2. 88 Sky. J. Soil. Sci. Environ. Manage.
However, harvest of animals such as tapir, duikers, deer,
pigs, peccaries, primates and larger rodents, birds and
reptiles provides benefits to local people worth millions of
US Dollar annually and represents around 6 million tons
of animals extracted yearly (Nasi et al., 2011).
As a result of this, bushmeat hunting represents one of
the biggest threats to tropical forest ecosystems and a
number of different conservation strategies have been
employed with the aim of reducing the bushmeat trade
and hunting (Wicander and Coad, 2014; Lindsey et al.,
2012; Wilkie et al., 2011; Leverington et al., 2010;
Harrisson, 2011; Abernethy et al., 2013; Fa et al., 2002;
Abernethy et al., 2013). However there has been little or
no report on such project outcome.
The wildlife conservation society (WCS) is one of the
non-governmental organizations with the mission to save
wildlife and wild places across the globe. This began in
the early 1900s when the society, successfully helped the
American bison recover on the Western Plains. Today,
WCS has helped to protect many of the world’s iconic
creatures including gorillas in Congo, tigers in India,
wolverines in the Yellowstone Rockies, and ocean giants
in various seascapes; with the commitment to protect
50% of the world’s biodiversity. WCS addresses four of
the biggest issues facing wildlife and wild places: climate
change; natural resource exploitation; the connection
between wildlife health and human health; and the
sustainable development of human livelihoods.
The mission and vision is to save wildlife and wild
places worldwide through science, conservation action,
education, and inspiring people to value nature and
envisions a world where wildlife thrives in healthy lands
and seas, valued by societies that embrace and benefit
from the diversity and integrity of life on earth. Nigeria
contains a number of rare and endemic primates such as
the Cross River gorilla, the Nigeria-Cameroon
chimpanzee, the Niger Delta red colobus monkey and the
Sclater’s guenon (www.wcsnigeria.org,
2015). Unfortunately the area has a very high human
population density and the country’s rainforests have
been extensively degraded and fragmented, whilst
populations of large mammals have been severely
reduced by widespread hunting to supply demand for wild
meat, known as bushmeat. The WCS project site (Figure
1) in Nigeria is located in Cross River and Taraba State
where they help in the conservation of this species by
providing alternative livelihood programs such as
Beekeeping and Snail farming for hunters, as well as by
reducing hunting through supporting the management of
protected areas, through community conservation and
conservation education (www.wcsnigeria.org, 2015).
Study area
Cross River State is located in South Eastern Nigeria.
The area lies between longitudes 7
o
40”, and 9
0
50” East
of the Greenwich meridian and latitudes 4
0
40”, and 7
0
00”
North of the equator. It covers an area of approximately
23,074.43km
2
. The area is within the equatorial region
with mean monthly temperature of between 24.2 and
27.4°C, and average annual rainfall of between 2000 to
3500 mm.
The Afi-Mbe-Okwangwo landscape is located in the
Boki Local Government Area of Cross River State,
Nigeria. It lies between latitudes 06°10’N and 06°30’N,
and longitudes 08°50’E and 09°30E and covers an area
of approximately 180,531 ha. Afi Mountain Wildlife
Sanctuary is surrounded by 16 communities with a total
population of approximately 27,000. It is managed by the
Cross River State Forestry Commission with support from
Wildlife Conservation Society and other partners such as
the North Carolina Zoo and Pandrillus.
(www.wcsnigeria.org, 2015). The Mbe Mountains is
owned traditionally by the nine communities that surround
it with a total of 10,000 people (ww.wcsnigeria.org, 2015).
The Okwangwo division of the Cross River National Park
(CRNP is surrounded by at least 39 communities with a
total population of some 29,000 (www.wcsnigeria.org,
2015).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data was collected between June 2015 and July 2015
with semi-structured interviews. Secondary data was
collected from the WCS website (through the internet)
and at WCS office in Calabar. The study design
employed is observational and socio-economic in nature.
Purposive sampling (Gray, 2009) was used based on
existing organizational leaders and also on hunters who
participated in the livelihood program. This is because
purposeful samples are the best to use when identified
sub-groups are most likely going to significantly differ in
their answers to questions. Also, purposive sampling was
used in order to include specific groups since some of
them were a smaller proportion of the target population
that would otherwise have been missed if simple random
sampling were used (Gray, 2009).
Oral interviews were conducted for hunters trained in
both beekeeping and snail farming) by the WCS.
