite imagesand field data, the absolute figures for forest cover arelikely to be inaccurate. However, even with an estimatedmargin of error of around 5 per cent, the overall percent-age decline in forest cover and the acceleration indeforestation rate strongly indicate that the area's vege-tation warrants immediate conservation action.

Current threats to biodiversity

Maize cultivation

Slash-and-burn cultivation is considered the principalagent of forest destruction and hence biodiversity lossin Madagascar (WCMC, 1991; ANGAP, PNUE, ONE,

1998). This is certainly true in the north and centralregions of the Mikea Forest. Here, hatsnke (slash-and-burn maize cultivation, Plate 3) is carried out on landtechnically owned by the government but which hasbeen occupied by the Mikea for more than 100 years(Yount et al., in press). Although Mikea have beencultivating maize in the Mikea Forest since at least the1950s, recent Tandroy migrants now tend to cultivatelarger areas: 10 ha per household per annum in compari-son with 1-3 ha for local Mikea and Masikoro households(B. Tucker, pers. comm., 2000). Hatsake is most commonon the sandy red soils to the east, although productivityis low: a 2-ha plot yields 8 tonnes of grain worth around2,080,000 Malagasy Francs (MGF; equivalent to $US 320,02/00) in its first year, but by the fifth year only produces1 tonne worth around 260,000 MGF ($US 40, 02 00)(Reau, 1996). Such plots are generally abandoned after3-5 years (J.W.Y., pers. obs.).

Much of the maize is consumed locally. However, acertain proportion is reportedly destined for export tomainland Africa, Mauritius, Reunion, and the Seychelles,where it is reportedly used for animal feed (B. Forgeau,pers. comm., 1999). Since 1990, demand for maize hasgrown and in 1994, 11,300 tonnes of maize (7.3 per centof annual national production in 1994; IMF, 1999) wereexported from the Toliara region alone (Reau, 1996). Afew private companies based in Toliara promote maizecultivation for export. In addition to those who cultivatefor themselves, people are employed by both locals andoutsiders to clear and burn the forest, and to grow,harvest and pack the maize. The provision of alternativelivelihoods, and the tighter control of commercialexportation and activities of immigrant cultivators areprerequisites to conserving the Mikea Forest. Initialresentment at attempts to limit hatsake might be mitigatedif the limitations were imposed as part of an IntegratedConservation and Development Project (ICDP) (seeRecommendations for conservation) incorporatingtechnical and agricultural developments.

> 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



Charcoal production

The vast majority (c. 95 per cent) of Madagascar's 15.06million inhabitants (FAO, 1998) depend on wood andcharcoal for domestic use (Goodman et al., 1997). Al-though Malagasy households are generally economicalin their use of fuel, 'the current capacity for charcoalproduction from plantations falls short of meeting theneeds of the island over the next decade' (Richard &O'Connor, 1997). Charcoal production, which targets alltree species except those of low fibre density (e.g.Adansonia spp. and Delonix adansonioides), is increasingin intensity: from 1996-98 national wood fuel produc-tion increased by 5.8 per cent (FAO, 1998). The propor-tion of national charcoal production coming from thedry forests is probably small in terms of both biomassand calorific value compared to that coming from therest of Madagascar. However, given the lower standingbiomass, exploitation in dry forests is likely to have aproportionately greater impact on native vegetation, andclearance for charcoal has been identified as the 'princi-pal threat to the (Mikea Forest) region' (Langrand, 1990).

Plate 3 Hatsake (slash-and-burn maize cultivation) west ofAntseva, January 1999 (Joe Tobias).

Plate 4 Charcoal production in degraded forest north ofMangily, November 1998 (Nathalie Seddon).

Clear felling for charcoal production (Plate 4) is fo-cused on areas with adequate road infrastructure. Whileit is currently the most serious cause of deforestationalong RN9 south of Manombo, fuelwood extractionfurther north in the Mikea Forest is limited by accessibil-ity and governed by the daily needs of local people.Most charcoal production is carried out by Masikoro.In Mangily, approximately 40 per cent of people areemployed in the production of charcoal, of which onlyaround 30 per cent is consumed locally, the remainderbeing transported by road to Toliara. While charcoal isthus fundamental to the local economy, its market valueis quite low: one large rice sack (weighing 100 kg whenfull, the standard unit of measure in this case), entailingan average of 30 mature trees equates to around 6500MGF only ($US 1, 02/00).

Technically, charcoal production is controlled by alicensing system enforced by the government body, theMinistere des Eaux et Forets (MEF). In theory, charcoalproduction in unprotected government forests should

© 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



be maintained at sustainable levels through carefulissuing of permits and the monitoring of forests bylocal MEF representatives. Our observations, however,suggest that either the system is almost completelydysfunctional or that the issuing authorities are grant-ing permits in a way that results in excessive and un-sustainable resource use. Firstly, we received unsubstan-tiated reports of local MEF representatives actively tak-ing part in charcoal production at PK32. Secondly, inNovember 1997 to January 2000, the number of char-coal pits at this site increased from 17 to 30 per sq km,representing a loss of at least 400 mature trees in lessthan 3 years. This rate of exploitation is likely to beunsustainable, given the slow rates of regeneration bydry forests in general (Deleporte et al., 1996) and ourobservations that in 3 years there were minimal signs ofregrowth in areas burnt for charcoal production.

