See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262934438

Chapter 14 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: Can We Learn from

Each Other to Conserve the Diversity of Malagasy Species and Culture?

Chapter · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

3 377

4 authors, including:

Jonah Henri Ratsimbazafy

University of Antananarivo
206 PUBLICATIONS 2,374 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ako Conservation Education Project View project

Extinction Dynamics and Environmental Change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonah Henri Ratsimbazafy on 09 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 14
Cultural Anthropologists and
Conservationists: Can We Learn from Each
Other to Conserve the Diversity of Malagasy
Species and Culture?

Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

E fforts to conserve endangered species have often neglected local cultures and the
interests of local people, who were often involved in conservation projects merely as
field assistants or guides. Resource management can also suffer from the divergent views
of different decision makers, each following his or her own interests without a venue for
the different stakeholders to sit around a table and work together on identifying problems
and their possible solutions. Our aim here is to focus on two groups of stakeholders in
Madagascar’s crisis of the environment. We highlight the fact that cultural anthropologists
and conservationists can learn from each other to conserve the diversity of both Malagasy
species and cultures, while also being sensitive to local, regional and national traditions
and interests.
The conservation of biodiversity would be better served if all conservation actors
agreed to listen to one another and to all those with an interest in the natural resources in
question. This involves an integration or bridging of social and scientific goals. Although
a scientist’s primary goal may be to enforce conservation ideals, it is important to realise
that human society has constructed many varied notions of the environment. Scientific
information about the environment is often seen by some conservationists as the only
worthwhile knowledge. However, this ignores the complexities created by people and the
environment. If people are part of the problem, they also must be part of the solution.1
Madagascar was part of the great southern continent of Gondwana, an enormous land
mass that about 180 million years ago began to break up into the continents and countries
we know today as Africa, South America, Antarctica, Australia and India. Within a few
tens of millions of years ago, the island had assumed its present position off the coast
of southern Africa.2 This meant that both the fauna and the flora of Madagascar evolved
separately from the rest of the world. Its island ecosystems flourished above the norm in
comparison to those of the rest of the planet, with a floristic assemblage, for example,
estimated at 10 000 to 12 000 vascular plant species, of which 85 per cent are endemic.3
302 Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

As reported in various chapters in this volume, this biological diversity, associated mainly
with forested areas, is under extreme threat, some of which is the result of human prac-
tices.4

Malagasy Culture and the Environment

Malagasy people have a rich cultural heritage from their Asian, Malayo-Polynesian,
African and even European origins.5 These various influences have blended in different
ways according to history and ecology to create regional cultural diversity with a strong,
federating ‘Malagasy’ theme. The Malagasy language belongs to the Austronesian family,
but has roots beyond Malay, with influences coming from Bantu, Arabic, Sanskrit and
European languages. The oral literature (i.e., speeches, proverbs, myths and stories, and
courtesy formulas) provides a common base for Malagasy traditions concerning the envi-
ronment. The linguistic unity and expressive behaviour assist in promoting biodiversity
conservation on the island.
While nature provides resources for the subsistence of local communities, Malagasy
culture humanises and socialises this nature. A belief in the vintana, ‘destiny’, of each
person predetermines the individual and his or her actions according to that individual’s
birthplace and time of birth, and the existing environmental realities. Malagasy express
this traditional logic with the value terms tsara, ‘sacred’, and ratsy, ‘profane’.6
Some wild animals have been adopted as Malagasy ancestors and are considered
‘taboo’ because they saved the lives of the founders of lineages. For example, the
Kajemby lineage in western Madagascar prohibits harming the trandraly or whale shark.
They believe that the spirits of their ancestors possess these animals. They humanise these
fish by considering them ancestors and they socialise them by making them taboo for all
generations of the lineage. Yet conservation biologists have not appreciated the implica-
tions that Malagasy beliefs about nature have for the conservation of biodiversity.7
The Malagasy practise the tsikafara, a ‘ prayer and wish’ to Ndranahary, ‘The Creator’,
and to zanahary, ‘ancestral spirits’, made at the foot of a tree. They wrap the tree’s trunk
with a white cloth, as they would during an exhumation of one of their human ancestors
(famadihana). Thereafter, they put a heap of stones (tatao) around the tree to mark it
as an altar to the ancestors and as a sacred tree. People passing by place more stones to
demonstrate their belief in the spiritual power of the ancestors upon current and future
generations. The tree, a natural element, is thereby humanised by being covered with a
white cloth like a person and also socialised by being made into an altar. The value and
the cultural importance of nature to Malagasy kinfolk can, once again, assist with the
conservation of biodiversity.
The essence of Malagasy culture might best be defined by respect for the human spirit:
ny fanahy no olona, ‘the spirit makes the person’. Malagasy believe that Ndranahary
conceived humans with a spirit (olombelona hary fanahy). When the body dies, the spirit
persists – only with great effort and expense of living kin – by becoming razana, ‘ances-
 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: 303

tor’, then zanahary, ‘ancestral spirit’, which is intermediate between living humans and
The Creator. The fear of tsiny, ‘fatality hitting the one that hurts a natural life’, a Malagasy
way of saying blame, censure or chastisement, and ny tody, ‘the retaliation to or requital
of a censured action’, maintains Malagasy morals towards nature. One can integrate this
Malagasy pantheism into strategies for conservation.