Message was sent to individual village chairman prior to
the day of visit to inform all hunters that participated in
the project. The study covered 95% of all the adopted
communities for the project. It was carried out in 9, 13
and 14 communities from Mbe, Afi and Okwango
respectively. The interview session was recorded with an
audio recorder and later transcribed into transcripts.
Baseline survey which involved visiting all the hunters
trained by WCS was also carried out. Thus, the condition
of their beekeeping and snail farming was evaluated.
Records of number of snail given at the beginning of the
program, the number of beehives and comparing it with
what they have presently. More so, the level of income
3. Lewiska et al. 89
Figure 1. The WCS project sites in Nigeria
Source: www.wcsnigeria.org, 2015
made from the program, the production level, how they
market and how it has been able to sustain and prevent
or reduce their hunting activities was checked.
RESULTS
The WCS alternative livelihood programs engaged 39
communities from Mbe, Afi and Okwango division of the
national park. Hunters trained at each village range
between 1-3 either in beekeeping or snail farming. A total
of 57 respondents were interviewed in which 19 are from
Mbe, 21 from Afi and 17 from the Okwango division of the
national park. Five trained hunters were reported dead
and one excommunicated by the project coordinator.
A total of 41 hunters (71.9%) from all three divisions
are into beekeeping while 28.1% (16) are into snail
farming. However, 57.9% from Mbe Mountains are into
beekeeping, while 42.1% are into snail farming. At Afi
division, 95.2% are into beekeeping while 4.8% are into
snail farming. At the Okwango division of the National
Park, 58.8% are into beekeeping and 41.2% are into snail
farming.
Majority (81.0%) of the respondents at Afi, reported that
their hives are yet to be colonized. At Mbe, most of them
(83.3%) asserted that they do not readily get buyers for
the honey harvested. At the Okwango division, greater
part of the respondent (52.9%) said that they get buyers
readily while 29.4% reported that they do not get buyers
readily.
At Mbe, 36.8% of the respondents said that they sell
their honey/snail within the village, 63.2% testified that no
honey/snail was harvested. At Afi, 23.5% of the
respondents said that they sell their honey/snail within
the village, 35.3% of the respondent said that no
honey/snail was harvested and 35.3% of the respondents
form Afi said that their hives is yet to be colonized.
When asked why their hives are yet to be colonized since
they were trained 2014, majority said that there was
delay in materials such as the hive stand, bee wax, zinc
shield and bars.
The result reveals that 78.9% of the respondents at
Mbe are not benefiting from the alternative project while
21.1% said they are benefiting from the program (Snail
farming and Beekeeping). At Afi, 85.7% reported that
they are not benefiting from the project while 14.3% of
the respondent interviewed said otherwise. 64.7% of the
respondent at the Okwango testified that they are not
benefiting from the project while 35.3% of interviewed
respondents said they are benefiting from the program.
Figure 2 reveals the distribution of trained hunter’s
response on whether they still hunt once in a while. At
Mbe, 47.7% of the respondents reported that they still
hunt once in a while after being trained for alternative
livelihood while 52.6% said that they do not hunt at all. At
Afi, 47.6% said that they still hunt once in a while after
the training while 52.4% testified that they do not hunt at
all. At the Okwango division, 58.8% reported that they still
hunt once in a while and 49.1% said do not hunt at all.
At Mbe, 52.6% reported that the program lacks
supervision, monitoring and follow-up, 10.5% said that
there was partiality in choosing hunters that will benefit
from the program and 15.8% of the trained hunters
interviewed said that there was delay of materials
delivery that would have ensure immediate
implementation (Figure 3).
At Afi, 4.8% said the alternative provided is not profiting
while 71.4% complained of delay in the necessary
materials to implement the project. At the Okwango
division, 21.1% complained of no supervision and follow-
up, 3.5% complained of partiality in materials given, 3.5%
reported that the alternative provided is not profiting and
finally, 35.1% reveals that the project delayed in giving
out materials needed.
4. 90 Sky. J. Soil. Sci. Environ. Manage.
Figure 2. Distribution of respondents reports on if they are
still hunting once in a while.
Figure 3. Distribution of respondent statement about the project outcome.
Figure 4 reveals that at Mbe, only 10.5% (2) hunters
trained are still actively involved in the alternative
livelihood program (Beekeeping) while 89.5% (17) are not
active. At Afi, 23.8% (5) are active and 76.2% (16)
hunters are not active. At the Okwango division, 43.8%
(7) are still active while 56.3% (9) are not active. Those
that are actively practicing are into beekeeping (7)
Discussion
The success and sustainability of any alternative
livelihood project is basically tied down to the
understanding of the people, the level of their
dependence on the forest, their felt need coupled with
their interest and determination in achieving that need
especially when it comes to conserving biodiversity
(Wicander and Coad, 2014; McDermott et al., 2012).
