Madagascar's biodiversity conservation challenge: from local- to national-level dynamics

Figures & data

Table I. Number of household surveys conducted per site.

Community	Andranoheza	Fanjakana	Andranomaitso	Mitia	Iarindrano	Total
Forest	Analavelona		Zombitse	Ihera	Iarindrano
Number of households	76	52	148	111	85	472
Women interviewed	15	15	21	18	12	81
Men interviewed	15	15	23	18	18	89
Total interviewed	30	30	44	36	30	170
Number interviewed as percentage of all households	39	58	30	32	35	36

Figure 1. Map of study sites.

Table II. Characteristics of surveyed communities: demographics and isolation.

Community (population)	Forest	No. of HH∗	HH size∗	Time to market∗ (h)	Time to forest (walk)∗
Andranoheza (357)	Analavelona Sacred Forest	76	5.1	2.5	3.5 h
Fanjakana (249)		52	4.8	12.3	1 h
Andranomaitso (814)	Zombitse National Park	148	5.5	2	20 min
Mitia (422)	Ihera Classified Forest	111	4.7	3	<1 h
Iarindrano (298)	Iarindrano Classified Forest	85	3.5	3.5	<1 h
Source: Rabesahala Horning 2004: 110; Population figures are approximate for the year 1999; HH designates households; ∗Indicates average figures.

Figure 2. The first assumption of conservation models.

Table III. Extent of deforestation around southern forests.

Forest	Deforestation (forest to non-forest cover)
	1989 – 1994		1994 – 2000
	Percent	Hectares	Percent	Hectares
Analavelona sacred forest	ND	ND	ND	ND
Zombitse national park	24	1.646	9	489
Ihera classified forest	0.13	4	0.07	2
Iarindrano classified forest	ND	ND	ND	ND
Source: Rabesahala Horning 2004: 119; ND stands for none detectable.

Figure 3. Rules and conservation behaviour at the community level.

Figure 4. Actors, interests, rules, and conservation behaviour at the community level.

Figure 5. The second assumption of conservation models.

Figure 6. National-level dynamics.

Figure 7. Interests, institutions, and conservation policies at the national level.

Figure 8. NEAP funding.

Table IV. Financial contributions to EP1, EP2 and EP3.

Contributors	Contribution (US$ million)
	EP1	EP2	EP3
World Bank (IDA)	26	30	35
GEF	–	20.8	8
IFAD	–	8.1	–
UNDP	–	–	4
Government of Madagascar	17.1	31	10
USAID	–	–	35
Norway	3.8	–	–
German KFW	–	–	20
Other Donors	38.1	49.6	6.4
On-going donor-supported projects	–	15.5	–
Total cost	85	155	118.4
Actual financing	90 – 95	N/A	N/A
Sources: The World Bank (1996, 1998); UN 2002 cited in Lindemann (2004).

Figure 9. Evolution of financial contributions to the NEAP.

Figure 10. National and local conditions for resource conservation.

Figure 11. The national-local gap.

Horning , N R . 2004 . The limits of rules: when rules promote forest conservation and when they do no – insights from Bara country, Madagascar , Department of Government, Cornell University . Ph.D. Dissertation

 Google Scholar

World Bank. 1996. Madagascar: second environment program. Report No. 16133-MAG: 25, modified (November)

 Google Scholar

World Bank. 1998. Implementation completion report: Republic of Madagascar environment program. Report No. 17297 (January)

 Google Scholar

Lindemann . 2004 . Madagascar case study: analysis of national strategies for sustainable development, Unedited Working Paper

 Google Scholar