INTERVENTION SUMMARY

The illegal exploitation of natural resources, including illegal logging (Rosewood and ebony) and wildlife trafficking (Tortoises, Lemurs and lizards) by locals for consumption and commercial transnational trafficking, led to significant biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in Madagascar. This intervention focused on enhancing the capacity of civil society organizations, Malagasy people, and conservation organizations to combat the illegal exploitation of these resources by:

  1. implementing the SMART (Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool) system for law enforcement monitoring to record incidents and optimize patrol routes
  2. gathering data on timber and reptile harvest and trade patterns, including methods, exit points, legal loopholes, and threats
  3. strengthening civil society organizations’ (CSO) capacity and engagement in combating natural resource exploitation, and
  4. training and empowering journalists to increase media coverage.

The intervention was effective in building capacity, generating poaching and trafficking patterns to inform law enforcement, empowering civil society and media, and demonstrating the effectiveness of tools like SMART that are now being adopted nationally. It led to tangible outcome, including reduced illegal logging in some areas, increased violation reporting and prosecution, and improved environmental governance structures. However, the case study highlighted persistent challenges, such as corruption, poverty, lack of government resources for enforcement, and the need for continued long-term support and complementary investments in livelihoods and food security to sustain these gains. The intervention was promising because it achieved the objectives of its four-pronged approach in building capacity and raising awareness across sectors. However, there was a lack of systematic evaluations of how it impacted wildlife populations and target tree species post interventions, and many of the mechanisms were not measured (i.e. deterrence) to be able to conclude that the implementation of SMART, for example, deterred offenders from committing crimes by optimizing patrol routes.

INTERVENTION DETAILS

What was the problem?

Illegal exploitation of natural resources, including illegal logging (Rosewood and ebony) and wildlife trafficking (Tortoises, Lemurs and lizards), by locals for consumption and commercial transnational trafficking in Madagascar. Civil society organizations, local communities, and conservation authorities did not have the capacity to combat this crime.

What was the Intervention and How was it Implemented?

Strengthening Law enforcement and Community Monitoring: Expanded the operationalization and implementation of Law Enforcement and Threats Monitoring / Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) for participatory community patrols and National Park staff. It helped communities optimize patrol routes and frequency to become more strategic and less predictable, improve accountability of rangers to follow assigned routes, enforce customary laws, and report violations. (Increase the Risks -extend guardianship)

Improving Understanding of Environmental Harm: Conducted research to gather data on timber and reptile harvest and trade patterns, including methods, exit points, legal loopholes and threats. Developed a Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) for Rosewood and ebony, a Timber Legality Framework to create stricter permitting processes, and a similar BMP for reptiles. Additionally, strengthened capacity of 120 stakeholders (including govt. staff) regarding timber and reptile identification, legal and regulatory frameworks, and CITES Non-Detrimental Findings (NDFs). Efforts filled critical knowledge gaps on both trades, improving both legal frameworks and enforcement capacity, and strengthening international compliance. As a result, law enforcement intercepted more illegal shipments. (Increase the Risks - extend guardianship)

Improving Media Coverage: The goal was to empower Malagasy journalists and media outlets to investigate, report, and raise public awareness about environmental crimes (like illegal logging and wildlife trafficking), thereby putting pressure on government authorities to make illegal acts more visible. In this effort, they trained 75 journalists to conduct investigative journalism in three priority landscapes to expose illegal activities via newspaper stories, radio programs, social media, and television films. Also, the intervention helped establish an informal network of journalists who shared encouragement and solutions, including simultaneously publishing sensitive reports to spread risk. (Remove Excuses- alert conscience)

Was the Intervention Effective, Ineffective, or Promising?

The intervention was promising because it built capacity and institutional frameworks for combating exploitation; implemented SMART across Madagascar to guide patrol routes, and improved media coverage of natural resource crimes. As a result of these initiatives, illegal timber stumps in one sector reduced from 328 in 2014 to 15 in 2025; 27 natural resource-related violations were reported, and a Special Court for addressing rosewood and other precious wood trafficking was established by Parliament. As a result of media training, domestic media coverage increased to over 180 stories. Importantly, no direct measurement of wildlife population outcomes was undertaken, leaving the actual impact of this intervention on conservation largely unknown. Some of the problems of this multi-pronged approach were that it (1) did not measure wildlife or target tree species before and after the interventions, and (2) these were macro-level interventions that were indirectly attempting to influence or reduce poaching and trafficking behavior. In addition, many of the specific actions and associated mechanisms (e.g. like deterrence as a result of patrol route optimization), were not properly evaluated to conclude deterrence of offenders was a direct result of patrol route changes.

How do We Know?