Local construction materials

Our observations indicated that in the southern MikeaForest, certain settlements are growing rapidly follow-ing the increase in tourism and migration of peoplefrom the south. We estimated that the number ofdwellings in the Ifaty-Mangily area had increased by40 per cent between September 1997 and January 2000.Such an increase places intense demands on adjacentforest for construction materials. For example, for each4 x 4 m dwelling, which lasts 3-5 years only, at leastnine trees (dbh > 10 cm) and 350 saplings (dbh< 2 cm) of more than five species are used (includingCommiphora spp., Cedrelopsis grevei, and Khaya madagas-cariensis). In addition, each house or small compoundof houses is inefficiently delimited by fences made ofsaplings, commonly including hundreds of individualtrees. The growth in local population has also increasedthe demand for Givotia madagascariensis, a tree used toconstruct sailing canoes. These also tend to last 3 -5 years only, and are sold for between 250,000 and700,000 MGF ($US 40-110). Baobabs (Adansonia spp.)are also felled for roofing materials, and very occasion-ally for rope and a source of moisture for cattle by theMasikoro. Clearance of forest for the provision of con-struction materials is also a threat in the north, nearMorombe. However, it appears to be a less seriousthreat in the central part of the Mikea Forest where thehuman population density is lower.

Comme'rcial timber extraction

Most commercial timber extraction is conducted ille-gally in Madagascar (e.g. c. 80 per cent in Morondava;Raonintsoa, 1996), and is usually limited to areas withadequate road infrastructure. South of Manombo, ex-

traction is increasing steadily and we noted that virtu-ally all large trees have already been removed from thewestern edge within 1-2 km of RN9. A worrying de-velopment in 1999 was the arrival of regular trucks inthe PK32 area to collect large quantities of timberdestined for Toliara. To the north, several commercialloggers began exploiting wood between Manombo andAntanimieva in the late 1990s, and extraction alongthe southern banks of the Mangoky has been accelerat-ing over the past decade (B. Forgeau, pers. comm.,2000).

Livestock grazing

From 1990 to 1999 the number of goats and cattle keptin Madagascar increased by 12 and 3 per cent, respec-tively, with the majority (c. 61 per cent) being restrictedto the south and west coasts (Rasambainarivo & Ra-zafindratsita, 1998). Goats and cattle are grazedthroughout the Mikea Forest, a factor that may affectregeneration, although research is needed to confirmthis. Certainly, burning for pasture in abandoned maizefields eliminates forest regeneration, at least on forestedges (M. Grouzis, pers. comm., 2000). Furthermore,there is some evidence to suggest that, under certainconditions, the animals may themselves modify theunderstorey and damage plant communities (WCMC,1991; Richard & O'Connor, 1997).

Cattle also play a significant role in deforestation inthat their acquisition is highly valued by both localsand immigrants and maize cultivation in the forest isperceived as one of the best ways of earning the moneyto purchase more cattle. Cattle theft is rampant in theMikea Forest area (J.W.Y., pers. ob.), and is reportedlocally to have increased over the last two decades. Thisleads not only to the impoverishment of the localpopulation but may also be a motivation for furtherdeforestation to replace the cattle lost

Wildlife trade

Most of the wildlife trade in Madagascar involvesbirds, plants and especially reptiles: for example, in1985, well over 1000 individuals of each of six daygecko species Phelsuma spp. were exported illegally(WCMC, 1991). At PK32, mixed foreign and Malagasyteams made collections of two threatened reptiles: Phel-suma standing! and radiated tortoise Geochelone radiata,in addition to the skink Zonosaurus quadrilineatus, andthe endemic plant Pachypodium geayi, all of which arelisted in Appendix II of CITES and are therefore illegalto export. Whilst we only recorded this activity inDecember 1999, it was locally reported to occur at leastannually with the wildlife destined for both private and

• 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



public zoo collections in Europe and the USA (B.Forgeau, pers. comm., 2000). Such collecting has beenheld responsible for the local extinction of Phelsumastandhtgi in many areas of the southern Mikea Forestclose to RN9 (Raxworthy, 1995).

Tourism

In 1994-98, the number of tourists visiting Madagascarincreased by 103 per cent to 133,500 per annum, withboth hotel capacity and tourist revenue doubling dur-ing this period (IMF, 1999). Some of this tourism targetsthe Mikea Forest, in particular the villages of Ifaty andMangily north of Toliara, although growing numbers oftourists are visiting the Morombe area. Year-roundhotel occupation in the region averages 45 per cent,with numbers of visitors estimated at 5000-8000 perannum (WWF, 1993). A 5-fold increase in tourist rev-enue was recorded from 1985 to 1993 (WWF, 1993) andalthough no more recent data are available, the MikeaForest is likely to have received further increases givenrecent rises in national tourist revenue. There is poten-tial for further growth on two main accounts. First, incomparison with other regions in Madagascar, the in-frastructure is relatively well developed and is gradu-ally being improved. Second, the area has numerousimportant attractions. The reef, which extends along thecoastline and supports a diverse marine life, constitutesa significant lure and many hotels already cater fordivers and snorkellers. The forest itself has great scenicvalue mainly as a result of the presence of baobabs.The forest also attracts numbers of specialist bird tourcompanies (five in 1999) and bird watchers seeking themesites and ground-rollers. Finally, the Mikea peoplethemselves attract a significant number of tourists andjournalists. Owing to the lack of examples elsewherewhere tourism has had positive effects on traditionalcultures, we have serious reservations about the wis-dom of this latter trend (King & Stewart, 1996).

