Co-management, land rights, and conflicts around South Africa’s Silaka Nature Reserve
Publisher version === Globally, co-management of protected areas (PAs) offers promise in efforts to achieve ecological integrity and livelihood needs. Most co-management agreements are premised on joint decision making in defining equitable sharing of benefits from and the management responsibilitie...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2016
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10962/67781 https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1089609 |
| Summary: | Publisher version === Globally, co-management of protected areas (PAs) offers promise in efforts to achieve ecological integrity and livelihood needs. Most co-management agreements are premised on joint decision making in defining equitable sharing of benefits from and the management responsibilities for natural resource management. However, co-managed PAs are often conflict ridden. The forceful closure of Silaka Nature Reserve in South Africa in 2013 by a local community epitomizes the conflicts that can emerge in co-management arrangements. Using Silaka Reserve as a case study, we ask questions related to the meaning of land to local people, with an interrogative focus beyond “material benefits” in co-management discourse. The results of this study show that apart from nonaccrual of material benefits, conflicts arise from nonrecognition of nonmaterial aspects such as cultural values of and historical attachment to land and limited involvement of land claimants in decision making. The implications for co-management as a desired outcome on settled land claims are discussed. |
|---|