The intervention was promising because it (1) did not measure wildlife or timber populations before and after the interventions, and (2) these were macro-level interventions that were indirectly attempting to influence or reduce poaching and trafficking behavior. In addition, many of the specific actions and associated mechanisms (e.g. like deterrence as a result of patrol route optimization), were not properly evaluated to conclusively state offender deterrence was a direct result of patrol route changes.

Were Conservation Outcomes Measured?

No. The conservation outcome, such as change in timber forest and targeted wildlife (Tortoises and lemurs), was not measured.

ASSESSMENT

The case study does not provide conclusive evidence that the overall problem of illegal natural resource exploitation in Madagascar declined as a result of the intervention.

The intervention had clear target actors, including environmental ministry officials, judges and prosecutors, law enforcement and customs officers, anti-corruption authorities, as well as civil society members, such as investigative journalists and environmental NGOs. It sought to change bahavior through several mechanisms, including: (1) capacity building and training of police, customs agents, prosecutors, and judges aimed at improving their competence and confidence; (2) interagency collaboration, fostered through joint actions, through which the perceived risk of detection and punishment for offenders would be increased; (3) intelligence-led enforcement (e.g. SMART), which would enable patrol teams to respond strategically by collecting and assessing real-time data; and (4) public pressure via civil society and media (i.e. through journalists), which would raise the social and political costs of engaging in or otherwise ignoring illegal activity.

The intervention was grounded in an understanding of the specific political, institutional, and ecological context of Madagascar. The pre-intervention analyses revealed several core components that were necessary to understand before the intervention was designed and implemented. These included identifying (a) high-profile cases of illegal rosewood logging and trafficking; (b) institutional fragmentation among enforcement and judicial actors, and limited technical capacity of frontline staff; (c) patterns of corruption, impunity, and risk of coordination that undermined enforcement effectiveness; and (d) vulnerable ecosystems and trafficking routes frequently exploited for illegal timber and wildlife trade. Several contextual factors both helped and hindered the mechanisms of the intervention. Positive influences included: (a) existing networks and civil society engagement that provided the foundation for coordinated advocacy and public pressure; (b) the availability of biodiversity data, which was essential in selecting and targeting enforcement efforts; and (c) certain government actors willingness to participate in training and reform efforts. Nevertheless, some negative influences hindered its implementation, including: (a) the presence of corruption and political interference in enforcement and judiciary procedures; (b) the institutional fragmentation and overlapping mandates; (c) limited logistical capacity, such as lack of vehicle and field gear; and (d) security concerns and remoteness of key trafficking corridors that made it difficult to patrol these areas effectively.

The case study provides detailed information about various aspects of program implementation, including: Time: The intervention was implemented as part of a pilot project under the USAID-funded Sustainable Conservation Approaches in Priority Ecosystems (SCAPES) program, and ran for three years, from October 2013 to September 2016. Resources: The program cost US$2.25 million, which involves expenditures on training activities, equipment provision (such as GPS units and CyberTracker-enabled devices for patrol monitoring), and support for capacity-building among civil society and journalists. Training: The intervention involved multiple streams of training: Community-based organizations and protected area staff were trained in SMART (Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool) and data-driven patrol planning. Civil society organizations received training in advocacy, legal frameworks, and environmental communication. Journalists were trained in investigative journalism techniques, ethical standards, and social media use, with the goal of supporting collaborative investigations and public awareness efforts. Government officials, including enforcement agents and customs officers, were trained in timber and reptile identification, CITES regulations, and Madagascar's timber legality framework. Partnerships: The program was implemented by a WWF-led consortium, which included Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Conservation International (CI), and TRAFFIC. It also engaged with national and regional civil society platforms, such as: Alliance Voahary Gasy (AVG), Re´seau d’E´ducation Environnementale et de De´veloppement de la Socie´te´ Civile (READ-DSS), and Plateforme de la Socie´te´ Civile de la Zone Anosy (PLACAZ). These partnerships were essential for facilitating interagency coordination, community outreach, and sustained advocacy efforts.

The total budget for the program was US $2.25 million. The funding supported several key implementation efforts, including training of government officials, community groups, journalists, and civil society organizations; procurement of equipment, such as GPS units and CyberTracker-enabled devices for patrols; capacity building activities; the development and support of investigative journalism network; and the implementation of the SMART monitoring system in protected areas.

SCP COLUMNS

Extend guardianship
Alert conscience

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Citation

Bailey & Tobiason (2017)

Year Range

2013-2016

Country

Madagascar

Landscape

Target Species

Multiple species

Problem type

Illegal harvest and trafficking

Source: Bailey N & A Tobiason, 2017. Combating Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in Madagascar: Assessment of “Preserving Madagascar’s Natural Resources” (Oct 2013 - Sep 2016). USAID.