Consultant for Socio-Economic Study for Impact Monitoring & Evaluation Program in Dzanga-Sangha Protected Area (DSPA) 78 views0 applications

1. Background information and description of project area

The Dzanga Sangha Protected areas (DSPA) are currently planning a socio-economic study for continued social impact monitoring and evaluation in the DSPA in the Central African Republic (CAR). The aim is to assess and evaluate the social, economic and cultural impact of the conservation area and associated conservation and community development programs on the livelihood and well-being of local and indigenous communities living in and around the protected zones. For this purpose, WWF CAR is seeking a consultancy who will support the DPSA management throughout the study (designing, implementing, and analyzing).

The DPSA consisting of the Dzanga Ndoki National Parks and surrounding buffer zones (including community hunting zones) comprises of 4,450 km2 rainforest area around the Sangha river in the southwestern corner of the CAR. Together with the bordering national parks and buffer zones of Lobéké in Cameroon und Nouabale Ndoki in the Republic of Congo it forms the Sangha Tri-National complex (TNS) – a landscape that was declared an UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012. The DSPA is inhabited by an impressive diversity of plant and animal life including large mammal species such as forest elephants, lowland gorillas, chimpanzees, bongo, forest buffalo, giant forest hogs and a variety of monkeys and duikers. The forest region is also the home to culturally diverse human communities including indigenous peoples and other Central African groups who have lived in the region since before the establishment of the DSPA. These communities include the BaAka, an indigenous group who has traditionally led a seminomadic life engaging in various foraging activities inside the forest, and the Sangha-Sangha, another cluster of indigenous peoples who have lived in settlements along the Sangha river engaging in traditional fishing and subsistence agriculture. Nowadays, indigenous people live together with other Central African groups (e.g. Mpiemo, Gbaya) in a series of mostly small villages along the road crossing the reserve from its periphery in the north to its border with Cameroon in the south.

WWF and its partners have supported the Central African Ministry of Water, Forests, Hunting and Fishing (MEFCP) in managing the DPSA since 1989. The main mission of the co-managing partners is to protect the precious biodiversity of the DPSA while promoting the sustainable use of its natural resources and improving the livelihood of indigenous and local communities. This includes programs for management and surveillance of the protected area (e.g. participatory community management, anti-poaching programs), the promotion of sustainable forestry, research and ecotourism (for example, through the local primate habituation program). Being the only international organization that has been active in the region consistently over a longer period of time, WWF has also engaged in collaborations with local CSOs for projects specifically aiming at promoting sustainable development, livelihood and well-being of indigenous and local communities. Such projects include, among others, the facilitation of access to health services and education, the establishment of a human rights center, the maintenance of a local radio and the support of an indigenous youth group engaging in various activities for preserving cultural heritage and the empowerment of their communities.

2. Research objectives

2.1 Purpose of the study

The overall goal is to design and conduct a broad, systematic socio-economic survey that provides information on the demographic and socio-economic structures, livelihood and well-being of indigenous and local communities living in and around the DSPA as well as on their relationship with and perception of the DSPA and its partners (adaptation of previous 2021 socio-economic study). The resulting information shall be used to evaluate and monitor the social, economic and cultural impact of the DPSA and associated conservation and community development programs, and how this has evolved since the last socio-economic study of 2021 (baseline).

2.2 Study objectives

The main objectives for the socio-economic baseline study are the following:

1. To update an existing cartography of the communities in and around the protected area and buffer zone including information on their basic demographic, social and economic structures and infrastructures;
2. To document and compare how different indigenous and local communities are involved in and affected by the protected area and the DPSA activities; and assess and compare the level of awareness and perception of the protected areas and the DPSA activities in different indigenous and local communities;
3. To apply and measure specific regionally comparative indicators of wellbeing (Basic Necessities Survey), health (Food Consumption Score), and community conservation (Natural Resource Governance Tool) (see methodological note in annex);
   • Specifically identify and compare the status of specific indicators of well-being on which the protected area and associated DPSA projects are thought to have a direct positive or negative impact;
4. To compare these metrics to 2021 baseline study results and consider methodological changes needed to integrate newly suggested metrics (BNS, FCS and NRGT).

3. Methodology

3.1 Community and participant sampling

The cartography of the communities and basic infrastructure (study objective 1) should comprise all villages within DSPA and those classified as ‘direct periphery’ (a total of 22 villages/settlements; see ‘village list’ in annex). Additionally, a limited set of villages out of the direct periphery but within the DSPA intervention where DSPA conservation and community development activities do not impact local and indigenous communities as strongly should be targeted to allow for an outgroup comparison. The total population in villages within DSPA and its ‘direct periphery’ is estimated at around 30 000 people, within an intervention zone representing around 50 000 people.

For assessing and comparing the relationship with and perception of the protected area and DPSA activities across different communities and for establishing and assessing indicators of well-being (study objectives 2 and 3), appropriate household and participant samples will be established based on the proposed study design. On the community level, data collection could be based on samples from all communities or a specified subset of communities that vary along dimensions that are relevant for answering the study questions. On the household and individual level, samples should be representative in terms of ethnic group, gender, and age group. The study proposal should clearly indicate the sampling procedure.

The study shall follow a participatory approach and ensure compliance with WWF social safeguard policies, embracing study design and indicator identification, data collection and transparent and accessible data analysis. The study proposal should indicate how indigenous and local communities will be involved in the processes of the study and subsequent monitoring system from the design to the disclosure of the results.

