1

Final Technical Report to Conservation International submitted by the Libanona Ecology Centre (CEL) for the project:

Feasibility Study and Public Consultations for the Establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in the Mandrare Valley

Miambeñe soa i Mandrare : Mipay Fampandrosoañe Maharetse ho a ty Vahòake

Report by Barry Ferguson, Technical Consultant to CEL for Mandrare Biosphere Feasibility Study Project. Submitted on Monday 16th March 2009.

2

Executive Summary Between October 2008 and March 2009 the Libanona Ecology Centre along with partner organisations WWF, MNP and the Regional Directorates of the Environment, Forest and Tourism Service for Anosy and Androy, undertook a feasibility study and consultations to consider the potential for proposing to UNESCO that a Biosphere Reserve be designated in the Mandrare Valley.

The project was organised under 5 activities: 1. Feasibility Study – A technical study has been conducted which is considering 11 eligibility

criteria identified by the project team, ranging from importance of biodiersity, existence of adequate management arrangements for natural areas, and securing the support of local stakeholders. The initial consideration of these criteria is presented in this report (pages 6-19), and thus far indicates overwhelming support for proposal of the Mandrare Valley to UNESCO as a Biosphere Reserve. A more detailed final feasibility study report is being prepared and is due for publication in July 2009.

2. Public Consultations – a series of 17 public meetings were held across the region. More than 1000 individuals participated in these meetings, representing more than 328 fokontany’s from 24 communes. Feedback received during consultations meetings showed community support for the proposal. Major community concerns were over : land tenure changes; the role of a Biosphere reserve in protected areas/forest law enforcement & the provision of adequate livelihood alternatives. It was clarified that a Biosphere Reserve as a UNESCO designation could not interfere with Malagasy legislation, its enforcement or with land tenure. It was also explained that one of the aspirations of having a Biosphere Reserve would be to lobby for additional support for conservation and development activities, to support efforts to establish sustainable livelihoods.

3. Sector Specific Consultations – 50 organisations from the private, NGO and government sectors in the Mandrare Valley region were consulted on an individual basis to solicit their opinions about a potential Mandrare Valley Biosphere Reserve. Detailed responses have been received, indicating support for the proposal, and provided useful orientations for inclusion in the final feasibility study report.

4. Public Information Campaign – In parallel with the public consultations a public information campaign was organised. More than 1000 brochures in three languages were prepared and disseminated, publicity T-shirts were also manufactured and distributed and CDRoms prepared and distributed. As a result of these activities awareness of the Biosphere Reserve Concept has been greatly increased amongst the community and institutional stakeholders in the region.

5. Study Visit to Mananara-Nord and Antananarivo Workshop – Eleven representatives from different sectors (Mayors, Forest and Agriculture agents and NGO’s) undertook a study visit to Mananara-Nord to experience what a Biosphere Reserve in the Malagasy context can look like. Following this the group visited Mitsinjo in Andasibe to gain exposure to Carbon sequestration issues, and subsequently held a strategic workshop with key stakeholders in Antananarivo. A separate report was produced to disseminate the finding and results of the study visit and workshop.

The study and consultation activities completed during this project indicate very strongly that the Mandrare Valley has a great diversity of internationally recognised biodiversity, great development potential based on the natural resources and cultural traditions. As such it is clear that the Mandrare Valley merits consideration for proposal to UNESCO as a Biosphere Reserve. Furthermore it has become evident through consultation that there is great will among diverse stakeholders of the region to move this process forward, gain recognition for the area and strive to seek sustainable solutions to the conservation and development challenges extant in the Mandrare Valley.

The Libanona Ecology Centre sincerely thanks USAID (through a Conservation International- Conservation Action Grant) for funding which made this project possible.

3

Contents

2 Executive Summary

4 Abbreviations

5 A: Context

6-19 B: Project Outputs Part 1: Feasibility Study

19-20 C: Project Outputs Part 2 & 4 : Public Consultation & Public Information

21-22 D: Project Outputs Part 3 : Sector Specific Consultations

23 E: Project Outputs Part 5 : Study Visit to Mananara-Nord

24 F: Where to now? The process from here….

25 G: Profile of the Libanona Ecology Centre

Annexes to Main Report (attached as separate documents)

Annexe 1 – Mandrare Biosphere Reserve Feasibility Study Brochure (4pp).

Annexe 2 – Form for Recording Minutes (PV) from Public (Commune) Consultations (14pp).

Annexe 3 – Institutional Consultation Form (7pp).

Annexe 4 – Protected Area Information Form (7pp).

Annexe 5 – Report from Study Visit to Mananara-Nord, and Antananarivo Workshop (23p).

Cover Image : Logo Developed during the project to visualise how the concept of a Biosphere Reserve could be interpreted in the Mandrare Valley. And the text translates from the original Tandroy as ‘Take Care of the Mandrare : Look for Sustainable Development for its People’

Recommended Citation: Ferguson HB, 2009, Final Technical Report on Feasibility Study and Public Consultations for the Establishment of a Mandrare Valley Biosphere Reserve, , Consultancy Report to the Libanona Ecology Centre, March 15th.

Author contact details: Barry Ferguson, Andabatoir (pres FLM Neni Tobilava), Fort Dauphin, Madagascar.

Email : ferguson.barry@gmail.com Telelephone 0325763549/0331748515/0341749737

4

Abbreviations

AFS – Air Fort Services ALT – Andrew Lees Trust ASOS – Action Sante Organisation Secours CARE - International Development and Humanitarian NGO CEL – Centre Ecologique de Libanona CSA – Centre de Service Agricole CTT – Chabani Travel Tours DRDR – Direction Régionale pour le Développement Rurale DREFT – Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, des Forest et du Tourisme DREN – Direction Régionale pour l’Education Nationale DREM – Direction Regionale de l’Energie et Mines DRCJS – Direction Régionale pour la Culture, de la Jeunesse et des Sports EU – European Union FAFAFI – Malagasy Rural Development and Agricultural NGO FEP – Flora Ecopower FIDA – Fonds Internationale pour le Developpement Agricole GCF – Gestion Contractualisee des Forets GRET – Groupe de Recherche ???? ???? IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature JARIALA – USAID Forest Governance and Management Reform Program (Implemented by IRG) MAB – Man and Biosphere (programme of UNESCO) MAP – Madagascar Action Plan MBG – Missouri Botanical Gardens MCC – Madagascar Classic Camping MELCAM – Association of Lutheran Missionaries in Madagascar MMF – Madagascar Mineral Fields MNP – Madagascar National Parks (PREVIOUSLY ANGAP) NAP – Nouvelle Aire Protegee NGO – Non Governmental Organisation ORTFD – Office Regionale du Tourisme de Fort Dauphin PACT – International Development NGO PAM ATOMIQUE – Pan African Mining PCD – Plan Communale de Developpement PHBM – Projet de la mise en valeur du Haut Bassin du Mandrare PNF – Programme Nationale Fonciere PRD – Plan Regionale de Developpement SAP – Systeme d’Alerte Precose SAPM – Systeme des Aires Protegee a Madagascar SEAR – Societe de l’Expolitation Agricole de Ranopiso SHTM – Societe de Hotelierie et Tourisme de Madagascar SIAM – Precious Stones Mining Company (Andranondambo) SIT – School for International Training SOMEMA – Tourmaline Mining Company SOMIDA – Mica Mining Company SPSM – Sisal Company UEA – University of East Anglia UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation USAID – United States Agency for International Development WFP – World Food Program WWF – World Wildlife Fund ZICOMA – Zones d’Importance pour la Conservation des Oiseaux a Madagascar