The potential of tourism to provide a viable economicalternative for local people, as well as revenue for thesustainable protection of natural resources, has longbeen recognized but remains contentious (Boo, 1990;King & Stewart, 1996). Indeed, tourism in the MikeaForest has promoted some local informal protection ofreefs and has generated income for some villagers(WWF, 1993). Nevertheless, it currently has more dele-terious than beneficial effects. For example, we discov-ered that between Toliara and Manombo most of thecoastal scrub immediately adjacent to the road (RN9)has been privately purchased or burned off to assertownership by immigrants planning to build hotels. Theincreased demand for charcoal and building materialshas precipitated the degradation of much adjacent

forest. In the Ifaty-Mangily area, major decreases inwater supplies and a proliferation of sex-tourism anddisease have been blamed by some on the growth oftourism (WWF, 1993; B. Forgeau, pers. comm., 1999).Further, cultural tourism in the northern Mikea Foresthas deepened rifts between local ethnic groups in theMikea Forest, by causing jealousy, exaggerating folkloreand propagating myths about the Mikea, strengtheningthe local view that they are strange and inferior.

Tourism in the Mikea Forest has thus far failed tocreate incentives for conservation because cash benefitsaccrue to a tiny minority of hotel management andstaff, most of whom originate from outside the region.A prerequisite to solving current problems is the com-mitment of people whose livelihood ultimately reliesupon good relationships with the local communitiesand a relatively intact natural habitat. Hotel manage-ment could train local people as staff and guides, andarrange for some of the tourist revenue to be redis-tributed towards protection of local forest, reefs, andideally towards the improvement of local water sup-plies and schools.

One way of organizing such activities would be todevelop tourism as a major component of an ICDP (seebelow) as in Botswana and Namibia (Jones, 1997). Inthis way, tourism can 'contribute to secure livelihoods,generate significant local earnings, and stimulate localparticipation and empowerment' (Ashley & Roe, 1998).In Namibia, capacity-building and institutional supporthave been crucial, with communities negotiating withthe private sector and receiving support from local,national and international NGOs. On this basis, theyhave formed their own organization, the Namibia Com-munity Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA; Jones,1997; Ashley, 1997). An approach modelled on thissuccessful example may work in the Mikea Forest. Sucha scheme could harness the presently wasted potentialof ecotourism, transforming it from a threat into aconservation tool.

Whilst the human pressures on the Mikea Foresthave previously been described as 'fair' (Ganzhorn etah, 1997), we report that forest cover has already dimin-ished in extent and continues to be threatened by manyhuman activities. The influence of these practicesvaries: slash-and-burn maize cultivation is the principalagent of destruction in the north and central regions,while charcoal production is the most serious threat inthe south. Rates of deforestation through slash-and-burn maize cultivation may decline as all suitable landis utilized. The other threats, however, will almostcertainly intensify as the local human population con-tinues to grow through immigration from other regionsand at an estimated natural rate of 3.0 per cent forMadagascar overall (IMF, 1999).

i 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x


298 N. Seddon et at.

Conservation measures taken

In the Mikea Forest, no areas are effectively protectedby law (ANGAP, PNUE, ONE 1998), although both theforest at PK32 and Lake Ihotry were classified as Sitesd'Interets Biologiques (SIBs), with the southern portionof the latter being designated a hunting reserve (Re-serve de Chasse) in 1972 (Nicoll & Langrand, 1989).However, whilst highlighting the importance of theseareas for future conservation action, SIB status confersno official protection and indeed habitat degradation atPK32 has continued apace.

In contrast, five legally protected areas have beenestablished in the Southern Dry Forests (Fig. 1), encom-passing 2 per cent of the total dry forest thought toremain (Du Puy & Moat, 1996). For definitions ofprotected area classification see ANGAP, PNUE, ONE(1998). Table 3 lists the endangered fauna recorded inthese reserves, and the fauna present in a large poten-tial protected area in the Mikea Forest.

Recommendations for conservation

It is clear that conservation action is needed urgently toprotect the Mikea Forest. However, the conservationsituation is complex and various socio-political andbiological issues merit careful consideration before anyaction is instigated. Recognizing that conservation re-mains an experimental endeavour, that flexibility isessential and that human needs must also be ad-dressed, we urge that a combination of approaches beconsidered. Specifically, we recommend: (1) the estab-lishment of a large core protected area; (2) a network oflocally-managed conservation areas; (3) parallel devel-opment efforts to improve agriculture and human con-ditions; and (4) a regional research and educationcentre.

(1) Core protected areaFrom the perspective of conserving biodiversity in thelong term we believe that a protected area, properlymanaged, could be an important component of anoverall conservation strategy for the Mikea Forest. Thisprotected area should encompass as large an area offorest as possible in order to protect viable populationsof rare, locally endemic and threatened species. Itshould incorporate the littoral zone, coastal scrub, dryforest and a marine portion, given the vulnerability andbiological importance of the offshore reef (A. Cooke,pers. comm., 1999). There are two cases that set aprecedent for this in Madagascar: Pare National deMananara-Nord and Pare National de Masoala.

Such an area would best be sited north of Man-ombo, this being the most intact and least populated

area of habitat encompassing a range of pristine dryforest types, intact coastal scrub and small areas ofwetland. The core of the protected area should bedelimited by the settlements Tsiandamba, Ambatomilo,Ankililoaka and Andabotoka (Fig. 2) and be locatedwhere climax forest survives on a low plateau(50 m a.s.L, 22°40'S, 43°25'E). The western and northernedges, and the western portion of the southernedge, are defined by petroleum research roads estab-lished early in the 1960s. These roads provide a cleardemarcation on the ground and are commonly usedas territorial limits between local communities. Theeastern limit of this proposed core protected areacomes within c. 1 km of the current forest edge. Aslarge an area as possible of the eastern part of theforest must be incorporated into the core area, thevegetation there being the most threatened. The preciseboundaries must be determined through negotiationwith the local population. The area north-east ofTsifota is excluded from the proposed core area be-cause the village is already exploring the possibility oflocally protecting a traditionally sacred seasonal wet-land found there.

