Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros24-1Aires naturelles protégées en Afr...Introduction - Environmental conf...

Aires naturelles protégées en Afrique francophone : entre conservation de la biodiversité et conflits environnementaux, quelles perspectives d’intégration et d’appropriation par les communautés riveraines ?

Introduction - Environmental conflicts and community management of natural protected areas in French-speaking Africa

Nicolas Hubert, Stéphanie Leyronas, Jessica Andriamasinoro et Alexis Nagalo
Cet article est une traduction de :
Introduction - Conflits environnementaux et gestions communautaires des aires naturelles protégées en Afrique francophone [fr]

Résumés

Dans la plupart des pays francophones d’Afrique subsaharienne, les espaces de conservation de l’environnement sont majoritairement des héritages des occupations coloniales. Pour les aires protégées plus récentes, leurs conceptualisations, implantations et programmes de gestion sont presque exclusivement réalisés par des acteurs internationaux, en collaboration plus ou moins étroite avec les autorités nationales, et avec une concertation et intégration plus ou moins importantes des communautés riveraines vivant au sein ou à proximité de ces espaces environnementaux. Présentés comme des projets internationaux de développement, ces aires protégées sont pour la plupart constituées de manière ex nihilo et ne sont que faiblement intégrées aux territoires et à leurs structures socio-environnementales, politiques et économiques. Cette introduction au numéro thématique effectue une synthèse non exhaustive de la littérature portant sur les aires protégées en Afrique francophone, les conflits environnementaux et les perspectives d’intégration et de gestion communautaire par et pour les communautés riveraines. Elle interroge en cela, d’une part, la manière dont les normes et pratiques environnementales, sociales et politiques endogènes des communautés riveraines peuvent contribuer à la conservation de la biodiversité et, d’autre part, comment leur intégration au sein des processus de gestion des aires naturelles protégées peut favoriser le renforcement des programmes de conservation de l’environnement et l’appropriation des services environnementaux qu’ils peuvent procurer.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1In most French-speaking countries in sub-Saharan Africa, environmental conservation areas are mainly inherited from colonial rule. For more recent protected zones, their conception, implementation, and management are almost solely handled by international actors, often working with national authorities to varying degrees, and with differing levels of consultation and inclusion of local communities living within or near these environmental spaces (Blanc, 2020; Duffy, 2006; Hagberg et al., 1996; Hartman, 2014; Okpoko, 2022). Marketed as international development projects, these protected areas are mostly established ex nihilo and are only weakly integrated into local lands and their socio-environmental, political, and economic structures, despite international efforts over recent decades to implement shared and mutually beneficial conservation governance (Stan, 2014).

2This sharing of governance and revenues is especially important considering that, as highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), riparian communities are among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations (Okpoko, 2022, p. 24). The rise of participatory approaches in the 1980s aimed at entrusting resource management to local actors, presenting community identities and private economic interests as strategies for conservation, and acknowledging the contribution of social sciences from the 1990s onwards, recognising the role of traditional knowledge about local ecosystems (Aubertin and Rodary, 2008, pp. 21-22). Since the early 2000s, integrating social aspects and including riparian communities in environmental conservation projects has become essential to address these concerns. This approach is supported by research in human and social sciences, as well as by international donors and external stakeholders involved in conservation programs (Binot and Daou, 2007, §1).

3However, Binot and Daou (2007, §§1, 5, and 7) recall that since the 2000s (i) these approaches have had limited impact on the ground, (ii) the socio-economic and socio-political structures surrounding protected areas are complex, and (iii) West African states face difficulties in enforcing conservation policies across territories. Similarly, Roué and Bahuchet (2014, §4) reiterate that numerous conflicts are observed between riparian communities and conservation managers. This observation has led to the parallel integration of sustainable development perspectives into conservation programs and the creation of integrated projects (Integrated Projects of Conservation and Development, IPCD), which have also been quickly contested (Dumez et al., 2009).

4It is important to recognize that different management and conservation models for protected areas are closely connected to external perceptions, which are mainly rooted in Western modern ontology, imported during colonial times and sustained by international cooperation mechanisms (Sarrasin, 2005). These mechanisms contribute to establish a new epistemological order that conflicts with or opposes the socio-environmental systems of African rural communities (Okpoko, 2022, p. 32). This often leads to a contrast between the representations of local actors and neighboring populations on one side, and international actors and external managers on the other, as well as conflicts over land use caused by these differing representations, leading to competition for access to and control over land resources (Binot and Daou, 2007, §5). Since the mid-2000s, Binot and Daou (2007, §3) have observed a clear gap between the rhetoric used in biodiversity conservation projects—such as the stated goals of sustainable development, participation, and benefits for local populations—and the reality on the ground, like the actual transfer of management authority over natural resources to local authorities. This disconnect echoes Olivier de Sardan’s broader reflection (2021) on the significant gaps between what is planned and what is actually implemented in development projects or national public policies.

5These concerns have been widely emphasized since the early 2000s by representatives of riparian communities involved in protected areas, such as during the 5th International Congress of National Parks (World Parks Congress) held in 2003 in South Africa. This congress led to the adoption of a new paradigm for protected areas, resulting in systemic reforms regarding the representation and inclusion of indigenous communities within international conservation programs (Stan, 2014, pp. 47-50). This new paradigm aimed to give greater consideration to riparian communities, their rights, their objectives, and their involvement in biodiversity and environmental conservation programs, thereby rethinking management and governance mechanisms for protected natural areas (Stan, 2014, pp. 7-8, 60-61).

6Beginning with the recognition of the failure or superficiality of this new paradigm, as well as the recurring conflicts between riparian communities and conservation programs, this thematic introduction explores how, on one hand, the valorization of endogenous environmental, social, and political norms and practices of riparian communities can contribute to biodiversity conservation, and on the other hand, how their integration into natural area management processes can strengthen environmental conservation efforts and enhance the perception of the environmental services they can offer. Therefore, the works included in this non-exhaustive literature review were chosen based on their capacity to address both environmental conservation and land use conflicts, as well as the integration of riparian communities. The research discussed in this article was identified through the authors’ expertise and the results obtained from studies conducted via online platforms such as Google Scholar, Open Edition, and institutional research portals.

7When selecting research, preference was given to works conducted within an open science approach, following the editorial line of VertigO – La revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement. Most of the studies included in this introduction were published during the 2000s and 2010s. To maintain conciseness, this literature review relies on existing syntheses to trace the evolution of debates on environmental conservation and the management of protected natural areas since the late 20th century. It also features 17 references published after 2020. The authors recognize the significant development of this theme, driven by both scientific interest and the major challenges facing biodiversity and the environment. Concerning research on sub-Saharan Africa, there is a noticeable focus on case studies from Southern Africa and East Africa, primarily in English-speaking regions. Conversely, this thematic issue seeks to address similar issues observed in Central and West Africa and to bridge the gap between English- and French-speaking literatures.