5

A: Context Definition of area under consideration by this project

The map below illustrates the area considered by this project. At the outset the project team considered the whole drainage basin of the Mandrare Valley. During the consultations and study several additional proposals emerged for the extension of the proposed area to include the full extent of the new Angavo Protected Area (Antanimora/Ambohimalaza) and as two satellites the proposed protected areas of Vohimena (Jafaro) and Vohipary (Andalatanosy).

What is a Biosphere Reserve? Biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems promoting solutions to reconcile the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use. They are internationally recognized by UNESCO, nominated by national governments and remain under sovereign jurisdiction of the states where they are located. UNESCO established the "Man and the Biosphere" (MAB) Programme in 1970. UNESCO is the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, based in Paris, France. Madagascar has a permanent representative to UNESCO, and a national UNECSO Committee in Antananarivo. There are currently 531 Biosphere Reserves in 105 Countries. In Madagascar there are currently three Biosphere Reserves : Mananara-Nord; Sahamalaza; Littoral de Toliara. Further information on Biosphere Reserves can be found on : www.unesco.org/mab This project produced an information brochure in English, French and Malagasy to provide the public and key stakeholders with more details on Biosphere Reserves and the Consultation/Feasibility study project. Electronic copies are available on the project CDRom #1, Example is enclosed as Annexe 1.

Project Outputs The Mandrare Valley Biosphere Reserve Feasibility Study Project has undertaken five main activities, the following section the results achieved for each of these activities will be presented, along with any emerging issues and /or recommendations resulting from the project.

6

B : Feasibility Study

A series of 14 criteria have been identified to judge the potential feasibility of proposing the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in the Mandrare Valley. Criteria 1-11 have been evaluated by this study, and the summary results are presented below. Criteria 12, 13 &14 are to be evaluated following the presentation of the project final report to the appropriate authorities later in 2009. This final technical report has been written to provide comprehensive information to donors in line with contractual agreements for the project funding, it will be superseded by the final feasibility study report, which is expected to be published in July 2009. Clearly many of the ‘feasibility criteria’ are difficult to judge entirely objectively without extensive consideration to the indicators or standards by which they would be evaluated. They do however provide a structured format by which to consider the feasibility of proposing the Mandrare Valley as a candidate Biosphere Reserve. This report will provide a candid assessment of the main issues emerging under each criteria in order to inform the decisions of the appropriate authorities.

1. Are the natural resources of internationally recognised importance? (in terms of endemism, rarity and level of threat).

The spiny forest and spiny thicket habitats of the Mandrare Valley are considered to be a transitional zone between the humid forests of the Anoysenne mountain chain and the spiny thickets of the central and southern Androy region. These habitats have high levels of endemism, typical for many regions of Madagascar. Most remarkable is the levels of endemism among plants, which are thought to be over 90% endemic to Madagascar, with a large proportion of these species restricted to the southern region. The Mandrare Valley is recognised by diverse stakeholders as being of international importance for biodiversity conservation. Andohahela National Park, a significant proportion of which is found within

1. Are the natural resources of internationally recognised importance? (in terms of endemism, rarity and level of threat).

2. Are there adequate opportunities for development and sustainable use? 3. Are there opportunities to recognise and empower local traditions favourable to

Sustainability? 4. Is there support from NGOs/Civil Society? 5. Is there support from managers of existing protected areas? (MNPs; SHTM) 6. Do adequate proposals exist for site management (New Protected Areas (WWF, MBG) ? 7. Is there support from Communities? 8. Is there support from the private sector (tourism, agriculture, mining)? 9. Is the proposal compatible with current policies at national, regional and commune

levels? 10. Is there adequate research activity and opportunity for study and research to

reasonably call the area a ‘living laboratory’? 11. Is there a firm proposal for overall Biosphere Reserve ‘Management’? 12. Is there support from political leaders? 13. Is there support for the concept from donors? 14. Is there support from the relevant Malagasy authorities? (MEFT, MAB Committee,

UNESCO Commission)

7

the Mandrare Valley, is part of the ‘Madagascar Eastern Rainforests UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site’. The Malagasy Commission for the Protected Areas System (SAPM) identified numerous sites within the Mandrare Valley as potential new protected areas under the Durban Vision (and now related to MAP Commitment 7). The IUCN Red List includes several globally threatened species which are known to be found within the Mandrare Valley. Several of these species are either entirely restricted to the valley (Aloe helenii, Aloe suzanaee, Dypsis decaryi) or the vast majority of their wild population is found within the valley (Ravenea xerophila). Missouri Botanical Gardens identified three area within the Mandrare Valley as priority plant conservation sites (Ampamalora/Angavo, Behara-Tranomaro, Anadabolava), and are currently establishing a new protected area in Anadabolava-Betsimalaho.

WWF recognises the Spiny Forest Ecoregion as one of the 200 most important ecosystems globally. In addition The WWF Ala Maiky Ecoregion Programme has identified 4 priority conservation landscapes within the Mandrare Valley (Ankodida; Behara-Tranomaro—Ifotaka-Imanombo; Anadabolava-Betsimalaho; Angavo-Ambohimalaza). They are currently putting in place, planning to establish or managing 14 new protected areas (Nord-Ifotaka; Ankodida; Ambatoabo Corridor; Behara-Tranomaro; Sud-Oeust Ifotaka; Angavo; Anarafito-Kintso-Vohitsiombe; Ambia; Tirimena; Voaymongatse; Vohitsandria; Vohimena; Vohipary; Beampingaratra). The brackish lake of ‘Lac Anony’ has been identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA) during the ZICOMA project, currently no conservation management activity is underway at this site.

2. Are there adequate opportunities for development and sustainable use?

The Mandrare Valley currently has a range of dominant economic activities. These include: Sisal Plantations; Irrigated Rice Farming; Extensive Livestock Husbandry; Dryland Crop Agriculture (Maize, Sweet potatoes, cassava, and various beans); Small Scale Mining of precious and semi precious stones.