The official types of protected areas in Madagascarare continuing to evolve and include new and pro-posed categories with greater flexibility for manage-ment approaches (M. Nicoll, pers. comm., 2000). Thepossibility of provincial rather than national parks hasalso been suggested (M. Fenn, pers. comm., 2000) and isconsistent with the current trend of decentralized re-sponsibility. The precise institutional nature of the pro-posed protected area must be determined by theMalagasy people.

Ecotourism, channelled through Toliara, could targetsuch an area, and the employment of local people asguards and guides would help to provide alternativelivelihoods for a small proportion of the community.Indeed, despite the assertion by Wells & Brandon(1992) that it is 'extremely rare for a (tourist) revenueshare to go to local people', Durbin & Ratrimoarisaona(1996) found that in Madagascar the allocation of pro-tected area entrance fees to local development projectsis proving beneficial. However, they also found thattourist revenue was inadequate to fund park manage-ment, confirming that the establishment and mainte-nance of such a park would have to be financedthrough other means.

(2) A network of locally-managed conservation areasMost of the forest between Toliara and Manombo ishighly degraded and the region is densely populated.This is also the case in the forest north of Lake Ihotryand near Morombe. Scattered smaller subsistence settle-ments are also found throughout the forest from

i 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x


Tab

le 3

D

istr

ibut

ion

of s

peci

es o

f co

nser

vati

on c

once

rn i

n th

e S

outh

ern

Dry

For

ests

' pr

otec

ted

area

s (F

ig.

1) a

nd i

n th

e M

ikea

For

est

Spec

ies

Res

erve

Nat

urel

le I

nteg

rale

de T

sim

anam

pets

otsa

24°0

2-ll

'S,

43°3

6-51

E43

,200

ha

Pare

Nat

iona

l d'

And

ohah

ela

24°3

0-58

'S,

46°3

2-52

'E,

12,4

20 h

a

Res

erve

Spe

cial

e de

Cap

St

Res

erve

Spe

cial

e de

Bez

a R

eser

ve P

rive

e de

Ber

enty

Mar

ie

Mah

afal

y 24

°50'

S, 4

6°20

'E

Mik

ea F

ores

t25

°03'

S, 4

9°09

'E 1

750

ha

23°3

0'S,

44°

40'E

580

ha

250

ha

22°4

0'S,

43°

25'E

o o I CD Q.

C? CD en"

O CD en CD

CQ CD co o CD

Tac

hyba

ptus

pel

zeln

iiA

rdeo

la i

dea

Ard

ea h

umbl

oti

Lop

hoti

bus

cris

tata

Pho

enic

onai

as m

inor

•

Ana

s be

rnie

ri (

Mad

agas

car

•te

al)

Cha

radr

ius

thor

acic

us

»A

ccip

iter

mad

agas

cari

ensi

s •

Acc

ipit

er h

enst

iiM

ania

s be

nsch

iC

oua

curs

or

•C

oua

verr

eaux

i •

Ura

telo

rnis

chi

mae

raC

alic

alli

cus

rufo

carp

alis

•

(red

-sho

ulde

red

vang

a)X

enop

iros

tris

xen

opir

ostr

is

•M

onti

cola

imer

inus

•

Nes

illa

s la

ntzi

i •

Tha

mno

rnis

chl

orop

etoi

des

•N

ewto

nia

arch

bold

i »

Lem

ur c

atta

»

Pro

pith

ecus

ver

reau

xi

•C

rypt

opro

cta

fero

xG

alid

ictu

s gr

andi

dier

i »

(Gra

ndid

ier's

mon

goos

e)P

hels

uma

stan

ding

iA

cran

toph

is d

umer

ili

Geo

chel

one

radi

ata

•P

yxis

ara

chno

ides

•

Tot

al s

peci

es o

f 18

cons

erva

tion

int

eres

t16

1010

22

'Spe

cies

tha

t w

ould

rec

eive

pro

tect

ion

if pr

opos

ed p

rote

cted

are

a in

corp

orat

ed t

he c

oast

al z

one

and

Lak

e Ih

otry

.



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



Namonty south to the northern limit of the proposed coreprotected area. These areas are less suitable as traditionalprotected areas both as a result of historical communityclaims to the land and to the consequently greaterhuman impact, which this history of occupation implies.Furthermore, the Mikea communities are likely to rejectexternally imposed conservation measures, given theirlong history of mistrust, resentment and resistance toexternal oppression (Yount et al., in press). These areasare still important, however, for conservation of bio-diversity and their management is also essential to thelong-term viability of the communities that live there.Community-based conservation initiatives are, there-fore, the preferred strategy in this area.

Indeed, we agree with Durbin & Ralambo (1994) that'local participation in conservation plans is more likelyto enhance their quality and produce the sought-afterresults'. Failure to involve village elders and incorporatethe local political structure in conservation planning atRanomafana National Park led to serious difficulties inthe establishment of an ICDP (Wright, 1997).