Changes in Malagasy Behaviour (Before and

After the Colonial Period)
French colonisation developed Madagascar’s links in the market economy, which changed
the island’s economic, social and cultural structures. Products from fishing, hunting,
gathering, agriculture, handicrafts and other services became commoditised. Looking for
resources to earn money, young people left the countryside to find jobs in order to assure
their personal survival in cities. The exodus of rural farming labour disrupted the cohesion
of traditional communities.8 One must take into account these changes when considering
the best ways to achieve conservation and development, while embracing the remaining
Malagasy culture, which is still vivacious.
Many children and young people must leave their villages and move to big cities for
a continuation of their schooling. Roads, transport and media outlets facilitate the diffu-
sion of new ideas and novelties that diverge from traditional culture. Some churches also
destroy ancestral values. All of these have changed Malagasy behaviour by marginalising
traditional cultures.
The market economy has also led to excessive exploitation of natural resources. Land
that was traditionally owned communally or belonged to large extended families is now
legally recognised as state property. Villagers must pay for permits before using what they
see as ‘their’ land or pay fines if they have not requested permission from local govern-
ment agents. Villagers consider the permits an ‘unfair’ imposition on them, which has
led to popular passive resistance, usually expressed by setting fires and burning the land.
Setting fire has become a common way of protesting.9 In recent decades, wild fires set by
‘unknown actors’ have destroyed millions of hectares of forests and damaged wetlands
(lakes, rivers, lagoons, flood plains) through increased siltation and erosion and more
impoverished, easily eroded, soils.
The negative impacts of these changes on the environment have helped to motivate
recent conservation efforts. Formal (school), casual (radio) and non-formal (religious)
education are all important for biodiversity conservation. Since Malagasy are often influ-
enced more by cultural than by material values, it helps to consider the traditional, social
and cultural values of nature, rather than only the economic costs and benefits. Thus, as
we describe below, our practice of environmental competitions – within and between
members of a community or between different villages during festivals and participatory
ecological monitoring – aims to recognise the realities of a society still driven by tradition,
but dominated by the market economy.
304 Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

Conservation of Endangered Species

When humans first colonised the ‘Great Red Island’ around 2 000 years ago, more of
the island was forested. Since then, many species of mammals, birds and reptiles have
become extinct because of deforestation and anthropogenic hunting.10 In the case of colo-
nial Madagascar, rapid deforestation took place at a time when population growth was
slow and shifting cultivation was banned. Many people fled to the forests and survived for
years as shifting cultivators.11 There are today vast treeless landscapes.12
In general, traditional culture has Malagasy people respecting nature, conserving life
and respecting one another. It places an emphasis on individual actions supporting what
is good for the community as a whole. Most people in rural settings have a good under-
standing of the ecological services provided by natural habitats, such as the protection of
important water supplies by forests. They also respect the environment and the species
bequeathed by Ndranahary. It is not an exaggeration to say that they have a natural affinity
with the conservation of endangered species.
However, some Malagasy fail to respect their folk conservation principles and choose
to degrade common resources. Why? One suggestion is that social cohesion itself has
degraded, which leads to a classic ‘tragedy of the commons’ situation where each indi-
vidual fights for survival rather than cooperating for sustainable use of the dwindling natural
resources. Another suggestion points to a lack of mutual understanding between observers
and community collaborators from different backgrounds. Cultural anthropologists could
be more helpful in remedying the situation. While we agree that attention needs to be given
to cultural perspectives, this does not disqualify the importance of so-called unique species
and rare and endangered species. Some cultural anthropologists conclude that many people
working in conservation, and even in development, are not really acting in the interests of
the local people. Conservation therefore becomes a contentious issue in these circles.

