Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

This paper analyzes a provincial conservation authority’s dealings with three types of landowners in their roles as members of the state-run biodiversity stewardship initiative. We argue that the authority’s apolitical approach undermines the meaningfulness of stewardship for poor rural communities.

Paper long abstract:

Ranking as the third most biodiverse country globally, South Africa is obliged to prioritize conserving its natural habitats. However, the degradation of biodiversity continues to take place and the limited scope to enlarge state-owned protected areas means that conservationists are increasingly appealing to private landowners to assist in reaching global conservation targets. The provincial government-implemented Biodiversity Stewardship Programme (BSP) is one such initiative that encourages landowners, including communities practicing communal tenure, to enter into formal agreements to protect and manage land in biodiversity priority areas thereby contributing towards the expansion of protected areas in the country. Focusing on three land tenure types involved in the BSP, this paper explores how the programme is experienced by differently-situated members whom the state provides with equal opportunity and support to participate as custodians of biodiversity on their land. The three cases used in the ethnography are freehold, land reform and communal tenure. Together, these cases illustrate that state constituted land ownership arrangements continue to be impacted differently even in the postapartheid era. At the root of these differences in the mode of operation is social power – landowners practicing freehold tenure possess economic advantages and knowledge while the other two tenure types lack such crucial ingredients for efficient participation. The programme’s apolitical approach to governance results in negative impacts for social life in cases involving rural communities.