Much criticism has been levelled at ICDPs in Mada-gascar in recent years (e.g. Sussman et al., 1994), largelyowing to the lack of clear evidence for effective biodiver-sity conservation. Amongst the main problems are theweak enforcement of the laws protecting forest, a lowawareness and understanding amongst local people ofconservation issues, and a high cost of compliance forlocal communities (Richard & O'Connor, 1997). Further-more, 'the inclusion of communities in the rule-makingand enforcement process is no guarantee of successfulresource conservation given that social and economiccontexts also matter' (Horning, 2000). However, as em-phasized by Wells & Brandon (1992), ICDPs are 'com-plex experiments trying to achieve different goals' andinsufficient time has passed to judge the success of theprojects (Richard & O'Connor, 1997). While there is noestablished recipe for success, the integration of conser-vation and development as an operating principle isclearly the only way to both alleviate social problemsand protect the environment.

A new approach to conservation by the Governmentof Madagascar is GELOSE (Gestion Locale Securisee),which involves the negotiation of local management andresource use within and between local stake-holdingcommunities and the national government. Once agree-ment is reached, local management is backed by nationallaw, which theoretically enhances the local community'scapacity to defend their resources against outside inter-ests, including loggers and those seeking land for slash-and-burn agriculture, charcoal production, cattleherding or development. Greater local control in theoryleads to a more long-term perspective in resource use: anexperiment worth pursuing when the alternative status

quo is ongoing degradation. The approach is hoped tobe both more ethical and ultimately more sustainable,but it is too early at this stage to evaluate its effective-ness. L'Association pour le Sauvegarde de l'Environne-ment began initial negotiations for GELOSE projects inthe Mikea Forest region in December 1999, the results ofwhich are not yet known.

One priority area for GELOSE-style conservationis the forest north of PK32 bordering Lake Andranobe,an area long-considered a conservation priority(Domergue, 1983; Raxworthy, 1995). In 1999, the inhab-itants of the settlements around the lake expressed acommitment to long-term preservation of the forest, andthe village president is currently compiling a proposalfor forest protection for presentation to MEF in Toliara.Several other communities have expressed a similarinterest, including Tsifota and villages near Lake Ihotry(J. Bond, pers. comm., 1999) and Morombe. Several ofthese areas also have a high tourist potential withinreach of an existing tourism infrastructure. Should com-munity-based conservation projects be established, werecommend regular monitoring following criteria suchas those set out by Richard & O'Connor (1997), withopportunities to adapt if current strategies are notmeeting stated goals. Indeed, as indicated in a recentstudy in south-west Madagascar, consistent monitoringand sanctioning are likely to encourage compliance withrules governing forest use by local people (Horning,2000).

GELOSE focuses on a very small regional scale encom-passing one or several village territories. To play aneffective role in an overall strategy for the entire MikeaForest, local conservation and development efforts needto be integrated in a regional network. FiMAMi, theAssociation for the Protection of the Mikea Forest, is anon-governmental organization established in 1998 withprecisely this goal in mind. The Comite Regional deProgrammation (CRP) in turn facilitates communicationand exchanges between FiMAMi and similar organiza-tions recently established throughout southern Mada-gascar as part of the same general effort to democratizeconservation and development. WWF's Dry ForestEcoregion Project collaborates with the CRP to developa comprehensive long-term ecoregion-based conserva-tion plan for the dry forests between Morombe and FortDauphin. Any conservation efforts in the Mikea Forestshould seek collaboration with these projects.

(3) Improving agriculture and human conditionsLarge areas of the northern Mikea Forest are being lostto extensive maize cultivation because although theyield is low, relatively little effort is required. Improve-ments in non-destructive agricultural practices areclearly required. Several different organizations (e.g.

) 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



Projet Sud-Ouest (PSO) and the Association Nationaledes Actions Environnementales) are developing andpromoting 'zero-till' agriculture on the grasslands andabandoned fields east of the forest. This techniqueinvolves a method of cultivation whereby soils arenever tilled and new crops are planted amongstlegumes and or grasses that have been knocked overrather than cut down. The simplicity of zero-till iscomparable with slash-and-burn (L. Seguy, pers.comm., 2000), and it promises high yields and lowlabour requirements while actually improving the soil(Rollin & Razafintsalama, 1998). Every effort should,therefore, be made to promote the use of this techniquethroughout the northern Mikea Forest.

We additionally recommend the following suite ofinitiatives, which could be implemented in conjunctionwith development organizations currently operating inthe area (e.g. PSO, Fonds d' Intervention et Developpe-ment and Aide et Action).• Development of more efficient charcoal and woodstoves.• Provision of alternative energy sources. Whilst plan-tations are an obvious alternative source of energy, theyare unlikey to work in this region because trees growextremely slowly in infertile soils (60-120 years forrestoration between cuts, Deleporte et al., 1996), and the'human and financial capital needed for such a longwait is unlikely to be available' (Richard & O'Connor,1997). However, solar power could become importantgiven that the region experiences c. 350 days of sun-shine per annum and bio-gas could be generated, theBritish Embassy having donated funds for the construc-tion of a demonstration bio-gas installation near Ifaty(WWF, 1993). Although the provision of alternativeenergy is of crucial importance, given the substantiallogistical, cultural and financial constraints, much re-search is required before it is practicable in the longterm. Such research could be carried out in conjunctionwith the WWF's sustainable energy project, which wasestablished in 1996 to investigate the problems of en-ergy supply and consumption in the Toliara region(WWF, 1997).

• Instigation of village-based education programmesaimed at demonstrating the economic and energeticbenefits of alternative energy sources and crops, andtheir compatibility with local traditions.• Improvements in the design of local housing andfencing so as to increase structural life-span and reducerequirements for construction materials.• Improved animal husbandry techniques, includingapiculture.• Development of dry forest agroforestry.• Development of cultivation, semi-cultivation andsustainable commercial harvesting of wild tubers,

honey and other non-endangered wild forest products.• Re-establishment of a wild-silk harvesting industry,apparently devastated by anti-locust pesticides.• Development of cultivation or sustainable harvest ofnatural plant medicines.These initiatives should be integrated with other con-servation measures and should be developed in collab-oration with local populations, who will ultimatelydetermine which techniques are adopted and how.