8Although rooted in an interdisciplinary approach, the academic backgrounds and institutional affiliations of the coordinators of this thematic issue tend to guide the introduction more towards a review of work conducted in social sciences, political sciences, legal studies, environmental sciences, human geography, political ecology, and development studies. Therefore, by specifically addressing management issues and conflicts related to protected areas, this introduction considers, without conducting a detailed analysis, the influence of exogenous programs on the restructuring or hybridization of socio-environmental, cultural, and political structures, as well as endogenous power and domination relations within riparian communities, as highlighted by anthropological or ethnobiological approaches to conservation. The term “endogenous” or “endogenous authorities” is used here according to the terminology of West African researchers to replace terms like “traditional” and “customary,” which are considered linked to colonial heritage, and “local,” which can reflect an occidental-centric view and ongoing relations of domination in practices, production, and knowledge dissemination. While the term “endogenous” may risk reification or essentialization of riparian communities, it has the benefit of not portraying their socio-environmental structures as fixed in time or solely traditional, but as a co-construction in constant evolution.

9This thematic introduction is based on the anthropological and ethnobiological research postulate that human societies and the environment influence each other as a co-construction, and that even ecosystems considered primary can result from human intervention, as highlighted by Descola (2021), Escobar (2018), or Posey (Penna-Firme et al., 2018) for certain endogenous communities in Latin America. Finally, this introduction recognizes the importance of endogenous knowledge and immaterial rights related to environmental and biodiversity conservation. It does not, however, make comparisons or value judgments between modern or Western sciences and knowledge systems. Moreover, while a polarization exists in the debate over conservation—opposing biodiversity preservation to the rights of riparian communities—this article emphasises the necessity and legitimacy of conservation programs to protect and preserve biodiversity. It also emphasises that the success and sustainability of conservation goals cannot be achieved through programs developed in the absence of, or contrary to, the populations living within and constituting the protected ecosystems.

10This introduction first reviews issues related to co-management or participatory management of natural protected areas, then addresses environmental and land-use conflicts that conservation programs can create, as well as the role of endogenous social and political structures. Afterwards, it explains how the various articles in this thematic issue help to improve understanding of the challenges associated with protected natural areas in Francophone African countries. These challenges are mainly conflict-related; understanding the dynamics that shape protected areas could help to reduce land-use conflicts and thereby support their environmental goals by strengthening local social structures.

Issues Concerning Community Management of Protected Areas

11In Anglophone Africa, mainly in East and Southern Africa, community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), often called conservancy, has been developed as an alternative to fortress conservation approaches, which criticize the exclusionary and predatory practices linked to top-down national parks and hunting reserve programs inherited from colonial periods. Alongside the rise of the Washington Consensus and structural adjustment programs, this approach appeared in the 1990s with the goal of reducing operational costs, decentralising natural resource management, and creating new economic opportunities for poor rural communities (Brock and Cleavera, 2018, p. 469).

12CBNRM has become the primary conservation approach in Africa. However, it covers a variety of realities, management models, benefit-sharing arrangements among beneficiaries, riparian populations, and managers, and has experienced both successes and failures (Maynard et al., 2019, p. 723; Horwich and Lyon, 2007; Manfredo, 2008). There is no agreement on its effectiveness in building local socio-economic structures, nor on its ability to promote community ownership and integration into conservation areas or to transfer management responsibilities to local levels (Suich, 2013; Morton et al., 2016, p. 397; Lewins et al., 2014; Riehl et al., 2015; Silva and Mosimane, 2012; Murphree, 2004; Nelson and Agrawal, 2008).

13Like many authors (Jones, 1999, 2004; Jones and Murphree, 2004; Kiss, 1990; Western et al., 1994; Blaikie, 2006; Roe et al., 2009), Suich (2013, p. 1) highlights that although development objectives and economic opportunities are linked to community resource management—including protected areas—these projects often occur in rural or marginal areas where populations remain heavily reliant on natural resources. From this perspective, community management was promoted to better include riparian communities in resource management programs, transfer land rights and some development management to these communities, develop economic opportunities mainly related to conservation tourism, and provide new territorial control tools in marginalized or peripheral spaces (Dumsile and Maruta, 2020; Hulke et al., 2022; Morton et al., 2016; Berkes, 2004; Jones and Weaver, 2008; Khumalo and Yung, 2015; Dressler et al., 2010; Fabricius et al., 2013; Adams and Hulme, 2001; Hulme and Murphree, 2001; Igoe and Brockington, 2007; Jacobsohn and Owen-Smith, 2003; Anderson and Mehta, 2013; Jones and Wyberg, 2014).

14The core principle of CBNRM is to compensate for costs related to environmental exclusions and the loss of access to natural resources, such as abandonment of gardening, agricultural, pastoral, forestry, hunting, and fishing activities, through economic benefits derived from conservation tourism (Heydinger et al., 2022, pp. 2 and 7). However, this purely rational view does not adequately consider normative aspects or endogenous socio-environmental systems that support management approaches, resource access, political structures, and local conservation practices (Hinz, 2003; Moore, 2010; van der Ploeg, 2011). Several authors emphasize that implementing the CBNRM model often shifts representations and governance methods towards externally imposed ones, leading to significant changes in daily routines and lifestyles and raising questions about access and socio-environmental integration of riparian communities (Khumalo and Yung, 2015, p. 233; Sullivan, 2006; Büscher and Dressler, 2012; West, 2006).

15Many studies also find that the economic benefits from CBNRM tend to favor national economies more than riparian communities, for whom benefits are often minimal and insufficient to offset the losses caused by environmental exclusions (Morton et al., 2016, p. 397; Roe et al., 2009; Frost and Bond, 2008; Naidoo et al., 2016; Muchapondwa and Stage, 2013; Samuelsson and Stage, 2007; Kirchner and Stage, 2005; Leisher et al., 2016; Nunan, 2006; Riehl et al., 2015; Turpie et al., 2010; Gargallo and Kalvelage, 2021). A systematic review of the impacts of CBNRM in East Africa by Galvin et al. (2018) nuances this by noting that moderate or positive socio-economic impacts are observed in at least 50% of case studies. However, they agree with the unequal distribution of benefits among managers, private economic partners, and riparian communities, citing works by Wainwright and Wehrmeyer (1998), Songorwa (1999), Collomb et al. (2010), Hoole (2010), Kamoto et al. (2013), and Silva and Motzer (2015), which show that most benefits and economic gains are captured by local and national elites, often at the expense of populations dependent on natural resources for their food security and economic well-being. By reinforcing predatory dynamics and existing power and domination relations, these so-called community programs tend to increase distrust among riparian populations and hinder their appropriation of conservation initiatives (Galvin et al., 2018; Songorwa, 1999; Balint and Mashinya, 2006; Jayne et al., 2009; Kamoto et al., 2013; Mburu and Birner, 2007; Suich, 2013; Dyer et al., 2014; Silva and Motzer, 2015).