8

Farming : For much of the Mandrare Valley the dry climate is a limiting factor for agricultural development, indeed the region is frequently in food deficit and receives food aid from the World Food Program. In terms of agricultural development the FIDA (PHBM 1998-2008) project completed many irrigation dams which has enhanced many of the available rice potential areas, and projects by NGOs GRET (objective sud) and ALT (Drought Mitigation) have reintroduced sorghum and micro-credit to parts of the valley. There are some additional areas in the valley which do have the potential to increase irrigated rice farming, but many of these will be at a smaller scale and relatively costlier than those installed by FIDA, but could still increase food production significantly if implemented. One issue worth consideration is the fact that over 20,000 hectares of land, much of it fertile and suitable for crop production, are held in sisal plantations by foreign owned companies which are a relic of the colonial past. While they provide employment for many local people, they also represent much food production potential which is blocked by the sisals continued existence. There also exists potential for the introduction (and reintroduction) of more drought resistant crops such as sorgum and millet. Cattle (Zebu), goats, sheep and fowl are the main livestock activities. Goats and fowl supply local needs for meat and provides some amounts for consumption outside the region .The Mandrare Valley has great problems with cattle rustling both from within the region and by Bara and Antaisaka groups who move stolen cattle to the North where they enter the markets for the southern and central highlands. The Zebu cattle also hold a central place in Antandroy tradition and are typically used for ceremonial purposes although and arguably less so as economic assets. Biofuels : At present there are no biofuel plantations in the Mandrare Valley, however considering the significant savanna lands in the upper parts of the valley, and the current trends of biofuel plantation expansion, this area remains a potential activity for the region in the future. In 2007-08 a German company, Flora Eco Power (FEP) established various pilot plantations (80ha) of castor in the valley with a view to massive expansion, and were also considering plantations of Jatropha. In late 2008 FEP pulled out of the region focusing their efforts in jatropha plantations in the Mahajunga region. A short independent report on the potential social and environmental impacts of the FEP project is available on the Biosphere Project CDRom #1. Biofuel production represents both a great potential for attracting external investment, and simultaneously a risk of losing land of food production potential. Wood production : The Mandrare Valley produces substantial amounts of fuel (split wood and charcoal) and construction wood (planks, bois carree) both for local use and to supply the urban centres outside the valley : Fort Dauphin, Bekily, Betroka and Ihosy. The main areas of production for export outside the region are Manave (Antanimora); Ankariera and Behara. Production levels from these current source areas are undisputedly unsustainable given that they represent intensive exploitation of areas of sensitive dry forests which are slow to regenerate. The conceptual design of the new protected areas of Nord-Ifotaka and Ankodida allows for sustainable levels of local use, which allow for local use, but is not for commercial production. In order to continue to provide adequate fuel and construction wood for both the regional urban centres and for use by the growing local population, while not compromising habitat viability, will require sizeable efforts to combine habitat restoration, reforestation (probably of native and exotic species) and promotion of alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. Mining: The Mandrare Valley has a great deal of mineral wealth, a small part of which is already being exploited. Numerous exploration permits exist which in some cases overlap with the boundaries of new protected areas and planned new protected areas. This project

9

has conducted GIS analysis to identify overlaps between mining and protected area interests. There are 50 companies and individuals mining 24 different resourcesThe main activities (in terms of size and significance of the areas concerned) are : Uranium – in 9 communes in the eastern-middle and upper parts of the Mandrare valley, with exploitation underway by Blue Sun Mining (Maromby & Tranomaro), and extensive exploration permits held by PAM Atomique and Madagascar Mineral Fields. Illmenite – in 8 communes in the sands in the lower reaches of the valley (Ifotaka-Sampona-Tanandava), Ambatovy Minerals. Precious and Semi-precious Stones – in the middle and upper parts of the valley (SIAM, Nan Tin Polychrome, SOMEMA, Adamco, Access Madagascar and numerous individuals).

Tourism : Considering the diverse assets of the Mandrare Valley the tourism sector remains relatively underdeveloped. The main sites frequented by international tourists are : Berenty Private Reserve, Andohahela National Park, Lac Anony, Belay Cave and Ifotaka Community Forest. The main actors in the tourism industry are SHTM, ANGAP, MCC, CTT, AFS and ORTFD. The main activities which tourists engage in are : Wildlife observation, natural site visits, and short treks. Much of the vast and magnificent landscapes, varied culture and possibilities for outdoor recreation are not yet used for tourism The project has reviewed the availability of accommodation and a selection of potential tourist sites, as well as carrying out a landscape character assessment for the Mandrare valley. The final feasibility study report will present the results of these studies in more detail. OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL : The various sectors reviewed above illustrate that the Mandrare valley does possess significant potential for development based on natural resources. The sectors which will require the most attention in terms of achieving sustainability are mining (particularly in terms of overlap with conservation interests), biofuels and wood supply.

10

3. Are there opportunities to recognise and empower local traditions favourable to sustainability?

The Mandrare Valley has two main types of cultural traditions which are favourable to the sustainable management and conservation of biodiversity: Species taboos & Sacred Forests. SPECIES TABOOS: The dominant ethnic group, the Antandroy, hold strict taboos against the consumption of various endemic and threatened species. For example the Radiated Tortoise (Astrochelys radiata CR), Verreaux’s Sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi VU) and Ringtailed Lemur (Lemur catta (VU) are all ‘fady’. These taboos are however not transferable across ethnic groups, so for example, Antanosy and Antisaika (among others) workers on the sisal plantations of the lower Mandrare valley are known to consider both lemurs and tortoises as a delicacy. Similarly, groups of Antanosy residents of the unforested eastern part of the valley (for example Esira) are reported to frequently travel 50km+ to the west to collect tortoises for consumption in their own villages. The local customary landowners ‘tompotany’, while they may not approve of these practices, are not inclined to stop them, as they are rarely empowered to do so by law (except perhaps under the handful of GCF contracts which exist), nor is it their custom to impose their own taboos upon other ethnic groups for whom hunting and consumption is not restricted. Furthermore the reasons for the taboos are not concerned with the inherent importance of the species, more through fear, for the animals being perceived as dangerous or dirty, or respect for the ancestors. It could be argued that these taboos could be reinforced by innovative schemes to encourage (even perhaps reward?) the ‘tompotany’ to protect their natural and cultural heritage. SACRED FORESTS: Across the Mandrare Valley there are hundreds of sacred forests, which are protected to varying degrees the he Antandroy people. They range in size from small sacred groves of c0.1ha through to large sacred forests of several thousand hectares. These range from burial forests where entry is prohibited except for funeral ceremonies, through forests decreed by noble ancesters as grazing reserves, through to areas inhabited by ‘coquolamps’ which are feared genies/spirits associated with the traditional healers ‘Ombiasy’ and cultural healing ceremonies. Unlike the species based taboos, sacred forests are often well protected by local people and outsiders, and as a result they already form part of the strategies of conservation organisations. For example the Ambolihena sacred forest in Ifotaka, Angavo sacred mountain and forest in Antanimora, and Itakefa Mountain at Ankodida already form core conservation zones for established and developing new protected areas. Furthermore the traditional leaders for these areas are often instrumental in the community management structures for the protected areas, and in securing support of the broader population. Two pertinent examples are : the Mpisoro and Mpitokohazomanga of the Antefotaka clan being president of the COGE in Ifotaka, and a confederation of Andriamanare elders being key in the establishment of the new protected area at Angavo. Sacred forests do make a significant contribution to biodiversity conservation in the region, and a recent survey of expert on sacred forests indicated that they should be formally recognised, reinforced and rewarded appropriately. There is a great opportunity to develop a culturally oriented environmental education programme to recognise the important contribution that Antandroy culture makes to biodiversity conservation. In a similar way to species taboos, the raison d’etre for sacred forests does not necessarily originate on an environmental ethic, and they are not transferable outside the traditional limits. The use of the traditional term ‘Ala faly’ (Taboo Forest) by conservation organisations for the negotiated conservation zones (ie non sacred areas) in