(4) Regional research, education and monitoring centreWright (1997) recommends the establishment of high-quality long-term biodiversity research stations in atleast five different biogeographic regions in Madagascar.We endorse the establishment of such a centre in theMikea Forest, preferably in conjunction with the Univer-sity of Toliara. Although there are existing centres in theSouthern Dry Forests (the Libanona Ecological Centre inFort Dauphin, and the research centre at Beza-Ma-hafaly), we feel that the ecology and socio-politics of theMikea Forest are significantly different and warrant theestablishment of a further research and monitoringcentre. Malagasy and foreign students could undertakeresearch on issues such as the ecology of endemic animaland plant species, including the monitoring of abun-dance and health of target species, the impact of live-stock rearing, forest regeneration following clearance,etc. Data gathered during such research projects shouldbe donated to the National Biodiversity Database man-aged by ANGAP to assist decision-making at a local ornational government level.

There should be a strong training component withlocal people being educated in agro-ecology, taxonomy,epidemiology and sensitive, informed tourist guiding,as in Ranomafana National Park where, in addition tothe local guides, over 30 local people are researchassistants (Wright, 1997). University students couldbenefit simultaneously from local knowledge regardingthe natural environment and there should be workaimed at integrating scientific and indigenous knowl-edge into a plan for sustained yield of forest products.

One of the most important potential contributions ofsuch a centre should be the ongoing monitoring andevaluation of conservation and development efforts inthe region. This could include analysis of the barriers topromising innovations such as zero-till agriculture, so-lar cooking and the identification of necessary adapta-tions or locally meaningful messages for use in theirsocial marketing.

Given the experimental nature of conservation anddevelopment efforts in general, as well as an ever-changing context, the specific initial approach may ulti-mately be less important than ongoing monitoring andadaptation. The regional centre proposed here could be

© 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



a focal point to evaluate impacts holistically, identifyproblems and suggest solutions in this particular exper-iment. Its ultimate effectiveness would depend uponestablishing collaboration between local communities,government bodies and educational institutions.

Conclusions

The dry forests of south and south-west Madagascarare under-represented in current conservation pro-grammes despite their outstanding biodiversity value.For this reason, they have been identified as the area inMadagascar with the greatest need for additional con-servation efforts (Du Puy & Moat, 1996). We endorsethis view, but point out that within this large biogeo-graphic region the Mikea Forest is unique, effectivelyunprotected and is showing signs of rapid degradation.Conservation action in this particular area is thereforeof utmost importance. We strongly recommend a com-bination of a core protected area, a coordinated net-work of smaller community-based conservation areas,integrated parallel developments focusing on agricul-ture, and the establishment of a regional research, edu-cation and monitoring centre. As a result of theexperimental nature of any conservation and develop-ment efforts, however, flexibility and ongoing adapta-tion will be central to long-term success.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Ministere des Eaux et Forets forgranting us permission to conduct our research, and tothe Pare Botanique et Zoologique de Tsimbazaza, ProjetZICOMA, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Centre deDocumentation et de Recherche sur l'Art et les Tradi-tions Orales a Madagascar (CeDRATOM) of the Univer-sity of Toliara and Projet Sud-Ouest for their support ofthe project. Our sincere thanks also go to Gary Allport,Bernard Bouvier, Joanna Durbin, Mark Fenn, LincolnFishpool, Bob Kelly, Lin Poyer, Odon Rakotonomjana-hary, Andry Vahatriniaina Rabemanantsoa, BertrandReau, Flavien Rebara, Zafitompo Rengoky, Tsiazonera,Jaovola Tombo and Bram Tucker. We are particularlyindebted to Bernard Forgeau for his unwavering logisti-cal support and for sharing his knowledge of the area.Finally, James Bond, Andrew Cooke, Frank Hawkinsand three anonymous referees generously providedcomments that greatly improved this paper.

References

ANGAP, PNUE, ONE (1998) Monographic Nationale sur laBiodiversite. L'Association Nationale pour la Gestion des

Aires Protegees, Antananarivo, Madagascar [in French].Ashley, C. (1997) Livelihood Strategics of Rural Households in

Caprivi: Implications for Conservation and Natural ResourceManagement. Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE)Programme of WWF and USAID, Windhoek, Namibia.

Ashley, C. & Roe, D. (1998) Enhancing CommunityInvolvement in Wildlife Tourism: Issues and Challenges.International Institute for Environment and Development,London.

Astuti, R. (1995) People of the Sea. Descent and Identity amongthe Vczo of Madagascar. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

BirdLife International (2000) Threatened Birds of the World.BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: the Potentials and Pitfalls. WWF,Baltimore.

CNRE (2000) Societes pnysannes, dynamiqucs ecologiques etgestion de I'espace rural dans le sud-ouest de Madagascar.Atelier Centre Nationale de Recherche Eiwirouuemeutal, 8-10Novcmbre. Antananarivo, Madagascar [in French].

Collar, N.J & Stuart, S.N. (1988) Key Forests for ThreatenedBirds in Africa. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

Curry-Lindahl, K. (1975) Man in Madagascar. Defenders ofWildlife, 50, 164-169.

