Land claims and the pursuit of co-management on four protected areas in South Africa

• Published in: Land use policy 2013-11, Vol.35, p.171-178
• Main Authors: Cundill, G., Thondhlana, G., Sisitka, L., Shackleton, S., Blore, M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Biological and medical sciences; Co-management; collaborative management; conservation areas; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife; decision making; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Land claims; landowners; Protected areas; South Africa
• ISSN: 0264-8377; 1873-5754
• DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.016

•Land claims on protected areas often result in co-management worldwide.•In South Africa, co-management is failing to deliver on its promises.•Co-management in low-income earning reserves should be carefully evaluated.•Achieving shared decision making should be the focus for co-managment practice. Successful land claims on protected areas by previously disenfranchised communities often result in co-management agreements between claimant communities and state conservation agencies. South Africa, in particular, has pursued co-management as the desired outcome of land claims on its protected areas. We review four cases of co-management on protected areas in South Africa, and reflect on the appropriateness of the pursuit of co-management as the preferred outcome of land claims. Despite promises of pro-poor, democratically informed management, the practical experience of co-management has seen the continuation of the status quo in terms of conservation, with very few material benefits for claimant communities and limited sharing of responsibilities and decision-making functions. The findings underscore two deep challenges facing co-management in cases of land claims worldwide. First, during land claims negotiations in cases involving protected areas, the state cannot be expected to represent the best interests of its citizens (the land claimants), while simultaneously seeking to meet national and international obligations for protected area coverage. Second, the concept of democratic co-management may sit uncomfortably beside the realities of managing loss-making protected areas with ever-shrinking conservation budgets. Where co-management agreements have already been signed, ensuring that new landowners do indeed have a say in management should form the driving focus for co-management practice going forward.