The SCOFA Approach to Community Conservation

In order to respond to the complexities of the nature-culture relationship, the Durrell
Wildlife Conservation Trust–Madagascar programme uses a community conservation
approach in order to ensure the survival of endemic endangered species. This approach is
based on working with local communities in close collaboration with the local technical
services (for example, the Waters and Forests Service and the Fishery Service). Durrell
Wildlife is currently working in three forest areas focusing on the conservation of two
terrestrial tortoise species (in Baly Bay and Menabe), two small mammals (in Menabe), a
lemur species (in Manombo), and four wetland areas where we direct conservation efforts
on a big freshwater turtle (in Ankarafantsika and Antsalova), a marsh-dwelling lemur (in
Alaotra) and three wild duck species (in Antsalova, Menabe and Alaotra).
We began using the community conservation approach in Baly Bay in 1990.
Community conservation involves local communities in saving locally endemic and
 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: 305

endangered species from extinction while celebrating and respecting, thus reinforcing, the
local traditional culture. The method involves conserving what makes each region special
both naturally and culturally.
Our research in Baly Bay in the early 1990s led us to the conclusion that a community-
based approach to conservation would be particularly effective in Madagascar. Many of
the threats to endangered species result from local use, and where they do not, such as
the theft of ploughshare tortoises for the international market, a good collaboration with
local people is the key to a first line of defence to facilitate effective protection. State
control has been relatively weak in the isolated parts of rural Madagascar where we work,
and Waters and Forests and other law enforcement agents have extremely limited means
and variable levels of motivation. The policy and legal framework has changed since we
started our efforts, and has served to support and reinforce this community approach, as
has the new leadership in government, and increased engagement in wise resource man-
agement at all levels.
Over the last eight years, we have developed our own approach to community conser-
vation. We developed the process through our own experiences and adapted the activities
as we implemented them at different sites. The overriding principles are as follows: (1)
respect and work with local culture and traditional social structure; (2) celebrate with the
local population what makes their region special, their locally endemic species and their
local culture, as a means of building local pride; (3) catalyse group decision making about
what is good for the majority over the long term and then help to put in place locally led
management to implement these decisions; (4) participate in local initiatives rather than
asking local people to participate in foreign projects; (5) respect the administrative and
leadership role of local authorities (particularly Waters and Forests technical services and
communes); and (6) apply the concept of positive incentives through competitions with
prizes linked to achievements.
We have characterised the different stages of our community conservation as SCOFA.
This is an acronym of the French terms we use for each step:
S – Sensibilisation, Outreach
C – Conscientisation, Awareness raising
O – Organisation
F – Formalisation
A – Action.

S: Sensibilisation, Outreach
The aim of this phase is to gain the attention of the entire population through village
environmental festivals aimed at arousing people’s awareness of their traditional culture’s
regard for nature. We see these events as a way to make a first contact with a community,
to get to know each other and to provide an opportunity for what we have called ‘recipro-
cal outreach’ (sensibilisation reciproque).
306 Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

In general, a visit is first made to contact local leaders, both traditional and administra-
tive, to explain who we are and what our interests are. At this time we propose a festival
on the theme of their local environment and endangered species. If there is a positive reac-
tion, we explain that the community can organise it as they want and we commit ourselves
to returning on the designated date with some of the regional dignitaries (mayor, regional
Waters and Forests authorities, and other technical services). Festivals always include
some sort of cultural event, such as singing, dancing and a request for a benediction from
the ancestors (joro). There is always a large communal meal, as there would be at other
big community events like weddings, circumcisions and funerals. Different groups within
the village, such as the school, or a family from a particular hamlet, or a group of women
or young people, usually organise their own presentations on the environmental theme.
The advantage of this approach is that we and the regional dignitaries are the audience
and local people can express themselves as they wish, in their own dialect and using their
own forms of expression. All members of society are included, as each can contribute at
his or her chosen level. We sometimes have groups doing formation dancing to modern
music interspersed with very traditional groups.
These events are always held in the villages, so the people from nearby towns, along
with ourselves, are their guests. We allocate a day and a night to their event, and each
village organises things differently. We often show environmental films in the evening,
which causes a lot of excitement, as it is rare for a ‘cinema’ or even lights from a genera-
tor to come to their village, and they sometimes organise singing, dancing or traditional
wrestling throughout the night.
We found that the festivals often have a competitive air, as each group vies to have
a greater impact on the assembled crowd. In addition, communities often organise some
kind of sport event like a football match or canoe races. We decided to reinforce the
competitive aspect by organising more formal competitions, both between the groups
and, later, between villages. The formal competitions seemed to be more appropriate and
more successful in Alaotra, which is an area with a greater level of education and greater
contact with the centre of government. The competition categories varied according to
what the village was interested in and included speech making, poetry, traditional music
and dancing, basket and mat weaving. In the west of Madagascar, the festivals were less
clearly structured, but maintained the same elements described above and always drew
large crowds. At the end of a festival, we had each learnt the names and faces of the other
groups. In addition, it was easy to identify the dynamic individuals: those who had organ-
ised the festival, who had explained to us about their environmental and development
problems, and who had proposed solutions. Most importantly, they often had good ideas
about how to go about organising the next step.
The environmental theme is more or less adhered to, so these events communicate
local understanding, perceptions and preoccupations about the environment covering
both the economic aspects (reduced fish catches, reduced pasture quality) and the cultural
aspects (myths about animals that have helped their ancestors, forests or animals that are
protected or taboo). This provided us with a wealth of understanding about what issues to
 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: 307

return to and even what language to use as we moved onto the next phase, and presum-
ably the villagers learnt the same things about us. In this way, our focal species became
integrated into the environmental discussions and values.