16Some studies on community-based management models associated with CBNRM show that revenue-sharing and redistribution agreements are often based on landholdings. This approach tends to exclude and reduce benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable, or marginalized populations. Conversely, these mechanisms usually favour large landowners and local or national elites, especially in socio-environmental systems with semi-collective land regimes, where land custodians are often from local power structures, acting more as guarantors of fair land and resource access rather than as individual property owners (Cavanagh et al., 2020, p. 1606; Bedelian and Ogutu, 2017, p. 16; Stasja and van Beek, 2017, p. 139). This method of redistribution does not offset the losses caused by conservation programs on pastoralism, agriculture, hunting, fishing, or forestry activities.

17For populations without land titles, these mechanisms can even result in direct income loss without compensation (Elliott et al., 2014, p. 59; Cavanagh et al., 2020, p. 1605; Hulke et al., 2022, p. 314; Dumsile and Maruta, 2020, p. 2; Matseketas et al., 2018; Shibia, 2010; Gandiwa et al., 2013; Gillingham and Lee, 2003; Ayivor et al., 2013). In response, impoverishment of riparian populations caused by conservation programs pushes the most vulnerable groups—who benefit the least from the economic gains of protected areas and rely heavily on natural resources—to increase their human pressures on the environment to survive, resulting in negative impacts on biodiversity (Oburah et al., 2021; Matseketsa et al., 2018; Gandiwa et al., 2010; Stasja and van Beek, 2017). As will be detailed in the next section, the failure to integrate local socio-environmental structures and practices contributes both to the rejection of conservation initiatives and related restrictions, and to heightened conflicts over land and resources. This, in turn, intensifies environmental pressures and degradation.

Environmental and Land-Use Conflicts and Community Integration

18Whether resulting from environmental exclusions, violence, predation linked to fortress conservation models (Brockington, 2006; Duffy, 2014, 2016; Duffy et al., 2019), land conflicts (Dressler et al., 2010; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Kremen and Merenlender, 2018; Marris, 2011; Andriamasinoro and Sarrasin, 2015), or territorial control strategies enacted by central governments (Diallo, 2019, 2022; Hubert, 2021), the literature highlights various conflictual aspects related to protected natural areas in Africa, including in East, Southern, and West Africa.

19These conflict dynamics are often linked to land grabbing, land pressure, ignoring the rights of riparian communities, their exclusion from governance structures, and the imposition of new norms for resource access and environmental regulation (Schetter et al., 2022; Lunstrum, 2014; Neumann, 2001, 2004; Fairhead et al., 2012; Holmes, 2014; Marijnen and Verweijen, 2016; Weldemichel, 2020). Populations excluded or marginalized from decision-making, conservation management, or access to natural resources—and from receiving adequate compensation (Dumsile and Maruta, 2020)—often increase their environmental pressures to sustain their livelihoods and food security (Dumsile and Maruta, 2020; Matseketsa et al., 2019; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2019; Bedelian and Ogutu, 2017). This situation creates tensions and conflicts with conservation efforts. Although localized, these conflicts can sometimes connect or relate to broader-scale conflict dynamics (Deme et al., Bertrand et al., Dervieux, in this issue). They then lead to heightened anthropogenic pressures and environmental degradation beyond initial levels observed before conservation programs were introduced (Hubert, 2021; Cavanagh et al., 2020; Morton et al., 2016; Khumalo and Yung, 2015; Mariki et al., 2015; Sarrasin, 2007).

20These environmental and land-use conflicts, along with the lack of integration and recognition of conservation spaces by riparian communities, are well documented in East and Southern Africa. However, Galvin et al. (2018) point out a gap in research on protected areas, especially community-managed ones, in Francophone regions and specifically in West Africa. While there is a consensus among scientific community and local populations about the clear benefits of conservation areas for environmental services and biodiversity preservation, it is crucial to broaden our understanding of how integrating riparian communities into conservation efforts can reduce conflicts and bolster local socio-economic resilience.

21Given the increasing conflicts over land use and the rising opposition between riparian communities and conservation managers, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have affirmed that Indigenous communities have the right to participate fully and effectively in the governance of protected areas. They have also called on states to include community-governed protected areas (ICCAs) and those with shared governance in national protected area systems (Stan, 2014, p. 69). Although many community-managed protected areas have been conceptualized and implemented, Stan (2014, pp. 71-72) notes that only a small fraction of those meeting IUCN criteria are recognised by states as part of their protected area networks. A major obstacle to the widespread implementation of this new approach is the need to reform each country's laws, policies, and environmental regulations (Stan, 2014, p. 65).

22This new paradigm also aimed to enhance the effectiveness of conservation based on the concept of CBNRM and to respond to criticisms raised in the 1990s (Stan, 2014, pp. 60-61). Although CBNRM has been implemented since the late 1980s, its initial goals were not to fundamentally change the management of protected areas or to transfer their control and direction to riparian communities (Langton et al., 2005, p. 34, cited in Stan, 2014, p. 61). Bene and Fournier (2015, §1) also clarify that during the 2000s, a monetary value was linked to ecosystem services, a development that greatly influenced environmental development and conservation initiatives. This shift led to viewing biodiversity conservation partly through understanding the connections between biodiversity dynamics and human access and use modalities (Bene and Fournier, 2015, §§2, 32, 34). However, this view remains largely based on market regulation and is explicitly rooted in modern ontologies imported from outside, often neglecting cultural and spiritual values and services (Bene and Fournier, 2015, §§3, 34).

23As Wei et al. (2018, pp. 26-27) remind us, protected areas are specific socio-environmental systems that encompass ecological, social, cultural, and political structures. They highlight that many activities are restricted within protected areas, which not only limits access to environmental services (such as grazing, hunting, or gathering firewood) but can also lead to poverty and social conflicts, reflecting a lack of acknowledgment of the role of local communities in ecosystem and biodiversity management (Wei et al., 2018, pp. 26-27). While shared governance is a key element of the new paradigm advocated by both IUCN and CBD, its implementation varies widely and remains reliant on national legislation and the practices of external partners (Stan, 2014, p. 76). Stan asserts that although shared governance of protected areas is often presented as an egalitarian partnership, in reality, states and NGOs frequently resist sharing power equitably with indigenous communities (Stan, 2014, p. 76).

24These findings are supported by numerous studies across Africa, which demonstrate that in many cases, conservation areas are established within indigenous lands and often function as tools of territorial control and appropriation by central authorities. These communities are frequently deprived of their ability to manage their lands based on their own environmental views, social-environmental relationships, and goals. Stan (2014, p. 3) notes that many indigenous communities see protected areas as threats to their well-being and challenge them as colonial power moves that violate human rights (Stan, 2014, p. 3).

25Despite the claims of ownership and participation in the international cooperation paradigm, riparian communities, their knowledge, rights, and socio-environmental systems remain excluded from protected area management and conservation programs (Stan, 2014, p. 7; Binot and Daou, 2007, §1). Binot and Daou (2007, §13) note that the design of conservation or sustainable exploitation projects often reflects a stereotypical view of “local populations,” which does not capture the complexity of reality. Wei et al. (2018, p. 27) and Rampheri et al. (2022, p. 770) highlight the importance of establishing a balance between biodiversity conservation goals and the well-being and living standards of riparian communities, which often face high costs related to protected areas, are poorly included in conservation efforts, and hold negative perceptions of these initiatives. Frequently, riparian communities not only lack knowledge of the roles of management bodies but are also not involved in these bodies or in economic opportunities and jobs linked to conservation programs. This situation furthers the divide and creates conflicts among stakeholders, especially marginalised populations (Rampheri et al., 2022, p. 775).

