Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2018 | 16 | 67-74
Article title

Alternative livelihood programs in Africa: A substitute or an added portfolio?

Title variants
Languages of publication
Alternative livelihoods are often promoted by conservation organisations or governments to reduce rural people’s reliance on or use of natural resources, or to compensate them for loss of access. The effectiveness of such interventions has, however, been limited over the years. It is no news that the greatest challenges facing humankind are the alleviation of poverty and the conservation of biological diversity. Yet, rather than being perceived as separate issues, these two challenges are often closely linked. In order to find solutions to these challenges, both Non-Governmental and Governmental Organizations have put in place diverse alternative projects. Unfortunately, such endeavours have met with little or no successful outcome. This, therefore, leads to the question of whether an alternative livelihood program is really a substitute or an added portfolio to the existing activities of rural people. This paper critically examines alternative livelihood projects on the basis that these are either the former or the latter. Data was obtained through the use of various search engines and also from direct observation. The study discovered that, while different alternative livelihood projects have been employed with various objectives across Africa, most of the reviewed projects have had little or no success owing to management issues within the NGOs or GOs, and, most especially, due to the actual condition of local people. Thus, ‘alternative livelihoods’ tend to be an added portfolio of other activities rather than a substitute for current reality.
Physical description
  • Department of Forestry and Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, River State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
  • Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
  • [1] Brockington, D. (2002): Fortress conservation: The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania. Oxford, James Currey Ltd.
  • [2] Brown, D. (2003) Bushmeat and poverty alleviation: implications for development policy. ODI Wildlife Policy Briefing, 2
  • [3] Croze, H. (1982). Monitoring within and outside protected areas. In National parks, conservation and development: the role of protected areas in sustaining society (eds J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller), pp. 628‐633. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
  • [4] De Merode, E., Homewood, K. & Cowlishaw, G. (2004). The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological Conservation 118: 573-581.
  • [5] Fauna and Flora International (2013). Why Not ‘Alternative Livelihoods’?: Conservation, Livelihoods and Governance Programme August 2013. Pp. 2-3
  • [6] Ferraro, P. J. & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Public Library of Science: Biology, 4, e105. Louise Glew, Malcolm D. Hudson & Patrick E.
  • [7] Kiss, A. (2004). Is community‐based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 232‐237.
  • [8] Kremen, C., Merenlender, A. M. & Murphy, D. D. (1994). Ecological monitoring: a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology, 8, 388‐397.
  • [9] McShane, T. (2003). The devil in the detail of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 17(1): 1-3.
  • [10] Milner-Gulland, E.J. and Bennett, E.L. (2003). Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 351-357.
  • [11] Pimbert, M. P. & Pretty, J. N. (1997). Diversity and sustainability in community based conservation. UNESCOIIPA Regional Workshops on Community‐based Conservation. India.
  • [12] Pullin AS, Knight TM. (2001). Effectiveness in conservation practice: Pointers from medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 15: 50–54.
  • [13] Salafsky, N. & Wollenberg, E. (2000). Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Development, 28, 1421‐1438.
  • [14] Sunderland, T., Ehringhaus, C. and Campbell, B. (2008). Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 34(4): 276279.
  • [15] Thorsell, J. W. (1982). Evaluating effective management in protected areas: an application to Arusha National Park, Tanzania. IUCN, Gland.
  • [16] Vira, B. and Kontoleon, A. (2010). Dependence of the poor on biodiversity: which poor, what biodiversity? A State of Knowledge Review, International Institute for Environment and Development. London.
  • [17] Amy Preston (2012). Small scale alternatives to bushmeat: Success or failure? A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London
  • [18] Wicander, Sylvia and Lauren Coad (2014). Learning our Lessons: A Review of Alternative Livelihood Projects in Central Africa. IUCN and ECI, University of Oxford. DOI:10.13140/2.1.2993.7287
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.