C: Conscientisation, Awareness raising

The next step after the festival is to move from raising interest to taking responsibility, and
to work closely with the dynamic people in the community.
We invariably hold a kind of village meeting, which we have termed a ‘workshop’.
These are meetings in the villages with the aim of gathering as many people as possible to
debate and reach some consensus on what measures must be taken to conserve species and
manage resources sustainably. We prefer to call them workshops rather than meetings, as
they generally last most of a day and include a meal. They generally also involve a large
group discussion, smaller groups discussion during the meal, and then coming together
again for decision making. Several weeks’ notice is usually given for the workshop, and
the theme is discussed in advance with local leaders and those we have got to know
through the festivals. Although in the more formal village meetings women and young
people do not always speak or at least do not speak first, they certainly participate actively
by debating the subjects in the less formal venues before and during the events.
The workshop provides an opportunity to draw on what we had learnt in the festival
and to list the various problems or issues related to the environment. Issues range from
decreasing pasture quality to decreasing availability of wood or medicinal plants, reduced
fish catches, drying up of water sources and decreased soil fertility. Local people and the
various technicians present debate the causes and come up with some basic explanations.
Participants discuss how frequent fires reduce pasture quality, how deforestation reduces
water supplies and access to valuable forest products, how marsh destruction and burning
reduces fish spawning grounds, how small mesh sizes of nets reduce fish catches, and
so on. These issues are usually well recognised at the local level, so there is not really a
need to ‘teach’ people about them. In addition, we draw on their awareness of the cultural
or ‘existence value’ of the natural world. It is important for participants to express these
values collectively, be they environmental services or intrinsic, then we ask them what
should be done about them.
Our aim is that after a workshop, or a series of workshops depending on local dynam-
ics, we reach a stage where there is local agreement, endorsed by local authorities, to
take some action to conserve resources, including the locally endemic biodiversity. The
people who were willing to take responsibility or leadership in this activity have also been
identified.
308 Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

O: Organisation
The next phase is to put in place the structure to manage the proposed environmental
actions. For some activities, like burning fire-breaks, it was just a case of agreeing which
village would be responsible for which zone, and organising a procedure whereby they
agreed a date with the Waters and Forests representative so that the community and the
forestry agent would be present. Representatives from Durrell Wildlife were usually
present and provided the rice for a meal for those involved on the allotted day.
Where the activity required limiting resource use, we often started the process by
debating and agreeing on rules as a dina, which is like a traditional convention or by-law.
Dina that exist in other spheres involve things like ‘if you are caught stealing cattle, you
have to pay back four times the number of cattle stolen’, or ‘if someone in your family
defecates near a well, you must kill a goat to atone’. In the cases of dina resulting from
our activities, they often involved statements like ‘marshes must not be burned’, ‘lemurs
must not be killed’, ‘fish meshes must be at least three fingers wide’, and so on. Dina are
recognised traditionally and have some legal status, once the local authorities approve
them. We have learnt from experience that dina are much more effective if they include
sanctions, called vonodina, that are usually a fine in contrast to the transfer or killing of
livestock in more traditional dina.
Although we assumed that a dina and community meetings were sufficient, we have
increasingly promoted the organisation of village communities into associations in which
the dina are the by-laws and internal regulations for their members. These associations
give a greater structure to the organisation of operations, and define leadership so it
becomes clear who is responsible for implementation, enforcement and financial man-
agement. We have always aimed, through the festival approach and the open community
meetings, to ensure that these associations are as ‘inclusive’ as possible and do not just
represent a faction or family group. It is important to get as much ‘buy-in’ as possible,
otherwise it will be extremely hard to enforce the agreed upon rules.