26As Binot and Daou (2007, §11) point out, “the sphere of customary authority is unavoidable on the ground regarding rules for resource use and land management.” They note that endogenous socio-political structures often conflict with national land laws that promote exclusive property rights. This is confirmed by Hubert (2021) in a study on conflicts related to the Pama Presidential Hunting Reserve and the Arly National Park zone in Burkina Faso, and more generally by Boche et al. (2023) on contradictions between practices and national land policies in sub-Saharan Africa. Binot and Daou (2007, §11) observe that during conservation projects, “the ‘bypass’ of customary rights holders is a recurring source of blockages, conflicts, and opposition from local populations towards conservation agents.” Kujirakwinja et al. (2013, §47) and Kasisi (2012, §41) agree that respecting biological diversity should also imply respecting human diversity, and that creating sustainable development models in harmony with cultural needs and aspirations requires abandoning models that fundamentally threaten these cultures’ lives and prospects. This approach is nuanced by Kohler (2011), who sees it as more political than scientific, similar to critiques of the ethnoecological approach developed by Posey around the study of the Kayapó communities in Brazil, which advocates for bottom-up, co-constructed conservation approaches (Penna-Firme et al., 2018).

27Considering endogenous socio-environmental structures and practices can enhance local understanding and use of protected areas, strengthen local socio-economic networks, and lessen land and resource conflicts. It may also encourage greater participation of riparian communities in management roles or even shared management of protected areas. As discussed in the next section, recognising and integrating local socio-environmental structures can also improve the appreciation of local knowledge, particularly in environmental management and protection, promoting co-creation of knowledge and the decolonisation of international cooperation programs centred on resource management.

Immaterial Rights and Endogenous Knowledge of the Environment

28Okpoko (2022, pp. 21-23), Runge et al. (2020), Behrens (2018), Chimakonam (2018), Udowole and Fayemi (2018), and Issifu (2018) emphasise that endogenous socio-environmental systems in Africa are rooted in holistic ontologies that are closely connected to forests and the environment. In this view, the environment is not only regarded as a resource provider or habitat for humans but also as an active agent with its own life and spirits that support the living species associated with forests. Okpoko (2022, p. 23), citing Densu (2017, p. 34), notes that one of the main challenges for sub-Saharan societies has been adjusting their thoughts and practices to Western modernity and its related modes of environmental relations and resource management, which frequently conflict with endogenous socio-environmental systems.

29Kasisi highlights the hermetic nature of conservation programs in relation to local and indigenous knowledge, which prevailed for centuries before modern, positivist conservation methods rooted mainly in natural sciences were imposed (Kasisi, 2012, §43). Bene and Fournier (2015, §3) also emphasize that societal judgments about elements of nature are shaped by lifestyles and cultures, and that perceptions of the environment are unique to each society. Roué and Bahuchet (2014, §5) argue that paying more attention to local and indigenous knowledge could enhance co-management or participatory management initiatives. They describe these knowledge systems as the foundation of endogenous management models that enable local communities to think and act upon the natural world. They stress that any conservation proposal must incorporate these knowledge systems for ethical and practical reasons (Roué and Bahuchet, 2014, §11). Kimengsi and Mukong (2023, p. 1580) further explain that endogenous cultural institutions are informal rules developed within communities and transmitted across generations through norms, values, and beliefs. Recognizing local knowledge and norms is especially important because, in Africa, environmental regulation and management norms have often been established by external institutions that have overlooked or eroded endogenous structures, leading to hybridisation or loss of traditional systems (Kimengsi and Mukong, 2023, pp. 1579-1580). As Langton et al. (2014, p. 85) observe, for riparian and indigenous communities, protecting traditional knowledge is motivated not just by biodiversity conservation but also by the desire to remain on ancestral lands, guarantee food security, and sustain local autonomy culturally, economically, and politically (Langton et al., 2014, p. 85).

30In this context, greater consideration and inclusion of endogenous socio-political structures could improve the acceptance of conservation programs by riparian communities, expand their scope, and lessen land-use or ontological conflicts. Mashingaidze (2016, p. 29) and Kimengsi and Mukong (2023, p. 1593) highlight that many studies have demonstrated the role of taboos and prohibitions in regulating forest use, even outside protected areas, and in shaping relationships with the environment and resource use. Mashingaidze (2016, p. 27) explains that African practices emphasise close links between the living world and the cosmos, encompassing the world of humans, the unseen realm, and the environment. Bene and Fournier (2015, §17) describe how community territories are made up of a coexistence and superimposition of the visible world (humans, fauna, flora) and the unseen world, whose balance ensures peace, tranquillity, and food sufficiency. These practices establish strict protections around access to flora and fauna, linking them to the unseen realm (Bene and Fournier, 2015, §22). Vodounou (2020, p. 97) studies agroforestry practices in rural communities in northern Togo and Benin, showing that endogenous approaches support sustainable resource use, boost biodiversity, and improve microclimates as well as water and nutrient availability for crops.

31Artaud (2014, §23) highlights the significance of endogenous rights related to the environment, including prohibitions, sacred sites, and taboos connected to spiritualities and ontologies. He points out the challenge of mobilizing these practices outside their symbolic contexts and how they can weaken or change when incorporated into other normative systems, raising questions about how to maintain a value system that remains outside formalization (Artaud, 2014, §23). Kasisi (2012, §51) proposes that integrating some endogenous practices into conservation programs can help protect resources and promote sustainable use if they are incorporated into local socio-environmental systems and cultural traditions. This is especially important because, as Kujirakwinja et al. (2013, §38), Langton et al. (2014, p. 103), and Bene and Fournier (2015, §1) observe, communities are more inclined to support biodiversity and ecosystem conservation if they see these spaces as valuable, meaningful, and beneficial to their well-being and social fabric.

32Therefore, involving local communities and their environmental knowledge in conservation programs is essential for their acceptance and success (Mashingaidze, 2016, p. 32; Friedberg, 2014, §§1-3). Stan (2014, p. 304), Okpoko (2022, p. 28), and Friedberg (2014, §§1-3) highlight the importance of understanding communities’ motivations and practices, even if they differ epistemologically from international actors, to encourage effective participation. Stan (2014, p. 298) concludes that shared governance can empower indigenous populations to have greater decision-making authority over their territories, protect their rights, and foster better relations with the state, thereby improving conservation practices, community rights, and social reconciliation. However, systemic governance failures, internal decision-making processes, territorial control issues, and power dynamics often obstruct these efforts.