Deleporte, P., Randrianasolo, J. & Rakotonirina (1996)Sylviculture in the dry forest of western Madagascar. InEcology and Economy of a Tropical Dry Forest in Madagascar(eds J.U. Ganzhorn and J.-P. Sorg), pp. 89-116. ErichGoltze, Gottingen, Germany.

Domergue, C.A. (1983) Note preliminaire en vue de la miseen reserve de la foret du point kilometre 32 au nord deTulear Madagascar [in French]. Bulletin de 1'AcademicMalgache, 61, 105-114.

Dowsett, R.J. & Forbes-Watson, A.D. (1993) Checklist of Birdsof the Afrotropical and Malagasy Regions. Tauraco Press,Liege, Belgium.

Du Puy, D. J. & Moat, J. (1996) A refined classification ofthe primary vegetation of Madagascar based on theunderlying geology: using GIS to maps its distributionand to assess its conservation status. Biogeographie deMadagascar, 1996, 205-218.

Durbin, J.C. & Ralambo, J.A. (1994) The role of local peoplein the successful maintenance of protected areas inMadagascar. Environmental Conservation, 21, 115-120.

Durbin, J.C. & Ratrimoarisaona, S.-N. (1996) Can ecotourismmake a major contribution to the conservation ofprotected areas in Madagascar? Biodiversity andConservation, 5, 345-353.

FAO (1998) Statistical database. In Food and AgriculturalOrganisation-Production Yearbook. FAO, Rome.

Faramalala, M.H. (1988) Etude de la vegetation de Madagascar a1'aide des donnees spaliales. PhD thesis, Universite PaulSabatier de Toulouse, 167pp. + map at 1:1,000,000 [inFrench].

Faramalala, M.H. (1995) Formations Vegetates et DomaineForestier National de Madagascar. ConservationInternational, Antananarivo, Madagascar [in French],

Freudenberger, K.S. (1994) Tree and Land Tenure: RapidAppraisal Tools. Community Forestry Field Manual No. 4.Rome, FAO.

) 2000 FFI, Oryx. 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x



Ganzhorn, J., Rakotosamimanana, B., Hannah, L., Hough, J.,Iyer, L., Olivieri, S., Rajaobelina, Rodstrom, C. & Tilkin,G. (1997) Priorities for conservation in Madagascar, PrimateReport 48-1. Special Issue.

Garbutt, N. (1999) Mammals of Madagascar. Pica Press,Sussex, UK.

Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1994) A Field Guide to the Amphibiansand Reptiles of Madagascar. Moos Druck, Leverkusen,

Germany-Goodman, S.M., Pidgeon, M., Hawkins, A.F.A. &

Schulenberg, T.S. (1997) The birds of southeasternMadagascar. Fieldiana, 87, 1-132.

Guichon, A. (1960) La superficie des formations forestieres aMadagascar. Rezme Forestiere Francaise, 6, 408-411 [inFrench].

Horning, N.R. (2000) Explaining compliance with rulesgoverning common-pool forest resource use andconservation: dynamics in Bara country, southwesternMadagascar. Proceedings of the International Association forthe Study of Common Property, 31 May-4 June 2000,Bloomington, Indiana.

IMF (1999) Madagascar: Statistical Annex. InternationalMonetry Fund Staff Country Report no. 99 17. IMFPublication Services, Washington, DC.

Inventaire Ecologique Forestier National (1997) Carte de laVegetation de Madagascar, 1:1,000,000. FTM, Antananarivo,Madagascar [in French].

IUCN (1996) 1UCN Red List of Threatened Animals. 1UCN,Gland, Switzerland.

Jones, B. (1997) Community-based Nature Resource Managementin Botswana and Namibian Inventory and Preliminaryanalysis of Progress. Report to the International Institutefor Environment and Development, Evaluating EdenProject.

King, D.A. & Stewart, W.P. (1996) Ecotourism andcommodification: protecting people and places.Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 293-305.

Langrand, O (1990) Guide to the Birds of Madagascar. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven and London.

Morris, P. & Hawkins, F. (1998) Birds of Madagascar. APhotographic Guide. Pica Press, East Sussex, UK.

Nelson, R. & Horning, N. (1993) AVHRR-LAC estimates offorest area in Madagascar, 1990. International journal ofRemote Sensing, 14, 1463-1475.

Nicoll, M.E. & Langrand, O. (1989) Madagascar: Revue de laConservation et des Aires Protegees. WWF, Gland,Switzerland [in French].

Phillipson, P.B. (1996) Endemism and non-endemism inMadagascar. Biogeographie de Madagascar, 1996, 125-136.

Rakotovao, L.H., Rajeriarison, C. & Ramavololona (1996) LesDidiereaceae: origine, affinites systematiques etrepartition a Madagascar. Biogeographie de Madagascar,1996, 183 [in French].

Raonintsoa, P.N. (1996) The role of the forest in the localeconomy. In Ecology and Economy of a Tropical Dry Forestin Madagascar Primate Report 46-1 (eds J. U. Ganzhornand J. P. Sorg), pp. 41-47. Gottingen, Germany.

Rasambainarivo, J.H. & Razafindratsita, R. (1998) Productionof the Malagasy extensive livestock. In Food andAgricultural Organisation-Production Yearbook 1998. FAO,Rome.

Raxworthy, C. (1995) Field Survey of Amphibians, Reptiles andSmall Mammals from the Toliara Region, Madagascar, October5-30 1995. Unpublished field report, University ofMichigan, USA..

Razanaka, S.J. (1995) Delimitation des zones de contact desertssemi aride et sub aride de la vegetation du Sud-Ouest deMadagascar. These de Doctorat 3eme cycle, Universited'Antananarivo, 244 pp [in French].