F: Formalisation
The next step is to formalise the associations by conferring legal status on their initiatives.
Just as we progressed from working with informal community groups and dina to devel-
oping associations to better organise activities, we have also come to realise that legal
status can bring many advantages. Once an association has been registered according to
the 60-133 law at the level of the sub-prefecture, its dina is automatically registered and
there is greater respect for its implementation from both the public and local authorities.
The association is thereby more easily and automatically integrated into any debate or
programme related to regional development.
Moving forward to the next phases of environmental management in Madagascar, these
legally recognised forest management contracts will provide the means on which a ‘co-
 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: 309

management’ structure can be developed for the new style of sustainable use of protected
areas. They can also provide a mechanism for direct incentives for conservation, either in
the form of revenue sharing from tourism, or in the form of payments for environmental
services (such as water users paying an incentive to communities to conserve forests) or
in the form of direct payments for biodiversity maintenance. Once a community group has
legal management rights, they can also claim a more equitable share of any benefits from
conservation of the resource concerned.

A: Action
The goal of the SCOFA process is to put in place effective management that results in
conservation of our target endangered species and in sustainable natural resource use, so
the final step is to proceed to management action.
The results we present in this chapter are from our conservation activities over the last
eight years in Madagascar. Combining ecological monitoring of the species and the activi-
ties of the associations while celebrating the customs and culture of the local communities
guide our conduct concerning the conservation projects in each of those sites. As we noted
earlier, Malagasy people are composed of a mixture of people from different origins who
exhibit diverse cultures in their daily lives. Indeed, people in the Durrell Wildlife team
itself come from different regions of Madagascar with different training backgrounds.
We are convinced that the SCOFA approach to community conservation is an appropri-
ate method for Madagascar. Over the last eight years we have completed festivals in all of
the key villages in our sites. After the initial festivals, there has often been a local desire
to continue them, both to sustain the interest and support of a wider group and to provide
meaningful entertainment to the community.
In the second step (Awareness raising), after a festival, the village workshops provided
the ideas for actions, such as reviving traditional fire management techniques in Baly Bay
or limiting mesh sizes and banning marsh burning at Alaotra. As a group, it makes sense
to limit or manage resource use to make it more sustainable, especially if those present
have just acknowledged that resources have indeed been degraded. These meetings are
thus an important step in breaking the phenomenon of the ‘tragedy of the commons’,
where it is in each individual’s interest to exploit resources for his or her own benefit.13
This phenomenon traps people in a vicious circle, based on the assumption of maximis-
ing their self-interest, which motivates them to cut the forest before someone else does
out of their own self-interest. This vicious circle occurs mainly in areas of ‘open access’
to resources, where either there are no rules limiting resource use or rules exist, but their
enforcement is inadequate. Critiques of Hardin’s tragedy of the commons find problems
with the term ‘open access’.14
Then in the third step (Organisation), in order for resource use to be kept within sustain-
able limits, it is clearly important not only to agree on rules, but also to ensure that they will
be respected. Some level of monitoring and enforcement is necessary. With our programme
310 Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

we aimed to develop participatory ecological monitoring with village groups to assist them
and us with verifying if the management activities are effectively maintaining resources.
This scheme is most developed in the 16 villages around Alaotra, which monitored fires and
fish catches for the last three years. We launched a similar programme in Menabe in 2004.
We did some monitoring in all sites for several years; however, we need to reinforce the
participatory aspect so that the information gets back clearly to the managers.
In addition to this kind of monitoring, it is also important for villagers to ensure sur-
veillance and to catch any people breaking the rules. Our understanding is that in most
cases the presence of the rules deters the majority of people from continuing the activities.
The association at Ravelobe lake had some difficulties in making illegal fishermen pay
fines, and required support from state law enforcement that was not readily forthcoming.
However, one person recently paid half the fine and the others have disappeared, so there
has been some success. An agreement to ban deforestation at Analabe in Menabe broke
down when the Waters and Forests agent did not respond to requests from the association
to visit the site and prosecute the offenders. Villagers at Alaotra explained that they do
not yet feel able to fine their fellow villagers, despite the presence of the dina. They have
preferred so far to use social pressure and threats to hand them over to the authorities.
In general, we can say that community enforcement of their own rules has been mixed.
However, they seem to have been able to control resource use to some extent by the
presence of rules and social pressures. They clearly want to give some responsibility for
enforcement to the state services, and this has created a problem when the state has not
provided sufficient backup.
For many of the sites where we are working, it has become clear that although you
need contact and involvement at the village level, it is very important to get a wider
regional agreement among all resource users. This has turned out to be particularly true
for wetlands where many villagers have traditionally used resources, such as the seven
villages around Lake Ravelobe or the eleven villages around Lake Ankomakoma at
Ankarafantsika. At a much greater scale, the fishing and marsh management issues at
Lake Alaotra involve hundreds of villages in 28 communes around the lake. In Menabe, it
made sense to work collectively with the 13 settlements on the De Heaulme concession at
Analabe to create a representative group to negotiate with the landowner. In these cases,
we started to create federations that represent a series of smaller associations. At Lake
Ankomakoma we started with the federation, and it only became clear afterwards that
we needed to set up local structures at the village level as well, which we are now doing.
In Alaotra we organised three federations of communes. This is helpful in providing an
administrative structure to support the village associations; however, we realise that we
also need a federation of the basic community associations.
Across all sites we have become increasingly involved in supporting the integration of
the community conservation efforts into a regional planning context. This is particularly
relevant currently, as there is a national forestry zoning exercise under way and sites are
being identified as new protected areas. These federations and other regional platforms
provide a means for community representation in these regional planning initiatives.
 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: 311