33Within this shared governance framework, Boche et al. (2023) examine land commons that are gradually structuring to address social, economic, and ecological challenges faced by rural societies in sub-Saharan Africa. These commons are institutionalized forms that adopt a functional approach based on land use and establish local rules for resource access. The authors conclude that, given the nature of states in sub-Saharan Africa, only local populations have a long-term interest in conserving natural resources, but they can only do so if they retain the capacity to define and enforce collective rules within a clear institutional framework supported by the state (Boche et al., 2023, p. 64).

34To better understand mechanisms that could improve local engagement with conservation programs and spaces, this thematic issue aims to analyze conflicts related to protected areas and their capacity to manage environmental and land-use conflicts or to strengthen local socio-economic structures. It is important to further explore similar phenomena observed in Francophone Africa (Galvin et al., 2018). In West and Central Africa, the literature agrees on the decline of biodiversity and increasing pressures on conservation sites, along with numerous local conflicts regarding the management of protected areas. In West Africa, studies increasingly connect local conflicts over protected areas with broader violence and asymmetric conflict mechanisms observed in the Sahel and the Gulf of Guinea (Ranieri, 2020, 2024; Kyale et al., Bertrand et al., Dervieux, in this issue).

A Corpus of Articles Examining Conflict Issues in Protected Areas in West Africa

35It is therefore even more crucial to deepen our understanding of the conflict factors related to protected areas, which contribute to increasing pressures on conservation spaces and biodiversity. A lack of understanding of socio-environmental integration could undermine their initial goals by intensifying environmental pressures. The articles in this thematic issue specifically explore these issues from various disciplinary perspectives within social sciences. The first article by Tamidribe et al. examines the case of the Yangambi Biosphere Reserve (RBY) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), questioning how climate change discourse and policies influence conservation programs and their implementation in developing countries. The authors highlight the gap between the objectives claimed by RBY and the low level of community engagement, with communities feeling marginalised and dispossessed of their lands. Similarly, Dème et al. investigate the challenges of community integration within biodiversity conservation programs, focusing on the Keta Lagoon Ramsar site in Ghana. They find that communities recognize threats from human pressures and climate change but remain poorly informed about the objectives and regulations of the protected area. Another study by Kyale et al. analyses pressures from artisanal gold mining within the Bili-Uéré hunting reserve in DRC, emphasising how poverty and subsistence needs reinforce circumvention of legislation and increase illegal mining activities, often at the expense of conservation spaces.

36Muteya et al. employ cartographic approaches combined with landscape ecology tools to assess the landscape dynamics of primary forests in Salonga National Park (PN) in DRC, the largest forest park in Africa. They observe that although primary forests remain dominant, they tend to degrade into secondary forests and fields, urging managers to adopt economic models that promote diversification of income sources. Kikpa and Guera seek to better understand social factors contributing to the ongoing degradation of the Alibori Superior Forest Reserve in Benin, highlighting the circumvention of conservation programs by authorities and exploiters, as well as regulatory reinforcement that worsens conflicts among users and accelerates resource degradation. They call for a better understanding of endogenous socio-environmental systems to address land-use conflicts. Mangabu studies conflicts in Kahuzi-Biega National Park (PNKB) in DRC, emphasizing that recognising indigenous land rights and implementing participatory management respecting these rights could help sustain communities within conservation areas and improve access to basic services. However, current dominant models often ignore these rights, leading to coercive practices and land dispossession, as shown by Dervieux’s ethnographic study of conservation practices in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park. Dervieux highlights persistent coercive and land-grabbing practices, which are viewed as colonial and violate community rights. Bertrand et al. draw on decades of experience in Madagascar, advocating for a fundamental reform of conservation models based on indigenous rights and practices. Lastly, Gnanguenon and Mossi analyse governance issues in the Beninese part of W National Park, revealing how local, national, and regional agendas and interests create complex power dynamics that extend beyond environmental concerns. Dème et al. also examine fisheries management in the sub-region of the Central Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (CSRP), identifying structural factors like extractive industries and perceived inequities in management policies that exacerbate conflicts.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Adams, W., Hulme, D., 2001a, Conservation and community: changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation, dans Hulme, D., Murphree, M., (éd.). African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation, James Currey Éditeurs, Oxford, pp. 9–23.

Adams, W., Hulme, D., 2001b, If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35, 3, pp. 193–203.

Agrawal, A., Redford, K., 2009, Conservation and displacement: an overview, Conservation 670 and Society, 7, 29, pp. 4-12.

Anderson, J., Mehta, S., 2013, A global assessment of community based natural resource management: addressing the critical challenges of the rural sector. USAID (United States Agency for International Development) International Resources Group, [En ligne] URL : http://frameweb.org/adl/en-US/10506/file/1574/CBNRM%20ASSESSMENT%20FINAL%20May%202013.pdf

Andriamasinoro, J. et Sarrasin, B., 2015, Le tourisme pour protéger l’environnement : une alternative au développement du secteur minier à Madagascar? Actes colloque: 6e journée scientifique du tourisme durable, Québec, pp. 19-31

Artaud, Hélène, 2014, De l’« efficacité » symbolique des interdits à leur fonctionnalité écologique1 Variations sur le « tabou » en milieux maritimes, Revue d’Ethnoécologie, 6, [En ligne] URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/2055

Aubertin C., Rodary, E. (éd.), 2008, Aires protégées, espaces durables ?, IRD Éditions, Marseille, 277 p.

Ayivor, J. S., C. Gordon, and Y. Ntiamoa-Baidu, 2013, Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case study of Digya National Park, PARKS, 19, 1, pp. 37–50, 2013.

Balint, P. J., Mashinya, J., 2006, The decline of a model community-based conservation project: governance, capacity, and devolution in Mahenye, Zimbabwe, Geoforum, 37, 5, pp. 805-815.

Bedelian, C., Ogutu, J. O., 2017, Trade-offs for climate-resilient pastoral livelihoods in wildlife conservancies in the Mara ecosystem, Kenya, Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 7, [En ligne] URL : https://pastoralismjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13570-017-0085-1 https://pastoralismjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13570-017-0085-1

Behrens, Kevin G., 2018, An African account of the moral obligation to preserve biodiversity, dans Chimakonam, Jonathan, African Philosophy and Environmental Conservation, Routledge, Chapitre 4, pp 42-58.

Bene, A., Fournier, A., 2015, Réflexion sur la notion de services écologiques : étude de cas à Kotoudéni (Burkina Faso), VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, 15, 3, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16758

Berkes, F., 2004, Rethinking community-based conservation, Conservation Biology, 18, 3, pp .621–630.

Binot, A., Joiris, V., 2007, Règles d’accès et gestion des ressources pour les acteurs des Périphéries d’aires protégées, VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, Hors-série 4, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/759

Blanc, G., 2020, L’invention du colonialisme vert : Pour en finir avec le mythe de l’Éden africain, Flammarion, Paris.

Boche, M., d'Aquino, P., Hubert, N., Leyronas, S. et Seck, S. M., 2024, Les communs de la terre et des ressources naturelles, socles d’un développement économique apaisé ? dans Leyronas, S., Coriat, B., Nubukpo, K. et Jacquemot, P., L’Afrique en communs : tensions, mutations, perspectives, Éditions Banque mondiale – Agence française de développement, collection « L’Afrique en développement », pp. 384-389.

