The protectionist approach to wildlife conservation has been blamed by some
conservationists for failing to protect wildlife and its habitats, especia
lly in Africa. The failure of this approach has triggered a rush by conserv
ationists to find alternatives. One alternative that has gained support is
the Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) approach. Four assumptions un
derlie CWM: (1) that the national governments and their wildlife authoritie
s are willing to devolve ownership of, and management responsibilities for,
wildlife to rural communities; (2) that the communities are interested to
participate in managing wildlife; (3) that the communities have the capabil
ity to manage wildlife; and (4) that wildlife conservation and rural econom
ic development are compatible. The idea of CWM is put to the test by bringi
ng together the existing views on the approach and assessing the plausibili
ty of the four assumptions on the basis of the literature. Although the aim
of CWM-to address the failures of fences-and-fines-is laudable, the four a
ssumptions are problematic. The approach is, therefore, less effective than
it is said to be.