Survey of local perceptions of the livelihood and conservation benefits delivered by small-scale livelihood projects in eastern Madagascar

This archive consists of a) the primary dataset and b) accompanying documents for the survey of local perceptions of the livelihood and conservation benefits delivered by micro projects in the Ankeniheny Zahemena Corridor (CAZ), Madagascar, conducted as part of work package 6 (WP6) of the p4ges project (Can capturing global ecosystem service values reduce poverty). WP6 is concerned with the socio-economic aspects of the research undertaken within p4ges project. The objective of the survey was to document local perceptions of both the livelihood and conservation benefits delivered by small-scale livelihood projects (‘micro projects’) that had been conducted in the CAZ region from 2010 to 2014, and to examine how the type of livelihood project (e.g., agriculture, beekeeping, fish farming or livestock production) influenced the benefits obtained. The survey included questions about how the small-scale livelihood projects were chosen, participation in the livelihood projects, perceived livelihood benefits provided by the projects, perceived negative impacts of the projects on livelihoods, levels of participant satisfaction with the way in which projects were implemented, potential conservation goals of the micro projects, and links between micro projects and conservation outcomes. It also included basic socioeconomic information about participants. The data was collected between Sept and November 2015 and was comprised of surveys of 611 participants who had participated in 61 micro projects (including 16 agricultural projects, 10 beekeeping projects, 17 fish farming projects and 18 livestock projects).There has been a recent explosion of interest in market mechanisms to capture global ecosystem service values. An argument in their favour is that they can, in principle, benefit the poor by increasing the value of their resources. However, the effect on poverty is not easily predicted and depends on a) the structure and distribution of payments (how and when payments are made, and to whom) and b) how land-use changes driven by the payments influence the supply of locally important ecosystem services and livelihood options to poor people. Our central research question is: How can international ecosystem service payment schemes (specifically for carbon sequestration/storage and biodiversity conservation) most effectively reduce poverty in low-income countries, given biophysical, economic and political realities? This question is of vital importance as there have been few, if any, detailed multi-dimensional assessments of either existing programmes or the conditions needed for optimal programme design. We focus on a single ecosystem (tropical forest) in a single low-income country (Madagascar) to achieve a uniquely complete analysis. Links to global structures involved in developing international payment for ecosystem services schemes (PES) ensure the results will be influential more widely. Major land-use changes which international payments are incentivizing include: reduced deforestation, targeted restoration or reforestation (through fire and grazing management or replanting) and changes in rules, or enforcement of rules, governing access to harvesting wild products. Welfare impacts on the poor will be different under these different approaches, and they vary in their potential for producing global benefits. Our central objectives are: 1) to understand effects on ecosystem service flows, to local and global beneficiaries, of the land-use changes incentivized under alternative PES approaches, and the spatial and temporal trade-offs in these flows; 2)to estimate the magnitude and distribution of net local welfare impacts from the range of PES approaches (incorporating both the effects of payments and land-use change) and the likely influence of different local and regional institutional structures; 3) to fully quantify the land-use changes and the payments distributed in an existing payment scheme; and 4) to develop effective recommendations for improved international PES schemes that maximise their potential for delivering poverty alleviation, given biophysical, economic and political realities.</p