This project evaluation used indicators from both parties:
the project participant and project initiator to get a
balanced report.
The level of success of the alternative livelihood project
from the three divisions is quite poor based on different
reasons. One of the reasons observed is that meat of
wild animals has long been a part of the staple diet of
forest dwelling people (Elliott et al., 2002; FAO 2006a;
CBD, 2010). It is the primary source of animal protein for
the majority of forest families (Wilkie et al., 2005). Sequel
to this fact, it is paramount to involve the target group in
the project initiation (i.e. what alternative the people have
interest in and that can serve the best substitute for
bushmeat) which was observed to be lacking from the
onset of the project.
Most of the trained hunters interviewed at the Mbe
division complained of no market, that the little they sold
within the village cannot substitute the income gotten
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Mbe
division
Afi
division
Okwango
division
Frequency
yes
no
0
5
10
15Frequency
5. Lewiska et al. 91
Figure 4. Distribution of respondents practicing WCS livelihood program.
from hunting owing to the fact that snail can easily be
gotten from the forest and access to market where they
could have made high sale is either not available or
limited especially in some of the villages situated right
inside the national park where construction of road is
prohibited wherein bike ( also known as ‘Okada”) is what
is used to travel long distance which is very expensive.
Another major problem was inadequate monitoring and
supervision (Salafsky et al., 2001)
Almost all the respondent complained of no supervision
and monitoring after they were trained. Those that are
farming snail complained mostly of their snails dying in
which the project coordinator told them via phone to
remove the dead snail from the pen with no further help.
This led to a complete failure for those trained in snail
farming as not a single hunter trained in snail farming had
snails in their pens from the three Divisions. Due to this
fact, further hunters are trained on beekeeping.
The project would have been a little of a success story if
proper supervision or further help on the management of
the snails were provided (Salafsky et al., 2001). In fact
most of the villages adopted for the project have not been
visit for a very long time after the hunters were trained for
follow up on how they are managing. On the part of those
trained in Beekeeping, some of them are afraid to harvest
the honey: on the reason that the honeybees in the area
are more aggressive than normal, adding that it stings
even after wearing all the necessary protective clothing.
This problem would have also been solved if there was
frequent visit to check how the project participants are
managing the project.
Hunters from Afi were recently trained (November,
2014) and very few of them have taken their hives to the
forest. As a result, the hives are yet to be colonized as at
when this data was collected. This is because the project
coordinator delayed in distributing all the necessary
materials that would have enabled them to take the hives
to the forest and the few that were given were
incomplete. Consequently, in Afi none of the respondents
have started benefiting from the program invariably one
could say that they are still hunting even though most of
them said otherwise because of the fear of arrest.
Meanwhile, all these occurrences were not reported at
the head office. The report from Okwango is not too
different from that of Mbe and Afi, very few are active.
Most of the hunters trained in this region are very much
into hunting.
Most of the hunters trained still go about their normal
hunting activities even when they are actively involved
and benefiting from the alternative provided, reason
being that what they get as income from the project is not
enough (Waylen et al., 2010; Ostrom, 2009). This
corroborated with the report of Wicander and Coad
(2014) that few projects implement conditionalities and
6. 92 Sky. J. Soil. Sci. Environ. Manage.
sanctions, which may lead to the alternatives offered
becoming an additional activities rather than
substitutional activities.
The major reason for the failure or little success of the
WCS alternative project is due to the following:
i.) Inadequate Staff: The alternative livelihood program
was carried out in over 40 villages and their
location far apart with just one coordinator directly
involved. Consequently, there will be problem of
supervision.
ii.) No Or Poor Supervision: the program lacks
supervision and monitoring. Some villages were last
visited two to three years ago after the hunters were
trained.
iii.) Number Of Hunters Trained Per Village: The number
of hunters trained per village is too little for the
impact to be effective and this could make other hunters
to intensify their hunting as some of the hunters
interviewed already testified that the program is one-
sided (Persha et al., 2011).
iv.) Politics: Unseriousness on the part of the Hunters:
Even after giving some hunters the complete materials
for snail farming and Beekeeping, nothing was done.