11

new protected areas it could be argued poses a risk of confusing the distinction between traditional sacredness and externally introduced prohibitions. To date two initiatives to promote sacred forests concern the Mandrare Valley. In 2003 WWF recognised the Vohimasio forest in Ifotaka with a Gift to the Earth Award, this wa awarded to the traditional leader and the Mayor of the commune at the signing of the first GCF contract in the region. More recently the Global Environment Facility -Small Grants Programme in Madagascar has stated its intent to propose the Community Conserved Areas (CCA’s) of the south of Madagascar as a UNESCO Cultural World Heritage Site.

4. Is there support from NGOs/Civil Society? The section of the report dealing with the ‘sector specific consultations’ will enter into more detail on the manner in which the opinions of the NGO/Civil Society Sector were solicited. The final feasibility study report will provide more detailed analysis of the input received, through formal consultation meetings and forms by Barry Ferguson and Robson Fabriano. At the time of writing of this report a number of responses had not been recieved. Of the responses received the majority were in favour of the proposal to propose a Mandrare Valley Biosphere Reserve. Two organisations wished to remain neutral (AZAFADY, GRET) but at the same time did provide useful advice and opinion on the consultation. Only one organisation stated that it was not in favour of the proposal (PACT), apparently for the reason that they currently have no funding forthcoming for work in the area. One organisation (SPSM – a sisal company) refused to receive information about the project.

5. Is there support from managers of existing protected areas? (MNPs; SHTM)

ANDOHAHELA NATIONAL PARK: The Director of Andohahela National Park (managed by Madagascar National Parks) stated that they are in favour of the proposal to propose the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve for the Mandrare Valley. BERENTY AND BEALOKA PRIVATE RESERVE :The owners and manager of Berenty and Bealoka Private Reserves (the de Heaulme family (SHTM)) have been informed of the feasibility study and provided comprehensive information, at the time of writing of the report a definitive response to the consultation has not been received. In October 2008 Mr Jean de Heaulme commented informally that the Biosphere Reserve concept sounded interesting, he went on to clarify that conservation interventions (WWF; Regional Forest Zoning; Mining-Forest Conflict resolution) in the region were still in their infancy and were experiencing numerous challenges. He also stated his reluctance to have Berenty included as part of Madagascar’s Protected Areas System (SAPM), as there were no clear advantages up to present, and their private management regime had to date proved successful. A formal consultation meeting with a company/family representative is to be arranged for April/May 2009.

12

6. Do adequate proposals exist for site management of the New Protected Areas which make up the area being considered for proposal as a Biosphere Reserve?

This is most challenging criteria to satisfy at the time of writing, as new protected areas have only started to be established since the Durban Vision in 2003 (although a small number of community forestry initiatives do precede this). A detailed fact file has been compiled for each of the 14 proposed new protected areas (form enclosed as annexe 4 of this report), detailing their areas, habitats, governance and management types and the progress made to date towards their establishment. This will be presented in the final feasibility study report.

The majority of the terrestrial habitats of the Mandrare valley are at present proposed to be established as new protected areas, each with their own management arrangements. In addition areas for sustainable production of wood fuel and construction are under development. This means that were a Biosphere Reserve to be established in the Mandrare Valley, those actual ‘management’ activities would be undertaken by the managers of the component protected areas and the competent Malagasy authorities. (in other words any Biosphere Organisation established for the Mandrare Valley would likely be to provide Management Support rather than actual management interventions).

The table presented below presents a summary of the current status of the protected areas. This feasibility study appears to present two choices in terms of considering this criteria:

1. The intention to establish comprehensive management arrangements for all of the protected areas is sufficient to satisfy the need for ‘adequate management proposals’.

2. Until such a time that all of the proposed protected areas within the Mandrare Valley have in place their own management arrangements, ‘adequate management proposals’ can not be considered to be in place.

TABLE 1 : Overview of the proposed New Protected Areas within the Greater Mandrare Valley Area

Name Promoter Progress made to date (subject to amendment before final report)

1 Ambatoabo-Corridor (Andohahela PI-PII)

WWF, MNP

Preliminary proposals exist for delimitation, WWF agents being put in place.

2 Ambia WWF No progress, anticipated that fieldwork will start in 2010.

3 Anadabolava-Betsimalaho

MBG Dossier completed requesting temporary protection status. Delimitation and zoning completed, Community Structures being established.

4 Anarafito-Kintso-Vohitsiombe

WWF Preliminary proposals exist for delimitation, WWF agents being put in place.

5 Angavo WWF Detailed proposals for delimitation, community management structures established, Manave GCF contract signed. WWF agents currently working to advance the project.

6 Ankodida WWF Temporary protection status achieved (Jan 06), management plan, ESIA, Safeguard Plans Completed.

7 Beampingaritse WWF WWF agent recently put in place, (management transfer not PA).

8 Behara-Tranomaro WWF Detailed proposals for delimitation, community management structures established, Tsilamaha & Betenina GCF contracts drafted. WWF agents currently working to advance the project.

9 Nord-Ifotaka WWF Temporary protection status achieved (Jan 06), management plan, ESIA, Safeguard Plans Completed.

10 Sud-Oeust Ifotaka WWF Detailed proposals for delimitation, WWF agents currently in place to finalise this and establish community structures.