The achievement of legal status has often been an important step for several of the
associations with whom we work. For example, it was very helpful that the legal papers
for the Lake Ankomakoma association arrived the day before the project’s festival, where
they were shown publicly. The Lake Ravelobe association says that they had better coop-
eration from the gendarmes and the justice department in applying their dina to the illegal
fishermen after they became an official association.
Another new opportunity for formalising management rights occurred with the pass-
ing of the Gestion Locale Sécurisée or Secure Local Management (GeLoSe) law in 1996,
and the associated Gestion Communautaire des Forêts or Community Forest Management
decree (GCF) in 2000. These enabled community-based organisations to enter into a con-
tract with the state represented by the regional Waters and Forests agent to manage defined
natural resources. Although many resources are de facto managed by local communities
without this added legal support, this gives them the right to exclude or charge people
from other communities for the use of their resources. They are also legally protected
from the state signing a deal with another user such as a logging company or a new fac-
tory or hotel without receiving appropriate compensation. We have been relatively slow to
encourage the communities where we are working to register their resources under these
management transfer laws, as we felt it was better to get the management aspects agreed
upon and working well before enshrining them in law. Many of the organisations working
around us were encouraged, often as a condition of funding, to create as many GCF or
GeLoSe contracts as they could as fast as possible, with the result that they frequently are
not very operational and the associations only include a few members.
Throughout the SCOFA process, it is clear that local preoccupations include a full range
of development issues, and it is hard, and not always desirable, to separate environmental
management and rural development. We are not specialists in other aspects of develop-
ment, such as clean water, health and agriculture, nor do we have dedicated funds available
for these kinds of projects. However, we act as a good partner and facilitate contact with
and support from other agencies. Although there was always an informal link between
conservation and development along the lines that we would look for support for villages
that showed a good commitment and interest in environmental management, we started to
strengthen this link. We launched our first environmental management competition in Baly
Bay in 1998 with ten villages. The criteria were agreed between the villages, the commune,
Waters and Forests and Durrell Wildlife and included the number and surface area of fires,
the level of village participation in extinguishing bush fires, the numbers of legal permits
for trees used for houses and canoes, and tree planting. Representatives from these different
groups also made up the jury who awarded points to each village. The prizes were given in
the form of a cash amount ranging from 250 000 to 1 250 000 francs Malagasy (approxi-
mately US$50 to US$250). Villages could decide on a project or materials of their choice,
and this included cement for a well, rehabilitation of a school, training on vegetable gardens,
or large pots and pans or a petrol lamp for community events. Despite the relatively small
financial amounts of the prizes, the programme seemed popular, as the villagers were very
pleased to have some direct control over what they received.
312 Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

We transferred this competition approach to Alaotra in 1997, where the 20 villages

involved in the festivals each year received similar prizes. Here, criteria included the level
of participation in the festival, the extent of the celebration of local culture, how much
they had developed the environmental theme and any initiated environmental projects. It
was during the first festivals that one community had the idea of replanting marshes, and
this idea spread quickly as each village aimed to do better than the others. Initially the
projects were limited to supporting schools – since, contrary to Baly Bay, there is a school
in each village – and extended later to more general community projects. From 1999, we
assigned prizes to an ecological monitoring competition. In this way, the incentives are
more directly linked to results rather than effort. Although cash prizes ranged up to around
US$300, the announcement of competition results received regional media coverage, and
we organised a big prize-giving ceremony with regional dignitaries in the winning vil-
lages. We found that the pride of winning also acted as an incentive.
In Manombo, the conservation of black-and-white ruffed lemurs and white-collared
lemurs was our main interest. A few years after the implementation of the project, the
deforestation and hunting could not be stopped. As trained biologists and primatologists,
we thought that environmental education for local schoolchildren would help to reduce
the pressures on these endangered species. It became clear that not just the schools, but
the entire village community needed to be involved in the project. All too often, villag-
ers’ involvement in a project is restricted to guides and/or simple labourers, and there is
not sufficient consideration of their culture in the conservation process. Conservation is
always difficult when people get little access to health care and education, so we decided
to address ‘health and education’ as priorities. Then we asked the following questions: If
health is a strong motivational force for conservation, how can we best harness it to reach
conservation goals in Manombo? What are the challenges to making conservation a reality
and not a myth in the region?
In July 2000 we started to do the first trial of boys’ circumcision in the area. In two
days, more than 200 boys from around Manombo were circumcised in the villages of
Manombo. In July 2002, we again brought medical doctor volunteers to carry out the same
activity. As a result, more than 250 boys were circumcised and the event was attended by
the village elders and kings of the whole area.
As a consequence of these big two events, we now collaborate very closely and fruit-
fully with the villagers of the Manombo. We believe that hunting pressures have decreased
because of the conservation associations. There were only three ruffed lemurs in our 1998
study, but the same group presently contains six individuals. One may argue that such
results may not be related to the community approach, but we believe that our considera-
tion for and respect of the local community’s culture have had a big impact on the changes
of the attitude of the villagers towards conservation.
 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: 313

