IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v105y2021ics0264837721001150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property killed a peace park dream: The entanglement of property, politics and conservation along the Gariep

Author

Listed:
  • Lenggenhager, Luregn
  • Ramutsindela, Maano

Abstract

Theories of property highlight power relations and their distributional and spatial effects. The power of property is seen as necessary for the defence of nature but is also instrumental for opening nature to destructive forces, especially global capitalism. In this paper we expand the debate on property and nature conservation by showing that access to land and the arrangement of tenure regimes that govern it are crucial for the establishment of peace parks in southern Africa. To date, no peace park in the region has private land serving as its core area. We argue that the establishment of the core areas of peace parks depends on the configuration of property regimes and the power relations embedded in them. The possibility of establishing peace parks lies in the successful negotiations with property rights holders and the consequent rearrangement of land use options. These negotiations are much harder with private landowners, mainly because private property presents legal and financial challenges distinct from state and communal land regimes. In Southern Africa, private property is historically entangled with white identity and landownership. We substantiate this argument by drawing on empirical evidence from the failed attempt to create two transfrontier conservation areas across the Namibia-South Africa border, the Gariep Transfrontier Park in the late 1990s and the Lower Orange River Transfrontier Conservation Area in 2008. We ascribe this failed attempt to unsuccessful negotiations between the Peace Parks Foundation and white farmers, the inability to create a core area from scratch, and the historical tenure arrangements that evolved along the Lower Orange River over more than a century. The conceptual value of the case study is twofold. First, it contributes to understandings of conditions under which the idea of peace parks materializes or fails. Second, it underscores the agency of property regimes in nature conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenggenhager, Luregn & Ramutsindela, Maano, 2021. "Property killed a peace park dream: The entanglement of property, politics and conservation along the Gariep," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721001150
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721001150
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105392?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leach, Melissa & Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 225-247, February.
    2. Moren Tibabo Stone & Gyan Nyaupane, 2014. "Rethinking community in community-based natural resource management," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 17-31, January.
    3. Simon Chiutsi & Jarkko Saarinen, 2017. "Local participation in transfrontier tourism: Case of Sengwe community in Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, Zimbabwe," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 260-275, May.
    4. Kalabamu, Faustin Tirwirukwa, 2019. "Land tenure reforms and persistence of land conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa – The case of Botswana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 337-345.
    5. Poul Wisborg & Rick Rohde, 2005. "Contested land tenure reform in South Africa: experiences from Namaqualand," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 409-428.
    6. Blaikie, Piers, 2006. "Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1942-1957, November.
    7. Bluwstein, Jevgeniy & Lund, Jens Friis, 2018. "Territoriality by Conservation in the Selous–Niassa Corridor in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 453-465.
    8. Alan Dye & Sumner La Croix, 2020. "Institutions for the taking: property rights and the settlement of the Cape Colony, 1652–1750," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 73(1), pages 33-58, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Büscher, Bram & Thakholi, Lerato, 2024. "Convivial fences? Property, ‘right to wildlife’ and the need for redistributive justice in South African conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ojha, Hemant R. & Ford, Rebecca & Keenan, Rodney J. & Race, Digby & Carias Vega, Dora & Baral, Himlal & Sapkota, Prativa, 2016. "Delocalizing Communities: Changing Forms of Community Engagement in Natural Resources Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 274-290.
    2. Lenyeletse V. Basupi & Claire H. Quinn & Andrew J. Dougill, 2017. "Pastoralism and Land Tenure Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Conflicting Policies and Priorities in Ngamiland, Botswana," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Salla Eilola & Lalisa Duguma & Niina Käyhkö & Peter A. Minang, 2021. "Coalitions for Landscape Resilience: Institutional Dynamics behind Community-Based Rangeland Management System in North-Western Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Meyer, Maximilian & Klingelhoeffer, Ekkehard & Naidoo, Robin & Wingate, Vladimir & Börner, Jan, 2021. "Tourism opportunities drive woodland and wildlife conservation outcomes of community-based conservation in Namibia's Zambezi region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "The frontiers of the debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services: a proposal for innovative future research," IOB Discussion Papers 2015.05, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    6. Siegelman, Ben & Haenn, Nora & Basurto, Xavier, 2019. "“Lies build trust”: Social capital, masculinity, and community-based resource management in a Mexican fishery," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Vallino, Elena, 2013. "The tragedy of the park: an agent-based model on endogenous and exogenous institutions for the management of a forest," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201316, University of Turin.
    8. Millner, Naomi & Peñagaricano, Irune & Fernandez, Maria & Snook, Laura K., 2020. "The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    9. Robinson, Brian E. & Provencher, Bill & Lewis, David J., 2013. "Managing Wild Resources: Institutional Choice and the Recovery of Resource Rent in Southwest China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 120-132.
    10. Tantoh, Henry Bikwibili & Simatele, Danny, 2018. "Complexity and uncertainty in water resource governance in Northwest Cameroon: Reconnoitring the challenges and potential of community-based water resource management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 237-251.
    11. Chomba, Susan & Treue, Thorsten & Sinclair, Fergus, 2015. "The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 37-46.
    12. Dennis, M. & James, P., 2018. "Urban Social-ecological Innovation: Implications for Adaptive Natural Resource Management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 153-164.
    13. L. Jamila Haider & Benjamin Neusel & Garry D. Peterson & Maja Schlüter, 2019. "Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2183-2224, October.
    14. Béné, Christophe & Belal, Emma & Baba, Malloum Ousman & Ovie, Solomon & Raji, Aminu & Malasha, Isaac & Njaya, Friday & Na Andi, Mamane & Russell, Aaron & Neiland, Arthur, 2009. "Power Struggle, Dispute and Alliance Over Local Resources: Analyzing 'Democratic' Decentralization of Natural Resources through the Lenses of Africa Inland Fisheries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 1935-1950, December.
    15. Abinash Bhattachan & Matthew D. Jurjonas & Priscilla R. Morris & Paul J. Taillie & Lindsey S. Smart & Ryan E. Emanuel & Erin L. Seekamp, 2019. "Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    16. Julia Brown, 2014. "Evaluating Participatory Initiatives in South Africa," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    17. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    18. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    19. Naomi Moswete & Brijesh Thapa & William K. Darley, 2020. "Local Communities’ Attitudes and Support Towards the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in Southwest Botswana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Mariska JM Bottema & Simon R Bush & Peter Oosterveer, 2021. "Territories of state-led aquaculture risk management: Thailand’s Plang Yai program," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1231-1251, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721001150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.