13

11 Tirimena-Voaymongatse

WWF No on the ground work to date, anticipated that fieldwork will start in 2010.

12 Vohimena WWF No on the ground work to date, anticipated that fieldwork will start in 2010.

13 Vohipary WWF No on the ground work to date, anticipated that fieldwork will start in 2010.

14 Vohitsandria WWF Preliminary proposals exist for delimitation, WWF agents already in place in Andranobory and Analapatsy.

Remaining areas - Of the remaining natural habitats of the valley there are two areas where sustainable exploitation of forest resources is being (and planned to be) introduced (JARIALA, USAID) : North of Ambovombe and East/North of Amboasary. Of the known biodiversity priority areas in the valley only the Lac Anony IBA does not currently have a promoter planning to establish a protected area. GIS analysis carried out by this project it has been identified that there are two areas of major concern in terms of the landscape connectivity for the forests of the Mandrare Valley. Ambalatany-Bemananteza (between Anadabolava NAP; Anarafito-Vohitsiombe NAP & Behara-Tranomaro NAP) and Bebarimo-Andohavositse (between Nord-Ifotaka NAP and Behara-Tranomaro NAP) – (See Map below).

14

7. Is there support from Communities? The section of this report dealing with ‘Public Consultations’ will discuss the procedures followed by the project team in consulting with the communities in more detail. During the course of the project very little opposition to the proposal was received. The main concerns anticipated by the project team were all vocalised by community members (and frequently so) :

fears over land tenure change.

that communities had a desire to conserve the forest but need for adequate livelihood alternatives to be provided was a prerequisite.

was the biosphere reserve concept really going to succeed over such a large scale. The lack of opposition was most likely due to two main factors:

a. The consultations were combined with public information sessions where it was made clear that given the context of the Mandrare Valley (the regional forest zoning, mining permissions and new protected areas) no additional land use zoning would be required.

b. The facilitators presented that as a Biosphere Reserve would be neither an enforcement authority nor a direct promoter of new protected areas, that its establishment would likely only bring a net gain of support to protected areas and development projects.

Several key issues around community support and engagement will require significant further consideration in the final feasibility study report:

What impact would the designation of a Biosphere Reserve have on the local communities? Would it simply be a regrouping and branding of existing protected areas and rural development interventions, or would it add extra weight to the enforcement activities which could have a negative impact on local livelihoods?

How likely are local communities to be able to differentiate between the different actors who would have roles in environmental management, enforcement, rural development and research?

How fair is it to call the process a consultation rather than simply a public engagement process ? (considering the previous experiences of local people with the ‘outside world’, the way in which the project was presented in a positive light, the positions of the facilitators (Forest Service, CEL, WWF, DRDR employees), is it possible to have a public consultation as it may be understood in the developed world in rural southern Madagascar).

How to include the information on local institutions and perceptions of external actors from previous studies by the Rabakonandrianina/Radimilahy/Elmqvist Research Team (especially Florien, 2008).

How to include proper community representation and facilitate communication within any Biosphere Organisation.

During the project the proposed area under consideration was enlarged – for this reason several communes concerned by the proposal did not have full consultation meetings held in them: Analamary, Sihanomaro, Ambanisariky, Ampamata, Andalatanosy, Maroalopoty, Maroalomainty, Sampona, Esira, Manevy, Jafaro. For the purpose of this report, based on the fact that no formal opposition to the project has been received and that the project was broadly welcomed by communities and community leaders, it is considered that without a doubt there is adequate community support to proceed with the process, and take the results of the technical study to decision makers.

15

8. Is there support from the private sector (tourism, agriculture, mining)?

The tourism sector responded entirely positively to the proposal, as the . Responses have so far been received by two sisal companies (both in favour of the proposal), one sisal company declined to receive any information about the proposal, responses from the remaining two sisal companies will be sought in the coming weeks. Sadly the CEL administration did not send information about the Biosphere project and invitations to the final workshop to the mining companies and individuals who hold mining exploration permits. This is a priority action to remedy in the near future. The author delivered in person information about the project to three of the five companies with field operations (Blue Sun Mining, SIAM, PAM-Atomique).

9. Is the proposal compatible with current policies at national, regional and commune levels?

The following Government departments were consulted regarding the proposal:

Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries: DRDR Anosy, DRDR Androy

Environment, Forests & Tourism: DREFT Anosy, DREFT Androy

National Education: DREN Anosy, DREN Androy

Culture, Youth and Sport: DRCJS Anosy, DRCJS Androy

Energy & Mines: DREM Anosy (no equivalent exists in Androy yet) All of the above responded favourably to the proposal, and provided information on their policies and strategic planning. In addition the Regions of Anosy and Androy were kept informed about the project throughout its course. Biosphere Reserves are an international designation, and do not interfere with any national policies or laws, therefore any eventual Biosphere Reserve that may be designated for the Mandrare Valley, would be required to be in coherence with Malagasy policies at local, regional and national levels. As part of the commune level consultations copies of the commune development plans were collected (scanned or electronic copies), a number of communes did not have a copy available for consultation, which will necessitate a return visit in the near future.

10. Is there adequate research activity and opportunity for study and research to reasonable call the area a ‘living laboratory’?

There has been an extensive history of research and study activity in the Mandrare Valley, since colonial times when colonial botanists (Humbert, de la Bathie, Decary) explored the region. In recent times a broad range of research work has been carried out in the Natural and Social Sciences by students and researchers from Malagasy and International Academic Institutions and NGO’s (see table below for overview of institutions). A more comprehensive review of research activities and future needs/opportunities will be presented in the final feasibility sudy report. There are several issues emerging from the feasibility study:

16

i. It is imperative to ensure that activities by Malagasy researchers from state institutions are to be anticipated in any eventual Biosphere Reserve.

ii. Is an adequate amount of doctoral and post-doctoral work anticipated to meet the expectations of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Committee?

iii. What are the views of Malagasy and International researchers on the potential to propose a Biosphere Reserve for the Mandrare Valley? A consultation exercise with known researchers is proposed for later in 2009 to ascertain this.

iv. The Libanona Ecology Centre (CEL) is the only third level education institution operating the the Anosy or Androy region. They have recently established a programme for two field laboratories within the Mandrare Valley, to provide practical opportunities for their students to engage in research and practical projects – it will be important to ensure these laboratories are engaged within National and International networks.

v. The new International Research Centre for Biosphere Reserve Advancement, at the Ernts Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Germany, has stated an interest in sending students to carry out research projects in the Mandrare Valley

