At policy level different emphases have grown apparent in East and Southern Africa. In the East, the main focus has been on developing more positive relationships between protected areas (PAs) and their 'neighbours' through revenue-sharing (of park receipts), setting up of park advisory committees and, in some countries, PA resource sharing. In Southern Africa, where indigenous policy reform has been important, the main focus has been on promoting wildlife utilisation outside PAs. Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE programme, promoting safari hunting and tourism in the country's communal lands, is the best known among these programmes.

In terms of policy learning at this second order level, three findings predominate. Despite regular contacts, 'transfer' of ideas between East and Southern Africa has been relatively limited. While community-based approaches commonly learned lessons from earlier rural development policies, they have been much less effective in learning from enterprise and business development strategies. In some cases conservation agencies have promoted local enterprise development strategies that have repeated policy mistakes of the 1970s such as producing for saturated markets, promoting collectives and subsidising credit.

In terms of linkages between policy and practice, there is clear evidence that some of the best policy lessons are generated when practice at the local level 'moves ahead of policy'. In Namibia's case, this occurred when specific projects defied existing policy, and may have breached the law, but ultimately generated knowledge that led to policy change.

All the studies in this research highlight the importance of local contexts to policy processes, practice and outcomes. 'Third order learning' (of the way that policies and their institutional settings interact) is essential for community-based conservation approaches to become effective. A particular problem encountered in case study projects was of aid donors trying to achieve rapid and measurable results through projects designed as blueprints.

The complexity and changing nature of different national and local contexts makes an experimental approach to new initiatives essential. When community, local government, private business and central government agencies have to work together - as is common in community conservation - then several years of institutional experimentation and adaptation will be necessary before an initiative is established.

Community-based conservation emerges from this research as a belated step in a positive direction. Bigger challenges lie ahead, however. The shift to the community gives the citizens of African nations a role in local level management and utilisation. In the future this must become a right to participate in national conservation policy formulation itself.

David Hulme
Institute for Development Policy and Management
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester
M13 9GH
UK

Tel: +44 (0)161 2752809
Fax: +44 (0)161 273 8829
Email: david.hulme@man.ac.uk

See also:

1. African Wildlife and African Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, Oxford, James Currey. Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (Eds), 1999.
2. Policy Arena: Communities, Wildlife and New Conservation in Africa, Journal of International Development 11(2) Various authors (1999).