Bersaglio B., Cleaver, F., 2018, Green Grab by Bricolage – The Institutional Workings of Community Conservancies in Kenya, Conservation and Society, 16, 4, pp. 467-480

Brockington, D., J. Igoe, 2006, Eviction for conservation: A global overview, Conservation and Society, 4, 3, pp. 424–470.

Büscher, B., Dressler, W., 2012, Commodity conservation: the restructuring of community conservation in South Africa and the Philippines, Geoforum, 43, 3, pp. 367–376.

Cavanagh, Connor J., Weldemichel, T. et Benjaminsen, T., 2020, Gentrifying the African Landscape: The Performance and Powers of for-Profit Conservation on Southern Kenya’s Conservancy Frontier, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110, 5, pp. 1594–1612.

Chimakonam, Jonathan, 2018, Ohanife. An account of the ecosystem based on the African notion of relationship, dans Chimakonam, Jonathan (dir), African philosophy and environmental conservation, Routledge, Chapitre 9, pp 120-135

Collomb, J. G. E., Mupeta, P., Barnes, G. et B. Child, B., 2010, Integrating governance and socioeconomic indicators to assess the performance of community-based natural resources management in Caprivi (Namibia), Environment Conservancy, 37, 3, pp. 303-309.

Convers, A,, Issa Chaibou, I, Binot, A. et Dulieu, D., 2007, La gestion de la transhumance dans la zone d’influence du parc régional du W par le programme Ecopas, VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, Hors-série 4, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/761

Joiris D. V. ,Bigombe Logo P. et Abega S. C., 2014, La gestion participative des forêts en Afrique centrale. Logique développementiste, gouvernance antiparticipative et stratégies d’acteurs, Revue d’ethnoécologie, 6, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/1960

Densu, K., 2017, Omenala: Toward an African-centered ecophilosophy and political ecology. Journal of Black Studies, 49, 1, pp. 29–52.

de Sardan, J.-P. O., 2021, La Revanche des contextes: Des mésaventures de l'ingénierie sociale en Afrique et au-delà. Karthala Editions.

Descola, P., 2021, La Nature domestique: symbolisme et praxis dans l'écologie des Achuar. Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.

Dressler, W., Büscher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C. A., McCarthy, J. et Shrestha, K., 2010, From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative, Environmental Conservation, 37, 1, pp. 5–15.

Duffy, R., 2006, The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: The politics of transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa, Political Geography, 25, 1, pp. 89–112.

Duffy, R., 2014, Waging a war to save biodiversity: The rise of militarized conservation, International Affairs, 90, 4, pp. 819–834.

Duffy, R., 2016, War, by conservation, Geoforum, 69, pp. 238–248.

Duffy, R., Massé, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., Büscher, B., Verweijen, J., Ramutsindela, M., Simlai, T., Joanny, L. et Lunstrum, E., 2019, Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biological Conservation, 232, pp. 66–73.

Hlengwa D. C., Maruta, A. T., 2020, A framework for facilitation of community participation in and beneficiation from CBT around the Save Valley Conservancy, African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 9, 2.

Dyer, J., L. C. Stringer, A. J. Dougill, J. Leventon, M. Nshimbi, F. Chama, A. Kafwifwi, J. I. Muledi, J.-M. K. Kaumbu, M. Falcao, S. Muhorro, F. Munyemba, G. M. Kalaba, et S. Syampungani, 2014, Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: experiences in community engagement from southern Africa, Journal of Environmental Management, 137, pp. 137-145.

Elliott, J., Gibbons, H., King, D., King A. et Leménager, T., 2014, Exploring Environmental Complementarity between Types of Protected Areas in Kenya. Focale 19. AFD. 107 p.

Escobar, A., 2018, Sentir-penser avec la terre. Une écologie au-delà de l’Occident, Seuil, Paris, collection « Anthropocène », 240 p.

Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Turner, H., & Sisitka, L. (2013). What we have learnt from a decade of experimentation dans K. Fabricius et T. Magome (éd.), Rights, resources & rural development - Community-based natural resource management in Southern Africa, Earthscan, Londres, pp. 271-281.

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., et Scoones, I., 2012, Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies, 39, 2, pp. 237–261.

Friedberg, C., 2014, Protéger les humains et les nonhumains. L’exemple des Bunaq de Lamaknen, Revue d’ethnoécologie, 6, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/1875

Frost, P. G. H. et Bond, I. (2008), The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services, Ecological Economics, 65, 4, pp. 776–787

Galvin, Kathleen. A., Tyler A. Beeton et Matthew W. Luizza, 2018, African comunity-based conservation : a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes, African community-based conservation: a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes, Ecology and Society, 23, 3, pp. 39.

Gandiwa, I., Heitkönig, M. A., Lokhorst, A. M., Prins, H. H. T. et C. Leeuwis, C., 2010, CAMPFIRE and human-wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern gonarezhou national park, Zimbabwe, Journal of Ecology and Society, 18, 4, p. 7, 2013

Gargallo, E., Kalvelage, L., 2021, Integrating social-ecological systems and global production networks: local effects of trophy hunting in Namibian conservancies, Development Southern Africa, 38, 1, pp. 87-103

Gillingham, S., Lee, P. C., 2003, People and protected areas: a study of local perceptions of wildlife, crop-damage, conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania, Oryx, 37, 3, pp. 310–325.

Hagberg S, Gomgnimbou, M. et Somé D. B., 1996, Forêts Classées et Terres des Ancestres au Burkina Faso, Cultural Anthropology, 3,

Hartmann, B., 2014, Converging on Disaster: Climate Security and the Malthusian Anticipatory Regime for Africa, Geopolitics, 19, 4, pp. 757–783.

Heydinger J., Diggle, R., Stuart-Hill, G., Dierkes, K. et Packeré, C., 2022, Differentiated payments for ecosystem services based on estimated prey consumption by lions within communal conservancies in northwest Namibia. Ecosystem Services, 53, 101403

Higgins-Desbiolles, F., 2022, Rethinking tourism so the locals actually benefit from hosting visitors, The Conversation, [En ligne] URL : https://theconversation.com/rethinking-tourism-so-the-locals-actually-benefit-from-hosting-visitors-116066

Hill, C., 1998, Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25, 3, pp. 244–250

Hinz, M., 2003, Without chiefs there would be no game: customary law and nature conservation, Out of Africa Publishers.

Holmes, G., 2014, What is a land grab? Exploring green grabs, conservation, and private protected areas in southern Chile, Journal of Peasant Studies, 41, 4, pp. 547–567.

Hoole, A., 2010, Place-power-prognosis: community-based conservation, partnerships, and ecotourism enterprises in Namibia, International Journal of the Commons, 4, 1, pp. 78-99.

