Critic Paper I

Critic Paper on Devising Appropriate Policies and Instruments in Support of Private Conservation Areas: Lessons Learned from the Klein Karoo, South Africa (Lorena Pasquini, Richard M. Cowling, Chasca Twyman, and John Wainwright)

            Understanding the complexity of environment as it involves more than just the biogeochemical cycles, and its abiotic and biotic components, the study that also dwells on policies in making conservation more effective becomes more interesting and more appropriate. This modern approach opens our eyes to a bigger picture wherein the social and political aspects of the community, among others, are acknowledged as one of the key determinants to the fate of conservation efforts. Hence, the study on “Devising Appropriate Policies and Instruments in Support of Private Conservation Areas: Lessons Learned from the Klein Karoo, South Africa” is apt and very timely.

Little Karoo, the study area, is an arid to semiarid intermontane basin area wherein three globally recognized biomes with biodiversity hotspots, namely Succulent Karoo, Subtropical Thicket, and Fynbos, overlap (Pasquini, et. al. 2009). Recognizing the status quo wherein statutory conservation is not enough, strengthening Private Conservation Areas (PCAs) would be a great help in the pursuit of richer biodiversity and holistic conservation.

The primary objectives of the study are (1) to examine opinions landowners hold of existing conservation policies, and of the local conservation authority; and (2) to assess the needs and preferences of landowners in terms of conservation incentives. In order to address the objectives of the study, surveys were conducted and they were analyzed through qualitative techniques. It was mentioned in the methods that the researchers ‘strategically’ selected the landowners to interview. It was not stated, however, the conditions and the selection process in choosing the respondents. It was unclear how they were able to get rid or minimize the biases that come with the procedure in qualitative studies, which in this case is the use survey questionnaire.

As part of the procedure, the respondents were given a brief overview about what the Stewardship Program is all about. They were informed that three voluntary options for designing private lands as conservation areas under which the incentives and land-use limitations increase as the security of the designation increases. It turns out that some of the landowners were not aware of the Stewardship Program. It can be either due to lack of information or may be because the program is still new. It also showed that most of the respondents have doubts with regards to the implementation, considering that most of them also lack confidence as to CNC’s capability of doing so (Pasquini, et. al. 2009).

According to the study, only about <15% of the respondents wanted monetary incentive for taking action in conservation of their lands. Most of them just wanted to be acknowledged by the local government and be given appropriate awards. As per some of the private landowners, they feel neglected and unappreciated. There was no form of follow-up or ay contact from CNC regarding the progress of the program or for any updates in general. However, the study seemed to remove the benefit of the doubt for CNC. The study did not include the part of the CNC. It was rather a bit prejudice. It seems like the researchers took the words of the respondents right away. We cannot disregard the possibility that perhaps the gap wasn’t the fault of CNC alone considering that there were groups which worked well with the conservation body. One of the limitations of the selection of the respondents is their ability to be reached by the researchers since not all of them resides in the protected land itself or anywhere nearby. This can also be one of the reasons why some of the landowners don’t have enough contact with the CNCs. This is only a possibility but it’s important to know the side of CNC to really understand where the gap begins.

Based on the results, the researchers recommended that policies on private-land conservation should focus on the following objectives to strengthen more the conservation projects and to make the efforts more feasible—(1) providing extension services to landowners; (2) promoting the formation of groups and associations between PCA owners and other interested stakeholders; and (3) publicly acknowledging the conservation contributions private protected areas and landowners make.

These recommendations might already been happening in the status quo, but surely there’s still a room for improvement. Exerting more efforts on both sides, the government and private-land owners, will definitely ensure more success in conserving biodiversity in the form of Private Land Conservation. For a community that also depends on gaming and ecotourism, succeeding in this goal is definitely a win-win deal for everyone.