Some of them went back to their normal hunting
routine the next day.
v.) Clarity of Report: Project coordinator may not have
reported the project outcome as it was on the field.
vi.) Alternative Provided: The alternative provided for
hunters cannot be compared with what they get from
hunting. The average mean income from the alternative
provided is N15, 307 while that of hunters not trained is
N79, 964. From this, there is significant difference
between them. And also, for beekeeping, the income is
not monthly. After harvesting the first time, it takes about
three months or two weeks before the hives are
colonized depending on how lucky the hunters are and
from each harvest, the income made is N14, 000, that is,
20 litres. As a result, in a year harvest is made twice.
vii.) Another major problem observed during the
interviews with hunters trained in the alternative livelihood
is that most of them do not know what they can do other
than hunting. This could be a big problem for the success
of any alternative livelihood program.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the work focused on the evaluation of
wildlife conservation society alternative livelihood project
in Afi, Mbe and the Okwango division of the National park
in Cross River state, Nigeria where project participants
and project staff was orally interview with direct
observation on project outcome and sustainability.
Based on the findings from this study, the following are
propositions that would improve alternative livelihood
projects:
i.) There should be regular monitoring and evaluation of
project outcome by the project coordinator and also a
representative from each village or location that can
report all projects activities weekly until the program is
sustainable.
ii.) Impromptu visit should be done by project directors as
often as possible.
iii.) All hunters trained should have a meeting with the
director ones in a month to discuss project outcome.
iv.) Any alternative provided should substitute the income
gotten from hunting and should be suggested by the
hunters.
v.) There should be sanctions and conditions in other to
participate in the project and this must be done with the
community heads.
vi.) Alternative provided should not only substitute what is
gotten from hunting but should be what the people are
familiar with. Thus, it should be built upon what they are
conversant with.
vii.) The number of hunters trained should be increased
thus donors are encourage to be more supportive with
fund so that the project can reach a wide range of
hunters for good success.
From all observation, the best alternative for hunters
would be employment i.e. alternative that is salary based.
REFERENCES
Abernethy K, Ndong Obiang AM (2010). Bushmeat in Gabon/La viande
de Brousse au Gabon. Technical Report to the Directeur Generale
des Eaux et Forets, President de la Comite Inter-ministerielle de la
Strategie Nationale de Gestion de la Viande de Brousse. Ministere
des Eaux et Forets, Gabon.
Convention of Biological Diversity (2010). A good practice guide
sustainable forest management, biodiversity and livelihoods an
intercontinental comparison. Conserv. Biol. J., 16(1): 232-237.
Fa JE, Peres CA, Meeuwig J (2002). Bushmeat exploitation in tropical
forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conserv. Biol., 16(1): 232-
237.
FAO (2006). Global forest resources assessment 2005: Progress
towards sustainable forest management. FAO: Rome.
Gray DE (2009). Doing Research in the Real World, 2nd ed.; SAGE
Publications Ltd.: London, UK,
Leverington F, Lemos Costa K, Courrau J, Pavese H, Nolte C, Marr M,
Coad L, Burgess N, Bomhard B, Hockings M (2010). Management
effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study.
Second edition 2010. The University of Queensland Brisbane.
Australia.
Lindsey P, Purchase G, Eves H (2012). Illegal hunting and the
bushmeat trade: interventions needed to address the threat posed to
wildlife in the Southern African Development Community.
Mcdermott MH, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2011). A framework for
defining equity. Policy brief for Safeguarding local equity as global
values of ecosystem services rise project under Ecosystem Services
for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme,
Nasi R, Taber A, Van Vliet N (2011). Empty forests, empty stomachs?
Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC) (UK).
Ostrom E (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of
Social- Ecological Systems. Sci., 325(5939): 419-42
Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A( 2011). Social and Ecological Synergy:
Local Rulemaking, Forest Livelihoods, and Biodiversity Conserv. Sci.,
331(6024): 1606-1608.
Robert N, David B, David W, Elisabeth B, Caroline T, Gijs VT, TC
7. (2010). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: the
bushmeat crisis. CBD Technical Series No.33
Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford K (2001). Adaptive management: a
tool for conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program,
Washington, D.C.
Sunderland T, Ehringhaus C, Campbell B (2008). Conservation and
development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-
offs?, Environ. Conserv. J., 34(4): 276279-1778696
Vira B, 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
Lewiska et al. 93
Waylen KA, Fischer A, Mcgowan PJK, Thirgood SJ, Milnergulland EJ,
(2010). Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of
Community-Based Conservation Interventions. Conserv. Biol., 24(4):
1119-1129.
Wilkie DS, Bennett EL, Peres CA, Cunningham AA (2011). The empty
forest revisited. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1223, 120-128.
www.wcsnigeria.org, (2015). Map of WCS Project site in Nigeria.
