Learning our lessons: The effectiveness of

alternative livelihood projects in Central Africa

Dr Lauren Coad University of Oxford

On behalf of:Sylvia Wicander

Dominique Endamana, Gretchen Walters, Malcolm Starkey, Kenneth Angu-Angu

What is an alternative livelihood project?

Goats provided to

main hunters

Goats = higher/same

income or protein

Main hunters spend more time

tending to goats

Main hunters

hunt less

Fewer animals

are killed in

the village territory

Prey pop.

increase

How can we evaluate project success?

• Identified current and past projects in Central Africa using literature review and e-mail (over 3 months)

• Remote assessment of 15 projects, using comparative framework, document analysis and project manager interviews (1 – 2 hours)

• Field assessment of 5 projects in Gabon and Cameroon, using project participant interviews and PRA techniques

How can we evaluate project success?

Aims and Theory of Change

• What was the aim of the project? Did it remain the same throughout the project? How was the project designed to reduce hunting?

Funding

• What was the overall funding for the project? Was it part of a larger project? How many years was it funded for? Was the funding adequate?

Organizations and partners

• Who were the project implementers? Who were the project funders? Did the project work with local/national government, and in which way?

Community involvement

• Who decided on project aims? Who chose project activities? How were potential participants contacted?

How can we evaluate project success?

Participant selection

• Did the project work with a specific section of the community? Were there any criteria for participation?

Conditionality and sanctions

• What did participants have to do to be involved in the project (were there any project rules)? Were there any sanctions if participants did not change behavior? Have they ever been applied?

Monitoring and evaluation

• What were the indicators of project success? Was there a monitoring program? What data was collected? How often was it collected?

Project sustainability

• Has there been handover of the project to local stakeholders? Is the project ongoing? How was sustainability factored into the project design?

How many projects exist?

• 64 current and past projects

• Many surround PAs• Main protein

substitutes = pigs, fish and goats

• Main income substitutes = beekeeping, agriculture, mini-livestock

Project funding

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

< 20,000 20,000 –50,000

50,000 –100,000

> 100,000Nu

mb

er

of

pro

jects

Funding per annum (USD)

“The financing is so short lived …that it cannot support the project for longer periods, and this affects the overall impact that a project is supposed to achieve.”

(Project ID 3, 30 July 2012)

On average, projects were funded for less than 2 years, at under 20,000 USD per year

Organizations and community involvement

High degree of localism:

4/15 projects initiated by local communities

9/15 projects organized by local or national NGOs

8/15 employ entirely by local staff High level of community involvement in

setting project aims and choosing alternatives

Participant interviews required to truly understand community involvement

Project aims and design

Goats provided to

main hunters

Goats = higher/same income or

protein

Main hunters spend more time

tending to goats

Main hunters

hunt less

Fewer animals are killed

in the village territory

Prey pop.

increase

• Most projects did not test assumptions• Drivers of hunting can be very different to those which are assumed• Income alternative projects did not conduct market analyses• Project scale is often poorly matched to threat levels…

Project aims and design

“It is not the [little community members] who wake up in the morning with their spears to go out and hunt the elephant. No. It is the large resources that are made available, especially in the context of our region, by the military authorities, the generals and the army colonels, who send out people to do this work … Therefore, the problem of hunting and overexploitation in our area is a problem that needs to be addressed not only at the community level, but above all, at the state level.”

(Project ID 6, 25 July 2012, translated from French)

Project participants

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Eve

ryon

e

Hun

ters

(co

mbin

ed

)

Hun

ters

Hun

ters

and

Tra

ders

Hun

ters

and

Farm

Ow

ne

rs

Po

ore

st

Hou

seh

old

sNu

mb

er

of

Pro

jects

Sanctions and conditions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No Conditions, nosanctions

Conditions, nosanctions

Conditions, externalsanctions

Conditions, internalsanctions

Num

ber

of

pro

jects

Sanctions and conditions

“Even if you do as much as possible to get the level of income comparable with bushmeat hunting, there’s always that possibility that hunters are going to do both … reduction in hunting is never going to happen without compliance... Until you have enforcement there’s always a tenuous link between goodwill and action.”(Project ID 4, 31 January 2013)

Sanctions and conditions

“We can’t be too hard on people, because we haven’t been able to equip everybody [with alternatives]. We didn’t give the benefits, we didn’t give the goats, to everybody. If we penalize them, it’s as if we are sending them to die. ”

(Project ID 7, 29 July 2012, translated from French)

0123456789

101112131415

Baseline Implementation Socio-economic

Hunting Ecological

Num

ber

of

pro

jects

No

Partial

Yes

Monitoring and Evaluation

What can we do?

Recommendations for Donors:

Projects should be based on a ‘Theory of Change’, including a robust business plan for income alternatives

Funding levels and timeframes should be based on a realisticassessment of the cost of alternative livelihood projects, and of the scale required to make a difference

Specific funding should be provided for project monitoring and evaluation

What can we do?

Next steps:

• The creation of a simple monitoring and evaluation toolkit for project managers

• A set of guidelines for funders of alternative livelihood projects in Central Africa on how to how to structure project funding to ensure, minimum standards for project design, monitoring and evaluation

• A wider review of the available evidence on the successes and failures of alternative livelihood projects (currently underway at CIFOR)

Project documents

Policy briefs and full report available in French and English:

www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/ecodynamics/bushmeat.php

www.cifor.org/bushmeat

Thank you!

We would like to thank the 13 interviewees who took the time from their busy schedules to talk to us about their projects. We hope that we have accurately represented their projects, thoughts and ideas in this report.

This project was supported by the University of Oxford, IUCN-CARPE and CIFOR.

Thank also to our funders: