1.1 – The Coral Reef System and the Coastline

3One of the largest coral reef systems on Earth, comparable to the Great Barrier Reef of Australia or the coral reef in Belize, extends along the southwest coast of Madagascar. Unlike the latter, however, the reefs here are never far from the coast, which affects their ecological status. Being easy to exploit from the shore by fishers in pirogues or even on foot, they are also affected by sediment carried by rivers and wadis in the region. This coral reef ecosystem is home to the richest marine biodiversity in the western Indian Ocean, with 6,000 species (including 1,400 mollusks and 700 reef fish) having been identified there (Cooke et al. 2003; Gough et al. 2009). Coral reefs, mangroves, and seasonal upwellings account for the high productivity of this part of the Mozambique Channel where, before it became an area of intensive fishing, many species of pelagic fish, sharks, marine mammals, and sea turtles thrived, some of which have now been wiped out.

4The land facing this bountiful sea lacks water and good soil and, with the exception of the alluvial valleys, only lends itself to meager agriculture and extensive livestock farming. Annual rainfall, which is highly irregular, ranges from an average of 450 mm in the north to 350 mm in the south of the coast (Solomon 1986; Lebigre et al. 2001) and is concentrated in a short rainy season that runs from December to March. This sub-arid and sparsely populated region is historically shared between the Masikoro to the north of the Onilahy River and the Mahafaly to the south. In addition to these agro-pastoralists, whose kingdoms used to dominate the hinterland, there are minority populations taking refuge on the western fringes of the region: the Mikea in the forest of the same name, the Tanalana on the Mahafaly coastal plain, and the Vezo, who are strictly confined to the coast.

1.2 – Vezo Origins, Identity, and Way of Life

5The Vezo have various origins, coming from populations in the southwest (Masikoro, Mahafaly), the West (Sakalava), and the South (Tandroy) of Madagascar, mixed with recently-arrived African peoples (Fauroux et al. 1992). According to Marikandia (1987, 1995, 2001), the coast was populated by the micro-migrations of groups of individuals such as family units fleeing political unrest in the hinterland. This process is thought to have begun shortly before the sixteenth century, since contemporary European navigators reported that the coast was then nearly empty, before coming into its own starting in the seventeenth century and then expanding. The diversity of origins among the Vezo, their fairly recent settlement, and the fact that they have never made up a unified political territory explain why they are not mentioned as a people on ethnic maps of the southwest (Hoerner 1986) or of Madagascar (Vérin 2000). Yet Malagasy and foreign observers view the southwest coast as the Vezo region, as the Vezo make up the vast majority of the population there. [3]

6The cultural identity of the Vezo, their representations of themselves and those that neighbors and foreign observers have of them, is closely related to this coastal region. The term “Vezo” means “to paddle” (Engelvin 1937) or “those who struggle with the sea” (Astuti 1995b). Although Marikandia (2001) and Iida (2005) see a process of ethnicization at work among the Vezo, they might be described as having a “model of geo-deterministic identity” because for them, “what people do and therefore are is determined by the place where they live” (Astuti 1995a, 8). It follows that all those on the southwest coast of Madagascar who live on the beach and earn their living solely from fishing are considered Vezo. Being open to foreigners, Vezo society places less emphasis on ancestors, traditions, and taboos than do its neighbors inland because its cultural identity is defined less by the origin of its members than by their way of life, which is determined by the places where they live.

7Definable as a “set of normal activities characteristic of a human group and linked to the maintenance of its life” (Sorre 1948, 97), the concept of “way of life” is widely used by anthropologists, historians, and geographers to describe Vezo society (Battistini 1964; Koechlin 1975; Fauroux et al. 1992; Astuti 1995a, 1995b; Vérin 2000; Raveloarimanana Lupo and Lupo 1996; Marikandia 2001; Iida 2005; Lilette 2007; Pascal 2008). “A way of life implies methodical and continuous activity, strong at the onset, exerted upon nature, or, to speak as a geographer, upon the face of the land” (Vidal de la Blache 1911, 194). In other words, a way of life produces a geography [4] and marks the environment of the society that implements it.

