Towards strengthening collaborative ecosystem management: Lessons from environmental conflict and political change in southern Africa

Ecosystem conservation in southern Africa (in particular South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia) is characterised by high levels of past and present conflicts During the apartheid and colonial periods indigenous people lost their rights to use land and natural resources Protected areas were seldom established in consultation with local communities, and, between 1900 and 1990, millions of citizens were forcibly removed from areas proclaimed as nature reserves, national parks, or game reserves Conservation conflicts in southern Africa escalated because of I) the many and complicated issues at stake, u) the large investment by communities and conservationists in the main causes of the conflict — land and natural resources, m) communities and conservationists harming each other, rather than striving towards common goals, IV (negative perceptions on both sides, v) weak and infrequent communication between role players, vi) the hostile relations between them, and vn) the use of violent and coercive tactics on both sides In the late 1980s and early 1990s a wave of democracy swept across southern Africa, and with it came new policies that allowed communities better access to natural resources, called for their participation in protected area management, and facilitated the restitution of land from which they had been forcibly removed This resulted in a number of tangible and intangible gains for conservation and communities, respectively The short‐term effect on the underlying causes of conflict was positive Relations and communication improved, communities and conservationists identified common goals, and tactics became less hostile than before There are still, however, a number of causes for concern Both parties now have even more invested m the new agreements than before, and the number of complicating issues has increased rather than decreased New conflicts and power struggles are emerging, this time between different factions in communities and conservation agencies, respectively The high expectations on both sides that the new approach will yield significant tangible short term benefits are a further cause for concern Experience and provisional research have shown that the financial benefits from wildlife, forestry, and tourism are mostly overestimated The conventional assumption, that devolution of power to the smallest local group will inevitably result in good governance and sustainable resource management, could be flawed It is essential for government to recognise this problem and identify appropriate strategies such as mediation services at the local level, the creation of new, locally made rules and their enforcement, engaging in collaborative research with local communities, and adopting adaptive management approaches, characterised by regular monitoring and flexibility. Relying on the simplistic and romantic principle that traditional knowledge is pure and intrinsically valid, and creating unrealistic expectations about the benefits of co‐management, could invite new conflicts that may be more difficult to manage than the tensions of the colonial and apartheid eras.