61 



often staved off some of the worst effects of crop failure, starvation; or communildes may 

 pool their resources to build a clinic or school; often the money will be communally invested 

 in an income generating project, such as a grinding mill or shop. 



CAMPFIRE is not only focused on wildlife management and income generating programs 

 but also on the sustainable use of other natural resources. It is a means by which 

 communities can take back control over their own futures and reassert their self-reliance. It 

 has returned to rural communities the right to make decisions concerning how they will use 

 their natural resources. CAMPFIRE has become a forum for a wide range of issues, 

 including representation, economic participation and the local governance of communal areas. 

 In many ways it is an exercise in democracy. It wiU be tragic and ironic if these rights are 

 undermined yet again by imperialistic approaches from outside that prescribe externally 

 determined environmental policies. 



CAMPFIRE is by no means the only initiative of this type. Similar programs are in operation 

 in Botswana, Namibia, Malawi and Zambia. Tanzania, South Africa and Mozambique are 

 exploring options for developing programs, whilst several countries outside Southern Africa, 

 such as Uganda, Cameroon and Kenya are implementing pilot projects. 



INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND NATURAL RESOURCES 



It may be interesting to note that the impact of the US has played a significant role in the 

 history of CAMPFIRE, both through positive support as well as potential threats to its 

 economic viability. This paper will conclude by illustrating these impacts and the 

 implications this may have for future US policy towards Africa. 



The first point refers to foreign aid provided by the US through the USAID. As is so often 

 the case with innovative approaches, CAMPFIRE began as an idea with no resources, little 

 political and financial support and many skeptics. As the program began to evolve, it 

 increasingly attracted the attention of both Government officials and international aid 

 agencies. The institutional development and financial support provided by USAID during the 

 pUot stage of this program proved to be a critical factor in demonstrating the viability of 

 linking conservation and development objectives through the use of wild species. 



The need for such foreign assistance will continue for a number of years as the program 

 seeks to develop the institutional and economic basis for community based management of 

 natural resources across the country. The complexity of seeking to transform key elements of 

 a rural economy's established production systems should not be underestimated. It requires a 

 substantive investment in institutions, capacities and infrastructure, the costs of which cannot 

 be borne by the communities alone. In the long run trade, both domestic and international, 

 will determine the future of the program. CAMPFIRE depends upon obtaining an economic 

 return from wild resources, which in turn requires open and functional markets for these 

 products. 



