Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation

Can forest conservation strengthen livelihoods and climate resilience? Evidence from eastern Madagascar
Integrated climate programmes increasingly seek to protect ecosystems while strengthening the livelihoods and resilience of people who depend on them. This impact evaluation examines a programme in eastern Madagascar that combined climate-resilient agriculture and livelihood support with community-based forest protection and restoration. Using longitudinal household data, the study assesses changes in agricultural practices, income, food security, vulnerability to climate shocks and deforestation. Annual deforestation rates in project areas fell from 3.2 per cent to 0.8 per cent, participating households shifted toward more diverse farming systems, and agricultural income increased. Among households affected by the 2022 cyclone, project participants were less likely to use negative coping strategies. At the same time, food-security gains were limited and adoption of several labour- and input-intensive conservation practices declined after project support ended. Female-headed households faced particular constraints in sustaining those practices. The results show both the potential and the conditions required for integrated conservation and livelihood interventions to generate durable climate benefits.

When ecosystem restoration meets livelihoods: Evidence from Uganda’s wetlands
Integrated wetland restoration programmes often aim to restore ecosystems while helping households shift toward more climate-resilient livelihoods. This impact evaluation examines whether that pathway was emerging in eastern and south-western Uganda. The study compares households in project and non-project wetland areas and uses qualitative evidence to explain how implementation shaped outcomes. Households in project areas showed greater recognition of wetland degradation pressures, broader crop diversification and greater uptake of some proactive adaptation measures. These early and intermediate changes had not translated into measurable improvements in crop income, household expenditure, food security or livestock assets by endline. Total household income was lower in the main specification, and project households were more likely to rely on distress coping responses to shocks. Qualitative evidence points to delayed and uneven livelihood support, alternatives that were not always adequate or locally suitable, and operational constraints that limited timely course correction. The findings show that ecosystem restoration, livelihood transition and household resilience can unfold on different timelines and require careful sequencing and adaptive management.