Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 109 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 441-458

Can the Provision of Alternative Livelihoods Reduce the Impact of Wild Meat Hunting in West and Central Africa?


1 UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
2 UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

Correspondence Address:
Sylvia Wicander
UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge
UK
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/cs.cs_17_56

Rights and Permissions

As threats to the world's ecosystems continue to escalate, the demand for evidence-based conservation approaches from conservation scientists, practitioners, policy-makers and donors is growing. Wild meat hunting represents one of the biggest threats to tropical forest ecosystems and various conservation strategies have been employed with the aim of reducing hunting impacts. Alternative livelihood projects have been implemented at the community level to reduce hunting through the provision of protein and income substitutes to wild meat. However, there is scant evidence of these projects' impact on hunting practices and wildlife populations. This study addresses this knowledge gap, focusing on alternative livelihood projects in West Africa and Central Africa. A comprehensive literature review and call for information identified 155 past and current projects, of which 19 were analysed in detail through key informant interviews. The study found that a range of different livelihood alternatives are being offered. Most projects are run by local and national non-governmental organisations, and project managers acknowledged the importance of involving communities in project decision-making; however, many projects are funded through small, short-term grants and struggle to meet their objectives with the available time, funding and capacity. Given these constraints, few projects monitor their outcomes and impacts. Projects also seldom implement conditionalities and sanctions, which may lead to the alternatives offered becoming additional rather than substitutional activities. Applying currently available best-practice guidelines for Integrated Conservation and Development Project design and implementation, including the use of simple monitoring methods for evaluating outcomes and impact, would greatly increase the chances of success for alternative livelihood projects, along with a restructuring of current funding models.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1385    
    Printed65    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded246    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal