50 



And Kenya is not the only country in which this land of work is progressing. In Taniania, 

 USAID supports another policy-level project, called PAWM (Planning and Assessment for 

 Wildlife Management), which the Tanzanian government uses to develop sustainable resource 

 use policies. AWF also works in Uganda, at Lake Mburo, and in Rwanda, with communities 

 surrounding the gorillas of the Virunga Mountains. Southern African nations, including 

 Zimbabwe and Zambia, oversee similar projects. The point I want to make is that Africa has 

 begun to tuild its conservation foundation, but is very short of financial resources to finish its 

 task. Revenue- sharing in Uieory may pay for itself, particularly if the revenue base is well 

 managed and intensively harvested. But in reality, it takes a great deal of investment to make it 

 stable, to build an institution around it. What we need from the U.S. government and other 

 donors is a long-term commitment. We need stability in funding and a willingness to keep 

 support coming for many years. If the committee can address this need It could do an 

 Immeasurable service to the people of Africa. 



If 1 may, I would like to conclude by going a little deeper into the kinds of things the U.S. 

 government can do in the name of wildlife conservation in Africa. Again, I am concentrating on 

 community -based wildlife conservation rather than some of the other projects AWF operates, 

 because it is particularly important to nourish this seed until it can grow on its own. As one of 

 our founders once said, the goal of our organization is to work ourselves out of a job. Only 

 when we have done that can Africa's resources be considered conserved. 



The first recommendation I would make is to fund projects that work on a variety of levels. The 

 "Neighbors as Partners" program has always emphasized vertical integration: grass-roots 

 activities, including comrrunity development, meshed with regional planning and national policy 

 work Rural people have some control over their day-to-day resource use. But it is naive and 

 counter-p'oducuve to assume that merely satisfying a few material needs of these people will 

 free them to become sustainable users, even if they wanted to. A great many policies, laws, and 

 economic conditions affect the decisions of resource users; these larger forces can negate any 

 progress made on the grass-roots. What we are trying to do is shift the fundamental relationship 

 between people and natural resources, the essence of rural life, in a certain direction. This 

 involves, first, unlocking the possibilities, and second convincing people to embrace them. 



Next, there is a dire need for greater capacity among conservation personnel in many countries. 

 Community conservation personnel require specialized skills for which they rarely receive 

 training. The small training budgets of most states are insufficient in this regard. 



Finally, I would urge the U.S. funding strategy to seek self-sufficiency in community 

 conservation projects. AWF has placed great emphasis on promoting the idea of community 

 conservation as a necessary component of park manage mem. rather than a desirable add-on. 

 The costs associated with such projects must be built-in, institutionalized within the framework 

 of park management anc therefore stable. Donors interested In supporting parks and neighboring 

 communities must therefore commit to longer term assistance if their aid is to be meaningful. 

 Since most donors commit funds only for medium terms (5 year), and require outputs that may 