Horwich, R.H., Lyon, J., 2007, Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx, 41, pp. 376-385

Hubert, N., 2021, The Nature of Peace : How Environmental Regulation can Cause Conflicts?, World Development, 141, [En ligne] URL : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X21000218

Hubert, N., 2022, Industries minières et violences au Burkina Faso. Comment le développement minier a-t-il contribué à l’expansion des groupes armés ?, Politique Africaine, 167, 3, pp. 119-140.

Hulke, C., Kalvelagea, L., Kairub, J., Revilla Dieza J. et Rutinab, L., 2022, Navigating through the storm: conservancies as local institutions for regional resilience in Zambezi, Namibia, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 15, pp. 305–322.

Hulme, D., Murphree, M., 2001a, Community conservation as policy: promise and performance, dans African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation, James Curry Ltd, Oxford, pp. 280-297.

Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 2001b. Community conservation in Africa: an introduction. In: African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservation (eds. Hulme, D. and M. Murphree). Pp.1–8. Oxford: James Currey Ltd.

Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2007, Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction, Conservation and Society, 5, 4, pp. 432–449.

Issifu, Abdul Karim, Francis Diawuo, 2018, Exploring the African traditional belief systems (totems and taboos) in natural resources conservation and management in Ghana, dans Chimakonam, Jonathan (dir), African philosophy and environmental conservation, Routledge, Chapitre 15, pp 209-222.

Jacobsohn, M., Owen-Smith, G., 2003, Integrating conservation and development: a Namibian case study, Nomadic Peoples, 7, 1, pp. 92–109

Jayne, T. S., Zulu, B., Kajoba, G. et Weber, M. T., 2009, Access to land, and poverty reduction in rural Zambia: connecting the policy issues. Food Security Collaborative Policy Briefs 55054. Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, East Lansing, Michigan, USA, [En ligne] URL : https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midcpb/55054.html

Jones, B., Weaver, C., 2008, CBNRM in Namibia: Growth, trends, lessons and constraints dans Suich, H., Child, B. et Spenceley A. (éd.), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation: Parks and game ranches to transfrontier conservation areas, Earthscan. Londres, pp. 224-242.

Kamoto, J.,Clarkson, G., Dorward, P. et Shepherd, D., 2013, Doing more harm than good? Community based natural resource management and the neglect of local institutions in policy development, Land Use Policy, 35, pp. 293-301.

Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2012, What is conservation science?, BioScience, 61, 11, pp. 962–969.

Kasisi, R., 2012, Les perspectives de la biodiversité en Afrique subsaharienne : repenser collectivement le modèle de gestion, VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, 12, 2, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/12263

Khumalo K. E., Yung, L. A., 2015, Women, Human-Wildlife Conflict, and CBNRM: Hidden Impacts and Vulnerabilities in Kwandu Conservancy, Namibia, Conservation & Society, 13, 3, pp. 232-243.

Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, Alfred Kechia Mukong, 2023, Forest resource endogenous cultural institutions in rural Cameroon: compliance determinants and policy implications, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66, 7, pp 1579-1600.

Kirchner, C. H., Stage, J., 2005, An economic comparison of the commercial and recreational line fisheries in Namibia, South African Journal of Marine Science, 27, 3, pp. 577-584

Kohler, F., 2011, Diversité culturelle et diversité biologique: une approche critique fondée sur l’exemple brésilien, Natures sciences sociétés, 19, 2, pp. 113-124.

Kra, W. K., 2019, Côte d’Ivoire : les aires protégées entre politique de conservation contrastée et réinterprétation sociale, Études Caribéennes, 43-44, [En ligne] URL : https://journals.openedition.org/etudescaribeennes/17124

Kremen, C., Merenlender, A. M., 2018, Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people, Science, 362, 6412

Kujirakwinja D., Shamavu, P., Twendilonge, A., Karhagomba Balagizi, I. et Berchmans Muhigwa, J., 2013, Renforcement de capacités des acteurs locaux dans la gestion des ressources naturelles à travers la résolution des conflits sensibles à la conservation à l’est de la République Démocratique du Congo, VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement, Hors-série 17, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/13885

Langton, M, L. Palmer et Z. M. Rhea, 2014, “Chapter 3. Community-Oriented Protected Areas for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia”, dans (ed) Stan, S., 2014, Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas a new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights, University of Arizona Press.

Leisher, C., Temsah, G., Booker, F., Day, M., Samberg, L., Prosnitz, D., Agarwal, B., Matthews, E., Roe, D., Russel, D., Sunderland, T. et Wilkie, D., 2016, Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? Environmental Evidence, 5, 6.

Lewins, R., Be´ne´, C., Baba, M., Belal, E., Donda, S., Lamine, A., Makadassou, A., Tahir Na A. M., Neiland, A. E., Njaya, F.,Ovie, S. et Raji, A., 2014, African inland fisheries: Experiences with co-management and policies of decentralization, Society & Natural Resources, 27, 4, pp. 405–420.

Lunstrum, E., 2014. Green militarization: Anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104, 4, pp. 816–832.

Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J.J., Teel, T.L., 2003, The Potential for Conflict Index: a graphic approach to practical significance of human dimensions research, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, pp. 219–228.

Marijnen, E., Verweijen, J., 2016, Selling green militarization: The discursive (re) production of militarized conservation in the Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Geoforum, 75, pp. 274–285

Marris, E., 2011, Rambunctious Garden: Saving nature in a post-wild world, Bloomsbury, New York.

Mashingaidze, Sivave, 2016, Cosmovision and African conservation philosophy: indigenous knowledge system perspective, Environmental Economics, 7, 4, pp. 25-33.

Matseketsa G., Chibememe, G., Muboko, N., Gandiwa, E., et Takarinda. K., 2018, Towards an Understanding of Conservation-Based Costs, Benefits, and Attitudes of Local People Living Adjacent to Save Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe Hindawi, Scientifica, [En ligne] URL : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6139187/

Maynard, L., Jacobson Susan K., et Kamnaga, John. A., 2019, Stakeholder collaboration: evaluating community-based conservancies in Kenya, 54, 5, pp. 723–730.

Mariki, S. B., Svarstad, H. et Benjaminsen, T. A., 2015, Elephants over the cliff: Explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania, Land Use Policy, 44, pp. 19–30.

Matseketsa, G., Mukamuti, B. B., Muboko, N. et Gandiwa, E., 2019, An assessment of local people’s support of private wildlife conservation: A case of Save Valley Conservancy and Fringe communities, Zimbabwe. Scientifica, [En ligne] URL : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/2019/2534614

Mburu, J., Birner, R., 2007, Emergence, adoption, and implementation of collaborative wildlife management or wildlife partnerships in Kenya: a look at conditions for success, Society & Natural Resources, 20, 5, pp. 379-395.

Mcdougall, C., Banjade, M.R., 2015, Social capital, conflict, and adaptive collaborative governance: exploring the dialectic, Ecology and Society, 20, 44.

Moore, L., 2010, Conservation heroes versus environmental villains: perceiving elephants in Caprivi, Namibia, Human Ecology, 38, 1, pp. 19–29.