Organisations known to have engaged in research in the Mandrare Valley since 1990 Birdlife International, Madagascar Centre Ecologique de Libanona, Madagascar Centre Nationale pour la Recherche sur l’Environnement Ecole Normale Supérieure, Antananarivo Hamburg University, Germany Madagasikara Voakajy, Madagascar Mainz University, Germany Missouri Botanical Gardens, USA Musée Nationale de le Histoire Naturelle (MNHN, Paris), France Université de Montreal, Canada Oxford Brookes University, UK Parc Botanique et Zoologique de Tsimbazaza (PBZT), Madagascar Princeton University, USA Royal Botanical Gardens KEW, UK School for International Training, USA Sheffield University, UK Stockholm University, Sweden Université d’Antananarivo (ESSA Forets & Département de Biologie et Ecologie Végétale) University of Bath, UK University of Durham, UK University of East Anglia, UK University of Oxford, UK University of Sussex, UK Université de Toliara, Madagascar Vahatra, Madagascar WWF-Ecological Training Programme, Madagascar

17

11. Is there a firm proposal for Biosphere Reserve ‘Management’?

As discussed earlier in the report the vast majority of the priority conservation sites within the Mandrare Valley are already planned to become (or are already) new protected areas (see discussion in section A6:pages 12-13 of this report). This would mean that were a Biosphere Reserve to be designated that any new organisation established would largely be restricted to providing support for its management.

Annexe 3 of this report shows the form used to solicit the opinions of the 50 main stakeholder institutions consulted about the proposal. Within this form, these organisations were asked to state opinions on the type of new organisation that would be required to support Biosphere reserve management and what activities it should prioritise.

The final feasibility study report will present in detail the input received during this consultation. In addition lessons learnt from Madagascar’s three Biosphere Reserves and the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala (and PROPETEN) will be drawn upon to inform the recommendations that will emerge from this report.

To summarise for the purpose of this report, the following 6 main recommendations emerged from the study and consultation:

1. There was an overwhelming feeling that some form of new organisation would be required to make the most of an eventual Biosphere Reserve designation, as no organisation existed to specifically lobby and work for the needs of the Mandrare Valley.

2. The new organisation should have a governing body with representation from the diverse sectors existent in the region, and undertake activities in line with the three stated purposes of Biosphere Reserves (1. Conservation, 2. Development, 3. Monitoring/Research/Education).

3. The new organisation should be undertaking activities not already the responsibility/specialisation of another body (i.e. not competing or overlapping with existing organisations).

4. The new organisation should be eligible to seek independent foundation funding from within Madagascar and Internationally.

5. The new organisation would be a ‘management support body’, rather than a management body, as all areas within the Mandrare valley already fall into the jurisdiction of other managers. However where appropriate (for example where no active organisations existed in a particular area), the new organisation could lead in supporting the search for management solutions and activities.

6. The new organisation should have a solid means of engaging with the community, and ensure that it is not perceived either as an additional arm of the state nor as an international organisation thought to be involved in ‘land capture’ (see Florien,M, University of Stockholm, 2008)

Bearing these recommendations in mind the following proposal was made at the final project workshop in Ambovombe (11th March) in order to stimulate discussion among the participants: ‘’If the Mandrare Valley were to receive UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status, that a new organisation should be established to provide support for its management, and to represent the interests of the Mandrare locally, nationally and internationally. The organisation could be called ODEM (Organisation pour le Développement et l’Environnement du Mandrare), would have a board of directors representative of the diverse sectors of the region, and staff organised in 4 main units : Coordination (Directorate), Conservation, Development, Research.’’

The input received during the final workshop discussion provided some useful orientation for any eventual new organisation, and the details will be included in the final feasibility study report.

18

ODEM : Organisation pour le Développement et l’Environnement du Mandrare

Miambeñe soa i Mandrare : Mipay Fampandrosoañe Maharetse ho a ty Vahòake

Board of Directors

Voluntary Board Members to make major strategic decisions, and monitor progress.

Governmental Agencies (4), NGOs(4), Mayors (4), Malagasy Researcher (1), Private Sector (3), Community Organisations (Farmers/Foresters) (2)

Executive Officers/Directorate

Director employed to coordinate day to day running of ODEM, supported by an administration and finance department.

Urgent Strategic Decisions supported by Chairman and Vice Chairman of Board.

Conservation Department

Staff employed by ODEM to undertake:

Ecological Monitoring.

Support Activities for individual PA’s.

Habitat Restoration.

Development Department

Staff employed by ODEM to undertake:

Tourism Product Development and Promotion.

Community Development Projects.

Socio-economic monitoring.

Research Department

Staff employed by ODEM to undertake:

Facilitation of Research and Education Activities (external relations).

Conduct and Commission internal research and education activities.

Environmental Education.

Cultural Education.

19

C: Public Consultations and Public Information Campaign Parts 2 and 4 of this project are being jointly reported, as a consequence of the way in which they were implemented on the ground. During December and January the project team and partners held a total of 17 public meetings across the Mandrare Valley. Two meetings were called off (Ankariera and Tanandava) due to commune personnel being unavailable (assisting court proceedings) and due to logistical difficulties (an Air Madagascar Flight delayed by 36hrs+ restricting field time available to project staff). The meetings were structured around the sections of the form established for recording the ‘minutes’ of each meeting, in order to provide the participants with basic information on Biosphere Reserves, and the project in particular. Subsequently information was collected and discussed about existing activities and development priorities in the commune. Finally a question and answer session was held to clarify the project to the participants. Each participant at a meeting was issued with a project brochure in Malagasy, and a random selection of participants won a project T-shirt (c 10 per commune) through a public draw at the end of the meeting. More than 1000 people participated in the meetings, representing more than 328 fokontanys from 24 communes. Table two below outlines the key information about the meetings.

20

Table 2 : Overview of Public Consultations and Information Sessions

Co

mm

un

e

Dat

e

Faci

litat

ors

1

Par

tici

pan

ts

Foko

nta

nys

Ad

jace

nt

Co

mm

un

es

Rep

rese

nte

d

Att

end

ance

List

(V

I)

Det

aile

d

Min

ute

s (I

h-l

; II

; III

; IV

; V)

PC

D R

ece

ived

(v

ersi

on

of

dat

e)

