Land Claims and Comanagement of Protected Areas in South Africa: Exploring the Challenges

Comanagement has recently become the most popular approach for reconciling land claims and biodiversity conservation in South Africa and beyond. Following the resolution of land claims on protected areas in South Africa, comanagement arrangements have been created between the relevant conservation a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental management (New York) Vol. 41; no. 3; pp. 311 - 321
Main Author: Kepe, Thembela
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: New York New York : Springer-Verlag 01.03.2008
Springer-Verlag
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects:
Agreements
Aquatic Pollution
Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution
Biodiversity
collaborative management
Community
Conservation
conservation areas
Conservation biology
Conservation of Natural Resources
Earth and Environmental Science
Ecology
Environment
Environmental Management
fisheries
forestry
Forestry Management
Government agencies
Land claims
Land reform
Land tenure
Mkambati
National parks
Natural resource management
Natural resources
Nature Conservation
Property rights
Protected areas
Restitution
South Africa
terminology
Tourism
Waste Water Technology
Water Management
Water Pollution Control
Wilderness areas
South Africa
Land claims
Comanagement
South Africa
Conservation
Mkambati
ISSN:0364-152X, 1432-1009
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Comanagement has recently become the most popular approach for reconciling land claims and biodiversity conservation in South Africa and beyond. Following the resolution of land claims on protected areas in South Africa, comanagement arrangements have been created between the relevant conservation authorities and the land claimant communities who are legally awarded tenure rights to the land. However, it is doubtful that these partnerships constitute success for the former land claimants. Using the case of a “resolved” land claim in Mkambati Nature Reserve, Eastern Cape Province, as well as insights from comanagement literature, this paper identifies and discusses three key possible reasons for the unimpressive performance of comanagement in reconciling land restitution and conservation. The first one is the origins of the comanagement idea in the conservation of high value natural resources (e.g., fisheries, forestry), rather than in or including concerns for resource rights. The second reason is the neglect of key conditions for successful comanagement, as discussed in the comanagement literature. The final reason is the ambiguity in settlement agreements, including the use of terminology and concepts that reinforce unequal power relationships, with the state emerging as the powerful partner. This paper concludes that, unless there is a serious reassessment of the comanagement idea as a way of reconciling land reform and conservation, and a possible review of settlement agreements that have relied on comanagement, both the integrity of the “successful land claimant's rights” and that of conservation remain under threat.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9034-x
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:0364-152X
1432-1009
DOI:10.1007/s00267-007-9034-x