8“The perfection of the Vezo pirogue has been in existence from time immemorial, and it would not occur to anyone to modify, even if only by one small detail, any of the parts that make up this extraordinarily functional unit” (Battistini 1964, 114). Dug out of Giviotia madagascariensis, a tree consisting of light wood, this outrigger canoe with a square sail, measuring two to eight meters in length and very easy to handle, can be navigated by paddle or by sail. “The Vezo canoe’s physical structure reflects and incorporates all the characteristics of the livelihood of the Vezo: it is flimsy, short lived and small scale” (Astuti 1995a, 24). This enables them to fish on the reef and travel in groups over long distances, in other words, to leave their footprint on this region and thus help shape its geography. Yet this footprint is light because the Vezo “blend in with their environment, the dunes, and the sea in an astonishing way” (Petit 1923, 158). Koechlin (1975) describes the Vezo as “semi-nomadic sailors,” a term that has since been used to portray their great mobility along the coastline. This mobility takes place inside fishing networks that broadly overlap with family networks since these seasonal migrations to areas conducive to fishing sometimes lead to the founding of villages by related segments of the fishers’ original clans.

9Although fishing is the basis of their way of life, the Vezo have no term for it, but instead use the term “foraging” (Astuti 1995a, 23), which emphasizes the opportunistic aspect of their activity and the broad spectrum of resources they draw on. Fishing is practiced by all Vezo early on, starting from childhood. Traditional techniques and equipment vary: the men, fishing from pirogues, use lines, nets, or spears, and captures are made by seine near the beaches, while the women and children fish by hand or with a pike on the reef. Whether intended for self-consumption, barter, or sale, the species targeted are extremely diverse, with Koechlin (1975, 13) describing the Vezo as “the predators of the reef flats.” However, he adds that “the technological level of the Vezo, which does not allow them to exploit any environment at any given time but instead requires them to take the tides into consideration, is well suited to the coral reef since it does not destroy its ecological balance” (1975, 34).

10If their way of life has led to the Vezo’s sustainable adaptation [5] to their environment, it is because the impact of their mono-fishing activity has long been superficial. However, starting in the twentieth century, the development of commercial fishing, combined with population growth, would gradually go on to redraw the geography of the coastline.

2.1 – The Early Days of Harvesting

11Based on fishing, the Vezo way of life reinforces the openness of their society, because by forcing them to trade food with populations in the hinterland, it “has made them the regional group least inclined to isolation” (Fauroux et al. 1992, 9). During French colonization, this facilitated the beginnings of an export trade in marine products, initiated by Karana traders [6] whose trade networks crisscross the coast. Big urban traders loaned money to small harvesters in the bush, who used wagons or dhows to carry all kinds of agricultural and marine resources all the way to Toliara, [7] where they were packaged before being exported or shipped to inland cities.

12Initially consisting mainly of sea cucumbers shipped to the Far East, the trade in marine products expanded in the 1950s to include other species and markets, from shark fins intended for Hong Kong to red helmet seashells (Cypraecassis rufa) sold in Italy (Angot 1950, 1961). In addition, there was a trade in dried or smoked fish for urban consumers, which was already significant in Toliara in the early 1920s (Petit 1923). Following Madagascar’s independence, this trade expanded alongside Malagasy population growth and economic development and led to the establishment of a network for gathering dried fish in which the Vezo teamed up with the Karana. The monetization of the Vezo economy then began to grow, especially given that while Toliara residents remained the main buyers of dried fish, some of the supply was shipped by truck to cities in the highlands (Couty 1969).

13The growing commercialization of marine products was accompanied by changes in fishing equipment. Thus, “fishnets, formerly woven from domestic plant fibers, are now, in most cases, made out of sailing rope” (Petit 1923, 160). In the 1950s, the use of diving masks grew and nets were made from tire thread (Battistini 1964). Finally, “the introduction of beach seine dates back to the 1960s” (Fauroux et al. 1992, 14). The rise in demand for marine products and the simultaneous modernization of certain types of fishing equipment, combined with traditional Vezo fishing efficiency, made it possible to regularly increase the size of catches. After independence, the development-oriented policies of the Malagasy government and international organizations further accelerated this process.