Ambatoabo 17/12/2008 SE, SR, M, BF ? 8 - AWAITED ? Not received

Amboasary ? SE, M, SR 68 22 - YES NO Not received

Ambohimalaza 23/01/2009 SE, M, Mc 81 23 Analamary, Sihanomaro

YES NO Not received

Ambovombe ? SE, M 150 65 - YES NO Not received

Analapatsy 19/12/2008 SE, SR, M, BF 42 ? - AWAITED ? Not received

Andalatanosy 22/01/2009 SE, JR, M, JJR, Mc 4 0 - YES NO Not received

Andranobory 18/12/2008 SE, SR, M, BF ? ? - AWAITED ? Received 2004/5

Ankariera cancelled cancelled cancelled cancelled cancelled To follow up

Antanimora 22/01/2009 SE, JR, M, JJR, Mc 60 17 - YES NO Not received

Behara 29/01/2009 SE, M, SR 64 20 - YES NO Not received

Ebelo 12/01/2009 M, SE,BR,SR,FA 52 10 - YES NO Not received

Ifotaka 16/12/2008 SE, SR, M, BF ? 12 - AWAITED ? Received 2008

Imanombo 13/01/2009 M, FA, BR, SR, SE 84 26 - YES NO Not received

Jafaro 22/01/2009 SE, JR, M, JJR, Mc 69 36 - YES NO Not received

Mahaly 9/01/2009 M, SR,SE,FA, RF, Mp, GR

26 9 - YES NO Not received

Maromby 8/01/2009 M, SR,SE,FA, RF, Mp, GR

38 10 Esira, Manevy

YES NO Not received

Marotsiraka 10/01/2009 M, SE, SR, FA, BR 49 18 - YES NO Received Jan 2009

Ranobe 7/01/2009 M, SR,SE,FA, RF, Mp, GR

35 7 - YES NO Received Jan 2005

Tanandava cancelled cancelled cancelled cancelled cancelled To follow up

Tomboarivo 10/01/2009 M, SE, SR, FA, BR 13 6 - YES NO Not received

Tranomaro 6/01/2009 GR, SR, SE, M, RF 51 25 - YES NO Not received

Tsivory 14/01/2009 M, SE, SR, BF 37 14 - YES NO Not received

TOTALS - - 923 (+)

328 (+)

- - - -

1 SE= Sylvain EBOROKE (CEL); M=Mihavatsara (Consultant Facilitateur/DREFT Androy); RF=Rebara

Flavien (WWF); SR=Sylvestre Rasolonjatovo (Chef Cantonnement Amobasary); FA=Fidy Albert (DRDR Androy); BR= Bien Aime RAKOTOVOLOLONA (Chef Triage, Tsivory); JJR=Joseph Jonah RAKOTOMIRANA (DREFT Androy); JR= Jules RAMANGALAHY (Chef Cantonnement Antanimora); Mc=Mark (DREFT Androy) ; BF=Barry FERGUSON (Consultant) ; Mp=Mpandova (MNP) ; GR=Gerard Ratolojanahary (DRDR Anosy)

21

D: Sector Specific Consultations

This part of the project was coordinated by Barry Ferguson during January and February 2009. Visits in person were made to 50 organisations deemed to have an interest in the Mandrare Valley. At each initial meeting the project CDRom and brochure containing comprehensive details about Biosphere Reserves and the project were deposited and an appointment for a follow up meeting requested. At the follow-up meeting a detailed presentation was made and the questions on the consultation form explained (form enclosed as annexe 3). It is recognised that this list of organisations may not be exhaustive (refer in particular to information on Mining Companies) but it is considered to be the best effort considering the available resources and time for the project. Table 3 : Overview of Sector Specific Consultations Organisation/Institution Information Brochure and

CDRom Delivered? In Person Presentation Completed

(person; date) 2

Completed Consultation Form Received ?

Aide & Action Ambovombe YES RF; 06/02/09 YES

Aide & Action Fort Dauphin YES RF; 17/02/09 YES

Air Fort Services YES FOR MAY 09 ** FOR MAY 09 **

Andrew Lees Trust YES BF; 29/01/09 To follow up

ASITY YES BF; 28/01/09 YES

ASOS YES RF; 17/02/09 To follow up

CARE International YES BF; 29/01/09 To follow up

CEL (Academic Programme) YES BF; 30/01/09 YES

Chabani Travel Tours YES FOR MAY 09 ** FOR MAY 09 **

Chambre de Commerce, Fort Dauphin YES RF ; 17/02/09 YES

CITEA Ambovombe YES RF ; UNRECORDED YES

Conservation International YES BF; 02/02/09 To follow up

CRS Ambovombe YES RF ; 09/02/09 YES

CSA Tsivory YES BF ; 15/01/09 PRIOR TO FORM.3

DRCJS Androy YES BF ; 20/02/09 To follow up

DRCJS Anosy YES BF ;20/02/09 To follow up

DRDR Androy YES BF ;19/01/09 PRIOR TO FORM.

DRDR Anosy YES BF ; 28/01/09 To follow up

DREFT Androy YES BF ; 11/03/09 YES

DREFT Anosy YES BF ; 27/01/09 YES

DREM Anosy YES BF ; 30/01/09 YES

DREN Androy YES RF ; 06/02/09 YES

DREN Anosy YES RF ; 17/02/09 YES

Etablissement Gallois FOR MAY 09 FOR MAY 09 ** FOR MAY 09 **

FAFAFI Manantantely YES BF; 27/01/09 YES

FIVOY YES BF ; 15/01/09 PRIOR TO FORM.

GRET-Objectif Sud YES RF ; 05/02/09 YES

GTZ Ambovombe YES RF ; 05/02/09 Project terminates 04/09

Guichet Foncière, Tsivory YES BF ; 15/01/09 PRIOR TO FORM.

HAH (de Heaulme Sisal Company) FOR MAY 09 FOR MAY 09 ** FOR MAY 09 **

Jariala Anosy YES BF ; 27/01/09 YES

Kaleta Hotel YES For May 09 For May 09

KIOMBA YES RF ; 07/02/09 YES

Madagascar Classic Camping YES For May 09 For May 09

Madagascar National Parks (Andohahela) YES BF; 29/01/09 YES

Office Régionale du Tourisme FD YES BF ; 28/01/09 YES

ONG Azafady YES BF; 23/01/09 YES

ONG Croix du Sud YES BF; 26/01/09 YES

PACT Madagascar YES RF ; 17/02/09 YES

Programme Alimentaire Mondiale YES RF ; 12/02/09 To follow up

SADP Bevala/SSM YES RF ; 13/02/09 YES

School for International Training YES BF 20/02/2009 To follow up

SEAR YES FOR MAY 09 ** FOR MAY 09 **

SHTM (Berenty Reserve/Le Dauphin/Croix du Sud)

YES FOR MAY 09 ** FOR MAY 09 **

Somontsoy YES RF ; 05/02/09 YES

SPSM Declined. Declined ** Declined **

Sunny Hotel Travel Tours YES FOR MAY 09 ** FOR MAY 09 **

Tranoben’ny Tantsaha Ambovombe YES RF 05/02/09 YES

WCS (Madame Chloe) YES BF 30/01/09 YES

WWF ( Madame Valencia) YES BF 27/01/09 YES

2 BF – Barry FERGUSON; RF - ROBSON Fabriano. 3 A number of organisations were consulted prior to the development of the consultation form. The notes from these meetings have been archived with the rest of the project documents, in order to incorporate their views.

