Review Article

Hitchhikers’ guide to the legal context of protected area management plans in South Africa

Magda Goosen, Andrew C. Blackmore
Bothalia | Vol 49, No 1 | a2399 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v49i1.2399 | © 2019 Magda goosen | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 19 July 2018 | Published: 08 January 2019

About the author(s)

Magda Goosen, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, South Africa
Andrew C. Blackmore, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; and, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Abstract

Background: Although formal protected areas in South Africa date back to the turn of the 19th century, requirements for protected area management plans only became mandatory a century later. Prior to the promulgation of the World Heritage Convention Act 49 in 1999, and subsequently the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 in 2003, requirements for management plans were voluntary, and guidance to the plan’s content was fragmented across an array of international, national and provincial policy instruments.

Objectives: As there has been little academic debate on the relevance and content of protected area management plans, an improved understanding of these plans, and the role they play in biodiversity conservation, is required.

Method: This article explores the evolution of the management plan, revisiting its historical and current legal context at international and national scales.

Results: Despite being the principal legislative framework for management plans, the World Heritage Convention Act and the National Environmental Management Protected Area Act did not consolidate the plethora of management plan requirements, and hence did not bring clarity when these conflicted or were ambiguous.

Conclusion: Legal provisions for management plans are highly fragmented. This risks plans not being complete, falling short of the requirement to ensure that protected areas fulfil the purpose for which they were established. A consolidation of relevant provisions, as well as emerging best practices is recommended. This may require the revision of South Africa’s environmental law, to provide greater clarity on the contemporary understanding of the contribution of protected areas to conservation and the well-being of people (viz. the ‘purpose’).


Keywords

biodiversity; conservation; legal requirements; protected area plans; management authorities; management; multilateral environmental agreements; protected area; public trust doctrine

Metrics

Total abstract views: 5869
Total article views: 4662

 

Crossref Citations

1. Evaluating the performance of a protected area network in South Africa and its implications for megadiverse countries
Lerato N. Hoveka, Michelle van der Bank, T. Jonathan Davies
Biological Conservation  vol: 248  first page: 108577  year: 2020  
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108577

2. Identifying key risks to the achievement of protected area system objectives
Reece Alberts, Francois Retief, Claudine Roos, Dirk Cilliers, Willem Lubbe
Nature Conservation  vol: 49  first page: 53  year: 2022  
doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.49.83759

3. Africa’s ecosystems exhibit a tradeoff between resistance and stability following disturbances
Daniel A Lauer, Jenny L McGuire
Environmental Research Letters  vol: 18  issue: 7  first page: 074029  year: 2023  
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/acde90

4. Conservation corridors and ecological networks in South Africa: shortcomings of environmental legislation and policies
Alexandra-Belle Dalziel, Mary Evans
South African Geographical Journal  vol: 106  issue: 1  first page: 1  year: 2024  
doi: 10.1080/03736245.2023.2190154

5. Towards Unpacking the Theory Behind, and a Pragmatic Approach to Biodiversity Offsets
Andrew Blackmore
Environmental Management  vol: 65  issue: 1  first page: 88  year: 2020  
doi: 10.1007/s00267-019-01232-0

6. Protected Areas of the Pampa biome presented land use incompatible with conservation purposes
Soraya Ribeiro, Leonardo F. B. Moreira, Gerhard E. Overbeck, Leonardo Maltchik
Journal of Land Use Science  vol: 16  issue: 3  first page: 260  year: 2021  
doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2021.1934134

7. Identifying key risks to the performance of privately protected areas (PPAs) through theory of change (ToC)
Francois P. Retief, Reece C. Alberts, Claudine Roos, Dirk C. Cilliers, Frances Siebert
Journal of Environmental Management  vol: 308  first page: 114575  year: 2022  
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114575

8. Community-based tourism (CBT) advancement and sustainable tourism enterprise establishments in marginalized rural municipalities: context for ecotourism development in parks-adjacent communities
Azwindini Isaac Ramaano
Forestry Economics Review  vol: 7  issue: 1  first page: 77  year: 2025  
doi: 10.1108/FER-04-2025-0005

9. Assessing the political vulnerability of National Parks in sub‐Saharan Africa using data on digital trends and engagement
Karoline Azevedo, Fernanda Alves‐Martins, Javier Martinez‐Arribas, Ricardo A. Correia, Ana C. M. Malhado, Richard Ladle
People and Nature  vol: 6  issue: 6  first page: 2449  year: 2024  
doi: 10.1002/pan3.10730