2.2 – The Policies of Fisheries Development

14In 1950, a study of the fishing potential of southwest Madagascar noted that “the primitive methods of the natives, with insignificant and irregular yields, do not make it possible to rely on their contribution to supply any fishing industry” (Angot 1950, 190). A decade later, the same expert deemed it “necessary to educate the Vezo” because their fishing “is merely the result of pure empiricism. No reasoning grounded in science was put forth” (Angot 1961, 133). To teach fishing to a population of fishers seemed arrogant. Rather, the goal was to incorporate the Vezo into the modern economy, to “develop” them, which is why it was necessary to get them to engage in “rational and scientific” fishing. After independence, various international organizations and development aid agencies endeavored to do so, with the objective of increasing the share of fishing products in Madagascar’s exports and providing more marine food to its population.

15Because it uses non-motorized pirogues, Vezo fishing is classified under the official Malagasy category of “traditional fishing” (Laroche and Ramananarivo 1995; Chaboud 2007a). However, at the end of the first decade of independence, this type of fishing was considered incapable of meeting the challenge of development, since the Vezo still used “inefficient traditional means” and were viewed as “lazy” to the point where fisheries expert Philippe Couty (1969, 30) considered it “unrealistic to expect traditional fishing ever to lead to modern business structures.” Couty thus called “for a completely modern sector focused on exports,” that is, one that favored “industrial fishing” (1969, 30).

16Yet this advice was not followed, because traditional fishers were the exclusive suppliers of the domestic market. However, in the late 1970s, the Malagasy government tried to bring traditional fishers together into cooperatives in order to emancipate them from Karana harvesting networks, upgrade their equipment, and increase production destined for the domestic market. However, results were poor (Rey 1982). The Government then turned to Japanese development aid, which resulted in the Japanese awarding numerous grants for the modernization of these traditional fishing cooperatives throughout the 1980s (Andriantsoa 1991).

17In the 1990s, the Malagasy government began to receive increased support from international development organizations, some of which was set aside for traditional fishing. Since the Vezo system was considered outdated (Rejela 1993), the call for its necessary modernization was voiced by all the experts. The emphasis was to be put on better fishing equipment and transportation, particularly in order to provide a cold chain connecting Vezo villages to Toliara. Thus, the Sectoral Fisheries Program, which was launched in 1993, funded by the UNDP, and carried out by the FAO, aimed to increase catches, intensify harvesting, and diversify exports. To achieve this, the dissemination of effective fishing equipment and motorized pirogues was promoted, which would upgrade the fishing status from “traditional” to “artisanal” (Da Silva et al. 1994). Three years later, a review of this project reported that while the pirogues still had no motors, modern fishing equipment (masks and spear guns, nets, etc.), was now being sold on credit in several Vezo villages, and the preservation of production had been improved by the provision of insulated boxes. The authors of the report cited one of the persons surveyed, who stated that “ever since the FAO has been here, fishing has become stronger,” (Lupo Raveloarimanana and Lupo 1996, 98) before concluding that they were “convinced that societies in the southwest represented a vast window of opportunity and that the project appeared to be building something positive” (Lupo Raveloarimanana and Lupo 1996, 104).

18Over the course of the same decade, the German development aid agency GTZ distributed high-efficiency nets (measuring 100 to 250 meters in length and 3 to 7 meters in depth and made of thick rope) to encourage the fishing of large pelagic fish. Meanwhile, the use of jarifa nets spread quickly along the southwest coast, followed in the early 2000s by the ZZ net. [8] This new, expensive fishing equipment was quickly reproduced by the Vezo with recycled materials. Thus, contrary to the claims of some fishing experts who maintain that the Vezo are conservative fishers, what was noted was that “one characteristic of the Vezo production system is its extreme adaptability, which is expressed in fishing techniques that are highly flexible and always ready to incorporate new data” (Fauroux et al. 1992, 9). However, it was mostly transnational corporations that benefited from the development of Vezo fishing through international cooperation.

2.3 – Modern Harvesting

19Madagascar’s considerable openness to international institutions and development agencies was accompanied by an influx of foreign capital in the export sectors of the economy, including the fishing sector. In partnership with Malagasy entrepreneurs, these investors created transnational fishing corporations, the largest of which is COPEFRITO (Toliara Refrigerated Fishing Cooperative – Coopérative de Pêche Frigorifique de Tuléar).

