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.

To examine the perceived conservation and livelihood outcomes of the microprojects, we first compiled information on microprojects implemented in CAZ from 2006 to 2014 by extracting technical and financial information from technical reports, financial data sets, and project documents, and gathering information from partner organizations. To examine how perceived outcomes varied across project types, we focused on four of the most common microproject types: 1) beekeeping, 2) support to small scale agricultural production (primarily support for rice, corn and bean production), 3) livestock production (mainly chicken production) and 4) fish farming. We randomly selected microprojects between conducted between 2010 and 2014 for inclusion in the study, focusing on the most recent projects to improve local people’s recall ability. In total, we selected 61 projects (16 agriculture projects, 10 beekeeping projects, 17 fish farming projects, and 18 livestock farming projects). For each selected microproject, we compiled a list of known project participants (both men and women) from participant lists in project reports and from information provided by village chiefs. We then used these lists to randomly select 10 people per project to participate in the household survey. In total, we surveyed 61 projects (611 participants). We then designed a structured household survey to explore local perceptions of microproject livelihood and conservation outcomes (see file “Participant questionnaire MG” for Malagasy version, and “Participant questionnaire EN’ for English version). Our survey collected information on the perceived delivery of livelihood benefits, the types of benefits, the importance of these benefits to people’s livelihoods, the distribution of benefits among participants and the duration of benefits, as well as information on potential negative impacts. Potential livelihood benefits included improvements in food security, market access, household well-being and community cooperation; access to salaries or stipends, and strengthened community organizations. We also asked respondents whether the microprojects had conservation goals, what these goals were, and the extent to which the projects had contributed to conservation outcomes. Potential conservation outcomes included reductions in charcoal production, firewood extraction, hunting, mining, NTFP extraction, timber extraction, and tavy (swidden agriculture), and improved forest management. The survey was piloted in the field twice and approved by the ethics committee at Bangor University, prior to implementation. All household surveys were conducted by local research assistants (in Malagasy) in either the respondent’s house or farm, from September to November, 2015. Most of the questions were closed questions (yes/no questions, or questions with multiple choices), but the survey also included some open-ended questions to allow respondents to provide more detail on their perceptions of the outcomes of microprojects. For all open-ended questions, we first documented the responses, then categorized data into major categories, coded the categories, and then entered the coded data into the database. Data quality was ensured throughout the survey process- with interviewers systematically checking all surveys for completeness and potential errors, and data managers cross checking data entry of all surveys. The dataset archived here has been anonymized, with all personally identifiable information removed. Specifically, we have removed information on the name of the microproject (since this identifies the village where the microproject was conducted), the project code (since this identifies the village where the microproject was conducted), the respondent’s name, the respondent’s identifier, the respondent’s local nickname, the name of the village where the respondent lives (and village identifier), GPS and physical data on household location.