22

Final Workshop in Ambovombe, Wednesday 11th March 2009 To finalise the project and offer additional opportunities for stakeholder consultation a workshop was held in Ambovombe, attracting more than 60 participants. The workshop provided an update to Mayors, Regional Directors of governmental bodies, NGO representatives and community leaders as to the activities achieved during the project. Following the official opening, a detailed presentation (including preliminary recommendations) was made by Barry Ferguson (translated into Tandroy by Flavien REBARA). Followng this extensive discussions held with participants, through a question and answer session where responses were fielded from the project team (REBARA Flavien, EBOROKE Sylvain, MIHAVATSARA, Barry FERGUSON) and the Androy regional director for environment, forests and tourism. Many participants kindly completed forms to submit any remaining requests for information and clarification about the project activities, proposals and factual clarification. The details of these requests, and the questions fielded during the workshop itself will be included in the final feasibility study report.

‘Fomba officialy’ – The official opening of the restitution workshop Left-right: Eboroke Sylvain,

1ere Adjoint Maire Ambovombe, Madame Secretaire Generale Region de l’Androy, Victor Rasolonirina DREFT Androy, Daniel Rasivihari

Participants at the workshop on 11th March 2009, Ambovombe: Mayors, Regional Directors, NGO

and Community representatives.

23

E: Study Visit to Mananara-Nord, Andasibe & Antananarivo

A delegation (representing elected representatives, the regional representatives of the forest and rural development administrations, and the NGO sector) from the Mandrare Valley carried out a study visit to Mananara-Nord Biosphere Reserve, Andasibe and Antananarivo between the 10th and 19th November 2008.

The group met with representatives of the Biosphere Reserve Management Body (ANGAP), local community leaders (Mayors and Tangalamena), local forestry/fisheries/womens associations, and representatives of the association Mitsinjo. A series of meetings and site visits facilitated exchange between the group and local stakeholders, and allowed a deepening of the knowledge of the group of the characteristics of a Biosphere Reserve, protected area governance and management, carbon finance and delegated management arrangements.

The study visit concluded with a one day workshop in Antananarivo, to meet with strategic partners and allow an exchange of information on current and planned activities in the Mandrare Valley. The workshop also included preliminary discussions on research and training needs in the Mandrare Valley, and the identification of the essential characteristics of any eventual governance and management arrangement should the valley achieve Biosphere Reserve Designation.

A detailed 23 page report was prepared presenting the results of the study visit and was disseminated to project partners, further copies are available from the Libanona Ecology Centre Office. Report citation : Ferguson HB, 2008, Report on Study Visit to Mananara-Nord Biosphere Reserve and Workshop in Antananarivo, Consultants Report to the Libanona Ecology Centre, December 27th. It is attached to this report at Annexe 5.

24

F: WHERE TO NOW? The process from here….

As indicated earlier in this report there are still several activities to be completed, prior to the drafting of the full feasibility study report. Once the full feasibility study report has been completed it will be submitted to donors, and other decision makers to consider if the proposal should be taken forward and the Mandrare Valley formally proposed for UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Status. The specific tasks which require completion are the following:

1. Complete the Minutes from Commune Consultations – EBOROKE Sylvain, by end April 2009.

2. Collate Commune Development Plans (PCDs) – EBOROKE Sylvain by end April 2009. 3. Distribute Mandrare Biosphere Brochure and CDRom to Mining Companies –

EBOROKE Sylvain, by end April 2009. 4. Complete GIS Analysis and Map Preparation – Madame OLGA , overseen by

EBOROKE Sylvain, by end April 2009. 5. Consult the National and International Research Community who have and wish to

carry out work in the Mandrare Valley – Barry FERGUSON, during July 2009. 6. Consult remaining institutions as outlined in Table 3 (page 21) – Barry FERGUSON

during April and May 2009. 7. Write the Final Feasibility Study Report, and Prepare Project CDRom#2 – Barry

FERGUSON, to be completed by July 2009. 8. Seek funding to translate, print and disseminate the final report and CDRom – whole

project team – ASAP.

The study and consultation activities completed during this project indicate very strongly that the Mandrare Valley has a great diversity of internationally recognised biodiversity, great development potential based on the natural resources and cultural traditions. As such it is clear that the Mandrare Valley merits consideration for proposal to UNESCO as a Biosphere Reserve. Furthermore it has become evident through consultation that there is great will among diverse stakeholders of the region to move this process forward, gain recognition for the area and strive to seek sustainable solutions to the conservation and development challenges extant in the Mandrare Valley.

25

This project is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Libanona Ecology Centre, USAID or the United States Government.

G: Profile of the Libanona Ecology Centre

The Libanona Ecology Centre (CEL) is a Malagasy National NGO established in 1995 (under law 96-030 of 14 August 1997 and decree 98-711 of 2 September 1998).

The centre is based on the Libanona peninsula, Fort Dauphin, on the site of the former MELCAM Lutheran Missionary retreat. The centre has offices for CEL staff as well as classrooms, computer labs and a library. Two partner organisations are also based in Libanona: The School for International Training (Madagascar Ecology and Conservation Program) and the Andrew Lees Trust. In addition the centre provides housing for professionals from a range of conservation and development organisations operating in the region (including CARE, ALT, SIT, WWF).

Since its establishment CEL has been delivering a range of practical and academic training courses for students and professionals in the south of Madagascar. In 2004, with financial support from the MacArthur Foundation the centre formally opened as a full time technical training college, which now delivers three year degrees in ‘Environmental Management for Development’.

In addition to the training programs CEL and its staff have implemented and assisted on a range of projects in support of broader conservation efforts in the south of Madagascar, these projects include:

Promotion of Community Forestry in Ifotaka/Tranomaro/Ankodida/Behara (CEPF:2003-2004).

Study of Heterogeneity of Habitats across the Androy Region (with WWF, CI-CBC :2004-2006).

Promotion of Community Ecotourism in Ifotaka (BP/FFI/WCS/CI/Birdlife: 2003-04).

Regional Forest Zoning for Anosy (support role to WWF & JARIALA2006-07).

Biodiversity Reconnaissance for the WWF Spiny Forest Ecoregion Programme (1997-1999).

Feasibility study and consultations for the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in the Mandrare Valley (CI-CAG, USAID 2008-09).

The Centre can be contacted by Telephone: 00261 20 92 90 290; Email : libanonaecology@hotmail.com Postal Address : BP42, Libanona, Fort Dauphin-614, Madagascar. WEB: www.libanonaecology.com