2.4 – Surveys Conducted in Vezo Villages

32Some of the results of two surveys conducted among residents of Vezo villages as part of IRD-IHSM research [14] illustrate the social and ecological changes that have taken place due to the growth in commercial fishing. The fact that they are relatively out of date is offset by the fact that they allow us to complete the few quantitative studies of Vezo fishing and thus get an idea of how it has evolved.

33The first survey (n = 283) took place between April and October 2003 in the villages of Salary, Mangily, Ifaty, Anakao, and Beheloka, and involved both male and female fishers. Fishing activity was intense, with 70% of the men going out twice a day. Yet 29% of the fishers had a secondary occupation (including 41% who operated pirogues for tourists [15] and 35% who were agro-pastoralists). For the men, the average daily income from fishing was equivalent to €2.70 (at that time). The secondary occupations, carried out on one or two days a week, brought them a much higher income, with the boatmen for tourists earning over €5 a day, and up to €10. Among the women, only 19% of whom had a secondary activity, the average daily income from fishing was €1.50, while 90% of their catch was intended for export (octopus, sea cucumbers, and shells).

34In each of the villages, the majority of respondents considered the reef to be damaged due to the technique or equipment used in pirogue fishing – including hitting the reef with poles (47%) and nets that rip off coral branches (21%) – and the stress exerted by fishing on foot (32%). In cases of a sharp reduction in fisheries resources in their village, 36.5% of respondents replied that they would migrate in search of new fishing grounds. However, this solution, which has always been the Vezo approach, is difficult to implement once the coast has become an occupied space where sites attract a growing number of players (fishers, conservationists, tourism entrepreneurs) and thus become full [16] and where resources (such as marine species, drinking water, and wood) are becoming depleted. Looking for another activity, mainly in the tourism industry, is an alternative that only 16.5% of respondents were considering, with the rest of them not answering the question.

35The second survey was conducted in March and April 2004 in Anakao, the largest Vezo village (with about 3,000 residents), among 495 residents aged 11 and over. Surveying one sixth of the total population made it possible to assess the role played by fishing in a Vezo village since it is the only activity of two thirds of the respondents. The species they catch and consume the most – keleohy (Siganidae), angelika (Lethrinidae), fitse (Caesionidae), and fiantsifa (Acanthuridae) – are reef fish that are herbivores, which highlights the scarcity of carnivores, which are more sought after. Yet the stress of fishing has continued to increase thanks to these herbivorous fish, especially the keleohy, which accounted for 30% of the catch in 1991 (Laroche et al. 1995), 16.5% at the time of our survey, and 7.5% in 2007 (Brenier et al. 2011). This reduction in the number of herbivorous fish can only accelerate algae growth, which will lead to the collapse of the coral reef ecosystem (Gough et al. 2009; Brenier et al. 2011). Yet, although 52% of the most active fishers (aged 19 to 39) felt that these fish were becoming rare, this percentage reached 71% of those over 39 years of age, with only 22% and 19%, respectively, of the two groups of respondents considering the possibility of their extinction from the Anakao reef.

36Why would these fish not disappear? Because they have “strong reproduction,” they are “God’s work,” or because “the sea is inexhaustible.” These reasons, which made up more than two thirds of the responses, bring to mind what Engelvin had already noted in 1937, namely that for the Vezo, “the sea is a generous and inexhaustible nurturer. . .” (15). Although they are able to observe the depletion of marine resources and explain it, the Vezo cannot imagine the disappearance of the fish because it would call into question a way of life and cultural identity grounded in fishing.

3.1 – The Impacts on Vezo Society and the Coral Reef System

38Koechlin was the first to link the ecological and social impacts of overfishing when he wrote that “the indiscriminate exploitation of marine products is not only likely to disrupt the cohesion between elements of the ecological chain of coral reef, but it socially threatens the Vezo, who work too closely with such practices” (1975, 35). Several researchers have noted disturbances in Vezo society they consider to be linked to the opening up of the coastal region. Thus, fishing overproduction to meet the demand from external markets generates cash incomes the Vezo consider “unhealthy” or “hot” and then “burn” in conspicuous spending (Fauroux et al. 1992; Astuti 1995b), with Koechlin even speaking of “neuroses” (1975, 57). However, the income provided by the new fishing equipment has also enabled the Vezo to free themselves from the authority of the elders, while wealthy shark fishers have built houses made of concrete blocks and gained local political power (Pascal 2008). Shorter periods of mourning have also been observed as well as a speeding-up of ceremonies (Lupo Raveloarimanana and Lupo 1996) along with the disappearance of rituals and taboos related to fishing (Lilette 2007).