Conclusions
Overall, we are convinced that there is local cultural empathy for turning environmental
awareness into action. However, catalysing awareness into action is not straightforward.
We cannot afford to simply view local communities as part of the problem. They are also
an integral part of the solution. No matter how much money we invest in conserving
endangered species, if we fail to engage ‘human communities’ at the local level, as well
as at the national and international levels, then we will never achieve a sustainable solu-
tion to species extinction.
The solution we seek often relies on changes to human behaviour. But such shifts
do not simply take place due to the acquisition of new knowledge. Gates that open into
sustainable practices are made of options, skills and cultural factors. Without an initial
assessment and clear understanding of these motivating factors, any seeds of information
will not take root or lead to growth and change.
In summary, we have found that the following points are important in order to achieve
endangered species conservation within a social context:
1. Cultural and social values must be considered, as well as material values.
2. Community members should take individual and collective responsibility for conser-
vation action in their area.
3. Self-mobilisation of the villagers needs to be maintained.
4. Strong scientific arguments are not enough to ensure conservation without arguments
that make sense to the local actors.
5. Local involvement can begin with motivated individuals who could be encouraged by
participatory monitoring of endangered species.
6. Schools are a good place to raise issues of environmental conservation, but they are
only a part of society, and a broader base is needed for effective collaboration.
7. We need to learn to communicate more effectively at local, regional and national levels
to avoid isolation, opposing objectives and lack of support.

By learning from the implementation of our community conservation approach, we

believe that we have showed that conservationists can adopt an approach that is very
well embedded in local culture and logic. Our evaluation of impacts on the conservation
of the focal endangered species and their habitats persuades us that such approaches are
also effective. We believe that we continue to learn a lot from cultural anthropologists and
their understanding of human societies, and hope that this chapter helps to build a mutual
understanding between conservationists and anthropologists.
314 Jonah Ratsimbazafy, Lala Jean Rakotoniaina and Joanna Durbin

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the Waters and Forests Service (Direction des Eaux et Forêts (DEF)),
and the National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (Association Nationale pour
la Gestion des Aires Protégées (ANGAP)) for permission to work in Baly Bay National Park,
Menabe Central, Ankarafantsika National Park, and Manombo special reserve and classified forest.
We would also like to thank the personnel of the Fisheries Service in Alaotra for their collaboration
with our team. We are most grateful to the local communities, associations and authorities in these
sites for their help and advice. Our thanks also go to partners such as Fanamby and Landscape
Development Initiatives. Funding and support for these projects have been provided by the Durrell
Wildlife Conservation Trust, Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation, Margot Marsh Foundation,
Wildlife Trust, Conservation International, Earthwatch Institute, Beckett Foundation, Harcroft
Trust and Fanamby.