3.2 Design and methods of socio-economic survey

Data will be collected using different quantitative and qualitative methods, for example, GPS mapping, community surveys, household surveys, interviews, focus group discussions. Where possible, data collection should integrate already existing sociological analyses in support of indigenous and local communities and can include sources of secondary data, for example, through project partners or the public sector (e.g. health posts, schools, human rights center). The specialized consultancy together with the DSPA team will be able to choose the appropriate methodology and define the different sources for collecting the relevant data.

3.3 Data collection tools

Data shall be collected and processed using mobile devices (e.g., tablets, mobile phones) and digital data tools as much as possible in order to establish a time-efficient and error-resistant system. Preferably software and platforms that are compatible with the tools and software already supported by the WWF in other project sites will be used (KoboCollect, EarthRanger, Survey123, Globil). The 2021 survey set-up is fully available for replication and improvement in the 2026 socio-economic follow-up study.

Additionally, there may be sources of secondary data that have been collected in the course of community development projects by the DSPA or by local partner organizations providing valuable information on certain aspects of local livelihood such as health, schooling, access to legal support, governance, and cultural perspectives.

4. Proposed Timeline

November 2025 – January 2026

Preparation: Development of survey design, data collection plan and the final indicator system together with local communities and DSPA Team, including preparatory meetings with communities and stakeholders, scanning of secondary data, community mapping, potential piloting of survey methods, tools to be used for data collection and trainings of the survey team. The consultancy is expected to be in the field for (part) of the preparation phase at the minimum, and ideally also during (start of) data collection.

February /March 2026

Data collection: Conduction of household surveys, interviews, or focus group discussions in target communities.

April – June 2026

Analysis and evaluation: data analysis, presentation and discussion of results, final report.

5. Deliverables by the consultancy

Expected results and deliverables by the consultancy are:

1. Final study design, incl. final indicator system, description of methods and sampling procedure and a data collection and analysis plan (in French)
2. Templates and documents for electronic survey and data sheets (in French)
3. Trainings in digital data collection
4. Data base with raw data and results
5. Final report with the evaluation of the results (in French, with English executive summary)
6. Corresponding templates for electronic data collection and future independent subsequent analysis (in French)

6. Proposal and selection criteria for consultancy

6.1 Expected content of proposal

The consultancy should submit a proposal for a study design and work plan for the preparation and implementation of the baseline study and the set-up of the subsequent monitoring system. The proposal should describe and specify:

• The research plan and design for the baseline study
• The specific methods that will be used
• The sampling procedure
• A description of the expected results and outcomes based on the proposed objectives, design and methodology (e.g., how results will be presented, visualized and communicated)
• A timeline and description of the work plan for how the study will be prepared and conducted in collaboration with the DSPA team and in consultation with the communities
• A comprehensive budget

6.2 Selection criteria

The consultancy should have expertise and experience with qualitative and quantitative methods, in socio-economic or socio-cultural research, and with participatory approaches for involving indigenous and local communities in the development of socio-economic indicators, and the monitoring and evaluation process. The consultancy has also expertise and experience with digital tools and electronic data collection to facilitate the collection, processing, storage and accessibility of long-term data for monitoring and evaluation. Research experience in the project region and language competence in the local languages (e.g. Sango, YaAka) are of a great advantage. French language competences are required.

The consultancy for this project will be chosen according to the following selection criteria:

• On-site presence (minimum 3 weeks at key intervention points)
• Suitability of the proposed study design, methodology and expected results for addressing the study objectives and for providing the basis for the planned impact monitoring and evaluation program
• Feasibility and suitability of the proposed work and communication plan for collaborating with the DSPA research team and providing consultancy services (e.g., the conduction of meetings, trainings, organization of remote support and communication)
• Qualification and experience of the consultancy with regards to proposed study design, work plan, project region, locally relevant languages
• Proposed timeline and costs in relation to expected results and deliverables

APPENDIX – Examples for data to be collected in baseline study

Study objective 1 – basic demographic and socio-economic information about the communities:

• numbers or estimates of the residents (disaggregated by ethnic groups, gender, age groups)
• the most common economic activities (e.g., employment, business, agriculture, foraging for subsistence)
• basic information on the social and governance structure within the community (e.g., administrative and traditional authorities, local institutions and interest groups)
• cartography of the infrastructure, e.g., location of schools, health posts/ hospitals, sources of water, road(s), markets, missions/churches, public institutions (e.g., police, human right center), access to communication and media (e.g., radio, phone reception coverage)

Study objective 2 – assessment and comparison of the relationship with and perception of the protected area and DPSA activities across different communities:

• employment or income opportunities through the DPSA
• community participation in landscape planning, project implementation, community monitoring programs
• involvement in tourism and research
• the use of infrastructure or services provided through DPSA (e.g., roads, media)
• restrictions in economic or cultural activities or mobility
• (loss of jobs) and business opportunities
• human wildlife conflicts (e.g., agricultural losses)

Study objective 3- The indicator system of local livelihood and well-being

• The indicator system can be based on and adapted from already existing frameworks, (BNS, FCS, NRGT, …).
• The indicator system should include a broad spectrum of aspects of livelihood (for example., food security, basic material needs, education, health) and address all three dimensions of human wellbeing, i.e., material, social, and subjective.
• The study design should include a predefined method of how indicators are selected and combined into indices or composite scores, and how thresholds or standards of well-being will be established, feeding off the 2021 socio-economic study.