39Thus the geographic opening up of the coast resulted in changes in the social hierarchy, in the Vezo’s relationship to time, and in their relationship to the environment. Yet while those cultural traits that break up or slow down the pace of fishing tend to disappear, the Vezo way of life goes on. Now equipped with modern fishing equipment and driven by incomes earned from harvesting, the Vezo fishers have remained set in their ways. However, the ecological consequences of this articulation of a traditional way of life with the global economy have been disastrous, as evidenced by research conducted on the marine ecosystem of southwest Madagascar over some forty years.

40Up until the early 1970s, while work carried out by the Marine Station of the University of Toliara (now IHSM) revealed the immense biodiversity of the coral reef ecosystem, there was “no threat of anthropogenic origin to this ecosystem” (Vasseur 1997a, 98). Angot described a “great wealth of reef fish” (1950, 180) and was optimistic, writing that on Anakao, “nothing seems likely to alter the prodigious exuberance of life in this sea that is so close” (1961, 127). Following the interruption in oceanographic research during the socialist period in Madagascar, an ecological assessment of Toliara Bay was carried out in 1987, reporting “many disturbing signs of degradation and destruction of the coral reefs and mangroves” (Vasseur 1997b, 528). In 1995, Vasseur found the Great Toliara Reef to be “almost completely destroyed” (1997a, 98) and, in the same year, an evaluation of the marine ecology of the southwest coast found that in general, “the condition of coral and fish resources is poor, sediments accumulate, algae proliferate, many corals are damaged, the biodiversity and biomass of fish are relatively low, and sea turtles are rare” (Cockroft and Young 1998, 14). At the same time, the research of fishery scientists attested to the damage to the reef, with fishers observing a progressive decline in their catch in terms of quantity, weight, and size (Laroche and Ramananarivo 1995; Ratovoarinony et al. 1996).

41Over the past ten years, studies of marine biology have multiplied, and their conclusions are unanimous. Thus, “certain biotopes and many taxa have disappeared from the Toliara lagoon” (Cooke et al. 2003 188), while on Anakao, “biomass is generally low across the survey transects of the reef, with herbivores the dominant taxa” (Walker and Fanning 2003, 12). In Toliara Bay, most fishers observe a widespread decline in their catch, including reef fish, sea cucumbers, turtles, and lobster (Brenier et al. 2011). A report on the condition of the coral reef south of the Onilahy River concluded that it was in poor condition because the trophic structure of the reef fish has changed dramatically since the 1970s and is now dominated by herbivores, algae and urchins thrive, and most sea cucumber species have become rare (Gough et al. 2009). Finally, the Great Toliara Reef, where observers noted “a significant reduction in coral cover and a particularly low biodiversity in reef fish, with 75% of herbivores,” was pronounced “dead” (Harris et al. 2010, 8). How did we go in just forty years from a marine ecosystem that was among the most diverse and productive on the planet to a devastated environment?

3.2 – Causes of Damage to the Coral Reef Ecosystem

42Research suggests there are several causes. The erosion of the Onilahy and Fiherenana watersheds causes sedimentation that is harmful to the corals, the expansion of the city of Toliara in the absence of any wastewater treatment increases pollution in the lagoon, the cutting down of timber in the mangroves destroys marine nurseries, and global climate change causes coral bleaching (Laroche and Ramananarivo 1995; Vasseur 1997a, b; David et al. 2008; Razafindrainibe 2012). For many researchers, however, the degradation of the coral reef ecosystem is mainly due to Vezo fishing, which they attribute primarily to high population growth (Fauroux et al. 1992; Rejela 1993; Laroche and Ramananarivo 1995; Vasseur 1997a; Laroche et al. 1997; Chaboud 2007a, b; Brenier et al. 2011).