Notes and References

1 T Ingold, 'Globes and Spheres: The Topology of Environmentalism', in K Milton (ed),
Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, New York: Routledge, 1993, pp 31–42;
IG Simmons, Interpreting Nature, New York: Routledge, 1993; JC Kaufmann, ‘The Sad
Opaqueness of the Environmental Crisis in Madagascar’, Conservation and Society, vol 4,
2006, pp 179–193.
2 RA Mittermeier, I Tattersall, WR Konstant, DM Meyers and RB Mast, Lemurs of Madagascar,
Washington DC: Conservation International, 1994.
3 H de Boerr, ‘Saving Madagascar’s Treasury of Plants’, Plants and People, vol 2, 1993, pp
16–17.
4 M Hufty and F Muttenzer, ‘Devoted Friends: The Implementation of the Convention
on Biological Diversity in Madagascar’, in P le Prestre (ed), The Construction of a New
International Biological Order, London: Ashgate, 2001.
5 É de Flacourt, Histoire de la grande île de Madagascar [1661], in A Grandidier, H Freidevaux
and G Grandidier (eds), Collection des ouvrages anciens consernant Madagascar, Paris:
Comité de Madagascar, Union Coloniale, 1903–1920, vol. 8; R Decary, Moeurs et coutumes des
malgaches, Paris: Payot, 1951; P Gosset and R Gosset, L’Afrique, les Africains, Paris: Julliard,
1959; CP Kottak, J-A Rakotoarisoa, A Southall and P Vérin (eds), Madagascar: Society and
History, Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 1986; ØC Dahl, Migration from Kalimantan to
Madagascar, Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1991; P Vérin, Madagascar, Paris: Karthala,
1994.
6 Adjusting, of course, for dialect differences in terms.
7 This is beginning to change: for example, M Lingard, N Raharison, E Rabakonandrianina, J-A
Rakotoarisoa and T Elmqvist, ‘The Role of Local Taboos in Conservation and Management
of Species: The Radiated Tortoise in Southern Madagascar’, Conservation and Society, vol
1 (NS), 2003, pp 223–246; V Lilette, ‘Mixed Results: Conservation of the Marine Turtle and
the Red-tailed Tropicbird by Vezo Semi-nomadic Fishers’, Conservation and Society, vol 4
(NS), 2006, pp 262–286; see especially pp 277–283 (for the online version, go to http://www.
conservationandsociety.org); JPG Jones, MA Andriamarovolona and NJ Hockley, ‘Taboos
 Cultural Anthropologists and Conservationists: 315

and Social Norms in Madagascar: Why Conservation Biologists should Care about Informal
Institutions’, Unpublished manuscript, n.d.
8 G Ratsimandratra, ‘La dynamique urbaine de Tsiroanomandidy, capitale du Bongolava’,
Madagascar Revue de Géographie, vol 41, 1982, pp 41–84; J-M Hoerner, Géographie regionale
du sud-ouest de Madagascar, Antananarivo: Association des Géographes de Madagascar, 1986,
pp 141–167; LA Sharp, The Possessed and the Dispossessed: Spirits, Identity, and Power in
a Madagascar Migrant Town, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, pp 203–344;
F Raison-Jourde and S Randrianja (eds), La Nation malgache au défi de l’ethnicité, Paris:
Karthala, 2002.
9 H Humbert, ‘La destruction d’une flore indigène par le feu: principaux aspects de la végétation
malgache’, Mémoires de l’Académie Malgache, vol 5, 1927, pp 1–80; J Dez, ‘Les feux
de végétation: aperçus psycho-sociologiques’, Bulletin de Madagascar, vol 247, 1966, pp
1211–1229; A Bertrand, Revue documentaire préalable à l’élaboration d’une politique et
d’une stratégie de gestion des feux de végétation à Madagascar, Antananarivo: CIRAD-Forêt,
1994; A Schnyder, ‘Etude des effects des feux sur la forêt dense humide de montagne de la
réserve spéciale d’Ambohitantely’, Travaux de diplôme, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de
Zurich-Suisse, 1997; S Seretti, ‘Les feux de brousse, importance sociale et économique pour les
paysans’, Travaux de diplôme, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Zurich-Suisse, 1997; CA Kull,
Isle of Fire: The Political Ecology of Landscape Burning in Madagascar, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2004.
10 SH Olson, ‘The Robe of the Ancestors: Forests in the History of Madagascar’, Journal
of Forest History, vol 28, 1984, pp 174–186; DA Burney, ‘Theories and Facts regarding
Holocene Environmental Change before and after Human Colonization’, in SM Goodman
and BD Patterson (eds), Natural Change and Human Impact in Madagascar, Washington DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997, pp 75–89; RA Mittermeier, PR Gil and CG Mittermeier,
Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest Nations, Mexico City: CEMEX, 1997.
11 For the colonial background to contemporary forest practice, see L Jarosz, ‘Defining and
Explaining Tropical Deforestation: Shifting Cultivation and Population Growth in Colonial
Madagascar (1896–1940)’, Economic Geography, vol 69, 1993, pp 366–379.
12 Olson 1984.
13 G Hardin, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, vol 162, 1968, pp 1243–1248.
14 JL Gilles and K Jamtgaard, ‘Overgrazing in Pastoral Areas: The Commons Reconsidered’,
Nomadic Peoples, vol 10, 1982, pp 1–10; DW Bromley and MM Cernea, The Management
of Common Property Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies,
Washington DC: World Bank, 1989; JT McCabe, ‘Turkana Pastoralism: A Case against the
Tragedy of the Commons’, Human Ecology, vol 18, 1990, pp 81–103.
316

View publication stats