Exploring stakeholder perceptions of conservation outcomes from alternative income generating activities in Tanzanian villages adjacent to Eastern Arc Mountain forests

K Sainsbury,N.D Burgess,F Sabuni,C Howe,E Puis,R Killenga,E.J Milner-Gulland

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.001

Abstract

Critical evaluation of the impact of conservation actions is essential to meet the challenges posed by the biodiversity crisis. Conservationists need to understand which interventions work or fail, and how to improve them in order to invest limited funds wisely. Alternative income-generating activities (IGAs) are widely implemented within conservation and development projects, but their impact is rarely evaluated. The “ranked outcomes” evaluation methodology converts qualitative information on planned and realised outcomes into a score for comparison between projects. We test this methodology in two ways using a set of small scale IGAs implemented in communities adjacent to the Uzungwa Scarp proposed Nature Reserve in the Tanzanian Eastern Arc Mountains. The first approach used an independent evaluator and the second assessed project impacts from the perspective of target communities. Both evaluations rated Tree Planting as the most socially beneficial IGA, followed by Fish Farming. However, there was a high level of heterogeneity of perception between and within stakeholder groups (implementers and target communities), both in terms of which outcomes were most important and how well they had been achieved. Ranked outcomes emerged as a flexible framework that defines the terms of the evaluation for all stakeholders from the outset, even in cases when evaluation and clear goal-setting are omitted from original project design and planning. It can be modified for use as a component of rigorous impact assessment, to incorporate perspectives of all stakeholders, and provides important insights in data-poor situations and where baselines are not available.

Highlights

Evaluation of conservation projects has become a focal issue for policy makers at the macro level, with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) driving the agenda (Mascia et al, 2014)
We explore the potential of the Ranked Outcomes (RO) method using a portfolio of projects funded by a Tanzanian conservation funding organisation, the Eastern Arc Mountains Conservation Endowment Fund (EAMCEF; www.easternarc.or.tz) in the Kilolo district of Iringa region in the Southern highlands of Tanzania, adjacent to the Uzungwa Scarp proposed Nature Reserve (USpNR)
Feedback from the respondents was that it was in some cases “difficult to prioritise as all of the outcomes are important” but that it was a “useful exercise to think again about what we are trying to achieve and why we are here”

Summary

Introduction

Evaluation of conservation projects has become a focal issue for policy makers at the macro level, with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) driving the agenda (Mascia et al, 2014). Support tools are being developed by academic groups, for example the Cambridge Conservation Forum Conservation Evaluation Tool (Kapos et al, 2008) and the Ranked Outcomes approach (Howe and Milner-Gulland, 2012). Common features of these frameworks and tools include a focus on “outcomes” (the change resulting from an intervention) as well as “inputs” (what resources were expended), “activity” (how were they expended) and “outputs” (what was delivered; Cambridge Conservation Forum Measures of Success Project). The variety of frameworks available presents practitioners with a new challenge – which of the available approaches will best suit their particular project’s need to return reliable and informative results, costeffectively, as part of their ongoing programmes?

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion