Shaped by race: why “race” still matters in the challenges facing biodiversity conservation in Africa

This article uses experiences from South Africa to argue that, despite progress made in making biodiversity conservation compatible with social, political and economic changes, progress could still be limited by reluctance of social actors to acknowledge and engage with the issue of race. The article argues that acknowledging the history of conservation in Africa, including close ties to racially charged colonialism, could be a positive impetus in the transformation of conservation to make it more socially, economically and politically justifiable.     

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 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.