43Clearly, the two factors are linked because the increase in the number of residents in the area leads to an increase of the number of fishers, [17] which results in increased pressure on the marine ecosystem. This theory is partly confirmed by our own research. Thus, for example, keleohy, the species caught and consumed the most, is intended exclusively for the Malagasy market. The increase in the number of fishers is also attributed to episodes of droughts in the hinterland, which intensifies the vulnerability of livestock farmers who are then driven to migrate to the coast. This phenomenon, which was significant in the early 1990s (Ratovoarinony et al. 1996), continued during the following decade (Cripps 2009). However, our own research puts these micro-migrations in perspective as respondents born elsewhere than on the southwest coast represented only 6.5% of the population and just 3% of the fishers we interviewed. The poverty argument, which is sometimes linked to population growth to explain overfishing (Chaboud 2007a, b), also needs to be qualified since while poverty does indeed drive some farmers to try their hand at fishing, this activity is mostly an obstacle to the development of a domestic market for Malagasy fisheries products (Laroche et al. 1997). Viewing population growth as the main cause of Vezo overfishing is akin to viewing the Malagasy market as the main outlet for the catch, which is incorrect.

44The evolution of Vezo fishing techniques and equipment, with their increasingly destructive effects, is another reason put forth to explain overfishing (Fauroux et al. 1992; Rejela 1993; Laroche et al. 1997; Vasseur 1997a, 1997b; Chaboud 2007a; Brenier et al. 2011). However, this argument is only valid for certain species (fish, sharks, turtles) since octopus, sea cucumbers, and seashells are still caught by hand. Moreover, the phenomenon is an ancient one, already noted by Battistini (1964, 175), who wrote that “fish resources seem endless given the fishing methods currently used,” while Koechlin (1975, 35) pointed out the ecological consequences of this technical evolution, writing that “the recent introduction of nylon lines and gillnets caused the Vezo community to make a technological leap forward that is deadly for the reefs.” Koechlin was also the first to see that the relationship of Vezo fishing to the global market was the cause of the problem because the “technological level of traders foreign to the Vezo group” allowed them “through third-party Vezo populations to harvest on a large scale from the marine environment a few products in demand on international markets” and engage in the “reckless exploitation” of these products (1975, 35).

45Because it aims to respond to potentially unlimited demand from markets in developed or emerging countries, export fishing is the main cause of the degradation of the coral reef ecosystem. Yet this cause is rarely mentioned by researchers, who primarily blame population growth or the technical advancement of Vezo fishing. Yet by not linking more effective Vezo fishing equipment to globalization, that is, to the activities of development agencies and networks of export harvesting, these researchers are the victims of a technological illusion, with Vezo fishing still described as “traditional” even though it is now conducted using modern equipment and an increasing share of the income derived from it comes from exports to the global market. Yet Chaboud states that “the reef and lagoon ecosystems in the Toliara region are under no stress from industrial fishing” (2007a, 198) and that “traditional Vezo fishing has no links to industrial fishing” (2007b, 234). However, given that in Madagascar “industrial fishing” is the official category for the modern export-oriented fishing industry, that COPEFRITO is part of it, and that it is the main buyer of products from Vezo fishing, these assertions are factually incorrect.

46As a remedy to this environmental degradation, foreign conservation NGOs advocate setting aside certain areas of the southwest coast. The most successful project has been the one set up in 2003 by British NGO Blue Ventures in partnership with IRD-IHSM, French Development Aid, the conservation-oriented NGO Wildlife Conservation Society, and COPEFRITO (Grenier 2004). The Velondriake marine reserve was created out of an area where the harvesting of octopus was temporarily suspended and set up in Nosy Hao, a caye located off Andavadoaka, a move that was successful locally, has been replicated on multiple sites, and now includes 21 villages, which earned it the United Nations Equator Prize in 2007 and the Getty Award in 2008 (Langley 2006; Epps 2007; David et al. 2008). NGOs Blue Ventures and Frontier practice a form of ecotourism that combines conservation, scientific research, and higher education, partially funding their activities by hosting students who pay to work on various projects and whose research is accredited by their universities. This is why Blue Ventures, Frontier, and certain researchers (Chaboud 1997a) see tourism as an economic alternative to fishing for the Vezo. Nevertheless, conservation-related tourism as it is implemented on the southwest coast of Madagascar benefits only certain sites and individuals. Because it is only an isolated case, it is insufficient as a solution (David et al. 2008).