Razanaka, S.J. (1996) Repartition des especes xerophiles dansle sud-ouest de Madagascar. Biogeographie de Madagascar,1996, 171 [in French].

Reau, B. (1996) Degradation de I'cnvironnement forestier etreactions paysannes: les migrants tandroy sur la cote ouest deMadagascar. PhD thesis, Universite Michel de Montagne,Bordeaux, France [in French].

Richard, A. & O'Connor, S. (1997) Degradation,transformation and conservation. In Natural Change andHuman Impact in Madagascar (eds S.M. Goodman and B.D.Patterson). Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.

Rollin, D. & Razafintsalama, H. (1998) Du semis direct enagriculture extensive sur defriche au semis direct sur unecouverture permanente du sol, elements pour uneevolution des systemes de culture dans le Sud-ouest. InActes de I'atelier International sur la Gestion Agrobiologiquedes Sols et des Systemes de Culture, 23-28 Mars [in French].Antsirabe, Madagascar.

Royal Botanical Gardens and Kew (1997) Index Kewensis.Version 2, CD-ROM Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Salomon, J.N. (1977) Fourres et forets seches du Sud-ouestMalgache. Madagascar Revue Geographic, 32, 19 [in French].

Salomon, J.N. (1987) Le Sud-ouest de Madagascar, Etude deGeographie Physique. Presses Universitaires Bordeaux,Bordeaux, 998 pp [in French].

Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. & Wege, D.C.(1998) Global Directory of Endemic Bird Areas, BirdLifeInternational (BirdLife Conservation Series). BirdLifeInternational, Cambridge, UK.

Sussman, R.W., Green, G.M. & Sussman, I.K. (1994) Satelliteimagery, human ecology, anthropology and deforestationin Madagascar. Human Ecology, 22, 333-354.

Wells, M. & Brandon, K. (1992) People and Parks: LinkingProtected Area Management with Local Communities. TheWorld Bank, Washington, USA.

White, F. (1983) The Vegetation of Africa: a Descriptive Memoirto Accompany the UNESCO IAETFAT I UN SO VegetationMap of Africa. Natural Resources Research 20, UNESCO,Paris.

Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (1993) Mammal Species of theWorld. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. SmithsonianInstitute Press, Washington and London.

WCMC (1991) Guide de la Diversite de Madagascar. WorldConservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

WFF (1993) Coral reefs and coastal zone of Toliara: conservationand development through ecotourism. Unpublishedpre-project report. World Wide Fund forNature-Madagascar, Antananarivo, Madagascar.

WWF (1997) Toliara Sustainable Energy Project WWF SummaryProgress reports, Vol. 5. World Wide Fund for Nature,Gland, Switzerland.

WWF & IUCN (1994) Centres of Plant Diversity. A Guide andStrategy for their Conservation. 3 Volumes, World WideFund for Nature and IUCN, IUCN, Cambridge, UK.

I 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x


304 N. Seddon et at.

Wright, P. (1997) The future of biodiversity in Madagascar: aview from Ranomafana National Park. In Natural Changeand Human Impact in Madagascar (eds S.M. Goodman andB.D. Patterson). Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington,DC.

Yount, J.W., Tsiazonera & Tucker, B.T. (in press) Construct-ing Mikea identity: past or present links to forest andforaging. In Ethnohistory, Special Issue on Madagascar (ed.J.C. Kaufmann).

ZICOMA (1999) Projet ZICOMA, Antananarivo, Madagascar.[in French].

Biographical sketches

Nathalie Seddon is currently based in the Department ofZoology, Cambridge University, UK, where she is writingup her PhD thesis on the ecology of svibdesert mesites. Herresearch interests encompass behavioural ecology and con-servation biology, and she has been involved in researchand biodiversity assessment projects in Peru, Tanzania andIndia.

Joe Tobias has a behavioural ecology PhD from CambridgeUniversity and is currently a freelance ornithologist andwriter. He is involved with BirdLife International's AsianRed Data Book Project and has undertaken surveys ofthreatened birds and mammals in a variety of South Amer-ican, Asian and East African countries.

James Yount is currently writing his PhD thesis at theUniversity of Wisconsin on the Mikea people and land usein the Mikea Forest. He is developing a botanical andmammal inventory for the region and is mapping its vege-tation and human use. He plans to work as an independentconsultant on the cultural and ecological dimensions ofconservation, development, health and population stabi-lization.

Julien Remi Ramanampamonjy is curator of birds at thePare Botanique et Zoologique de Tsimbazaza in Antana-narivo, Madagasacar. He has contributed to research andconservation projects throughout Madagascar, his particu-lar interest lying in environmental education and in work-ing closely with local communities. During the course ofthree field-seasons, he developed local conservation initia-tives in the southern Mikea Forest.

Stuart Butchart is a research fellow at the Department ofZoology, University of Cambridge, UK, currently studyingbrood parasitism in cuckoos. His conservation interestshave involved surveys and status assessments for threat-ened birds and mammals in Indonesia, Paraguay and Peru.

Hiarinirina Randrianizahana works for the Ministere desEaux et Forets in Antananarivo, Madagasacar. He wasinstrumental in setting up this project and conducted com-munity-based work in the southern Mikea Forest. He hasan active interest in conservation projects throughoutMadagascar.

) 2000 FFI, Oryx, 34(4), 287-304



https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00134.x


Conservation issues and priorities in the Mikea Forest of south ...

Documents

Transcript of Conservation issues and priorities in the Mikea Forest of south ...