Sustainable Livelihoods from Theory to Conservation Practice: An Extended Annotated Bibliography

Sustainable Livelihoods from Theory to Conservation Practice 42 ongoing evaluation and adaptation. Moreover, the effectiveness of CBNRM, Tyler suggests, comes from 1) the engagement of key actors in posing relevant questions and developing innovative solutions, 2) the adoption of results by local resource users, governments, and development professionals, and 3) the empowering and transformative effect of the process.

Walpole, M., Wilder, L., Granziera, A., Thomas, D., & Elliot, J. (2007). Measuring the Impact of Livelihoods Initiatives in a Conservation Context. Cambridge, UK: FFI/Birdlife International/AWF This document summarizes the results of a workshop convened by three conservation organizations that focused on the monitoring and evaluation of livelihoods interventions in a conservation context. The workshop brought together 40 professionals from international conservation and development organizations and academia to explore best practice in livelihoods monitoring and evaluation. A number of recommendations for improving monitoring and evaluation in livelihoods initiatives that emerged included: 1) planning for and creating frameworks for monitoring and evaluation from the outset, 2) using a suite of complimentary qualitative and quantitative monitoring tools, 3) building skills and expertise, 4) institutionalizing a culture of learning at all levels of the organization, and 5) learning from the experiences of development organizations. Particularly given the increased focus on local social well-being and the framing of conservation projects by livelihoods-focused initiatives, the report argues, the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of these projects is of increasing importance.

Wilder, M., & Walpole, L. (2008). Disentangling the links between conservation and poverty reduction in practice. Flora, 42(4), 539-547.

In this article, Matt Walpole and Lizzie Wilder, of Fauna & Flora International, examine 34 livelihoodsoriented conservation projects of Fauna & Flora International and categorize their rationales or goals, approaches to poverty reduction, and outcomes. The various projects’ primary and seconday rationales were assigned as follows: reducing poverty improves conservation outcomes (18 and 23 projects); conservation hinders poverty reduction (8 and 13 projects); poverty reduction hinders conservation (5 and 10 projects); conservation underpins poverty reduction (2 and 13 projects); poverty reduction generates goodwill and trust (1 and 5 projects). The authors suggest that projects mostly sought win-win or trade-off scenarios between poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation; however, sometimes interventions were not directly linked to conservation. Of the project interventions, 18 focused on direct field-based benefits (such as income, food security, health), 8 focused on indirect benefits (governance, capacity, empowerment), and 8 focused on a combination of approaches. It is noteworthy that less than 20% of the projects focused on eco-tourism development. Though projects sometimes contributed to tangible natural, physical (i.e, infrastructure), and financial asset development, livelihood outcomes were most often in less tangible areas of empowerment, security and network development. In conclusion, the authors argue that conservation organizations need to be clear about their rationales and the types of benefits that might come from their interventions. Ongoing research, monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of interventions could further enhance future policy and practice in this area.