Morton H., Winter, E. et Grote, U., 2016, Assessing natural resource management through integrated environmental and social-economic accounting: The case of a Namibian conservancy, Journal of Environment & Development, 25, 4, pp. 396–425

Muchapondwa, E., Stage, J., 2013, The economic impacts of tourism in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa: Is poverty subsiding? Natural Resources Forum, 37, 2, pp. 80–89.

Mudinga, Emery Mushagalusa, Serge Ngendakumana et An Ansoms, 2013, Analyse critique du processus de cogestion du parc national de Kahuzi-Biega en République Démocratique du Congo, VertigO – la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, Hors-série 17, [En ligne], URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/13873

Murphree, M. W, 2004, Communal approaches to natural resource management in Africa: from whence and to where?, Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 7, pp. 203-216.

Naidoo, R., Weaver, L. C., Diggle, R. W., Matongo, G., Stuart-Hill, G. et Thouless, C., 2016, Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia, Conservation Biology, 30, 3, pp. 628–638.

Nelson, F., Agrawal, A., 2008, Patronage or participation? Community-based natural resource management reform in sub-Saharan Africa, Development and Change, 39, pp. 557-585.

Neumann, R, 2001, Disciplining peasants in Tanzania: From state violence to selfsurveillance in wildlife conservation dans Peluso N., Watts M., (éd.), Violent environments, Cornell University Press, pp. 305-327.

Neumann, R. P., 2004, Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa, Political Geography, 23, 7, pp. 813–837.

Nunan, F., 2006, Empowerment and institutions: Managing fisheries in Uganda, World Development, 34, 7, pp. 1316–1332.

Oburah, K. O., Lenachuru C. et Odadi, W. O., 2021, Does the Community Conservancy ModelWork for Pastoralists? Insights from Naibunga Conservancy in Northern Kenya, Sustainability,, 13, 7772.

Okpoko, Mercy Osemudiame, 2022, Interconnectedness with Nature’: The Imperative for an African-centered Eco-philosophy in Forest Resource Conservation in Nigeria, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 25, 1, pp. 21-36,

Olatoundji, Y. A., D. Ouattara, Y. Konan et J. Ohouko, 2021, « Perception des populations sur le rôle des aires protégées dans leur résilience face au changement climatique : cas du Parc National de la Marahoué (Centre-Ouest, Côte d’Ivoire), VertigO – la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement, 21, 2, [En ligne], URL : https://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/32563

Penna-Firme R., de Sà, I. M., Elisabetsky, É., 2018, Remembering Darrell Posey´s contribution to ethnobiology and ethnoecology, Ethnoscientia, 3, 2, pp 1-12

Rampheri, M. B., Dube, T., Shoko, C., Marambanyika, T., et Dhau, I., 2022, Local community attitudes and perceptions towards benefits and challenges associated with biodiversity conservation in Blouberg Nature Reserve, South Africa, African Journal of Ecology, 60, 3, pp. 769–779

Riehl, B., Zerriffi, H. et Naidoo, R., 2015, Effects of community-based natural resource management on household welfare in Namibia, PLoS One, 10, 5, e0125531.

Roe, D., Nelson, F., Sandbrook, C. (éd.), 2009, Community management of natural resources in Africa. Impacts, experiences and future directions. International Institute for Environment and Development, Londres, [En ligne] URL : http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17503IIED.pdf

Roué M., S. Bahuchet (dir.), 2014, Conservation de la nature : quel rôle pour les sciences sociales ?, Revue d’ethnoécologie, 6, [En ligne], URL : https://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/1874

Runge, Jürgen, Assogba Guézéré et Laldja Kankpénandja, 2020, Workshop on natural resources, socio-ecological sensitivity and climate change in the Volta-Oti Basin – a brief outline, dans Jürgen Runge, Assogba Guézéré, Laldja Kankpénandja (dir), Natural Resources, Socio-Ecological Sensitivity and Climate Change in the Volta-Oti Basin, West Africa, CRC Press, Chapitre 1.

Samuelsson, E., Stage, J., 2007, The size and distribution of the economic impacts of Namibian hunting tourism, South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 37, 1, pp. 41–52.

Sarrasin, B., 2007, Le plan d'action environnemental malgache de la genèse aux problèmes de mise en œuvre : une analyse sociopolitique de l'environnement, Revue Tiers Monde, 190, 2, pp. 435-454.

Schetter C., Mkutu, K., Müller-Koné, M., 2022, Frontier NGOs: Conservancies, control, and violence in northern Kenya, World Development, 151, 105735

Shibia, M. G., 2010, Determinants of attitudes and perceptions on resource use and management of marsabit national reserve, Kenya, Journal of Human Ecology, 30, 1, pp. 55–62, 2010.

Silva, A. J., Mosimane, A. W., 2012, Conservation-based rural development in Namibia: A mixed-methods assessment of economic benefits, Journal of Environment and Development, 22, 1, pp. 25–50.

Silva, J., Motzer, N., 2015, Hybrid uptakes of neoliberal conservation in Namibian tourism-based development, Development and Change, 46, 1, pp. 48-71.

Songorwa, A., 1999, Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) in Tanzania: are the communities interested? World Development, 27, 12, pp. 2061–2079.

Sowman, M., Wynberg, R., 2014, Governance for justice and environmental sustainability: Lessons across natural resource sectors in sub-Saharan Africa, Routledge, New-York.

Stan, S., 2014, Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas a new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights, University of Arizona Press.

Stasja K. van Beek, W., 2017, Ju/’hoansi Lodging in a Namibian Conservancy: CBNRM, Tourism and Increasing Domination, Conservation and Society, 15, 2, pp. 136-146.

Suich, H., 2013, Evaluating the Household Level Outcomes of Community Based Natural Resource Management: the Tchuma Tchato Project and Kwandu Conservancy, Ecology and Society, 18, 4, pp. 25.

Sullivan, S., 2006, The elephant in the room? Problematising ‘new’ (neoliberal) biodiversity conservation, Forum for Development Studies. 33, 1, pp. 105–135.

Turpie, J., Barnes, J., Lange, G. M. et Martin, R., 2010, The economic value of Namibia’s protected area system: A case for increased investment (Report commissioned by the MET with funding from the UNDP/GEF supported strengthening the Protected Area Network [SPAN] Project). Windhoek, Namibia: MET.

Oduwole, Ebunoluwa Olufemi Oduwole, Ademola Kazeem Fayemi, 2018, Animal rights vs. animal care ethics Interrogating the relationship to non-human animals in Yorùbá culture, dans Chimakonam, Jonathan (dir), African philosophy and environmental conservation, Routledge, Chapitre 6, pp 70-83.

van der Ploeg, J., Cauillan-Cureg, J., van Weerd M. et Persoon, G., 2011, ‘Why must we protect crocodiles?’ Explaining the value of the Philippine crocodile to rural communities, Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 8, 4, pp. 1–12.

Vodounou, J.B.K., 2020, Traditional agroforestry in northern Benin and Togo and its contribution to climate resilience, dans Jürgen Runge, Assogba Guézéré, Laldja Kankpénandja (dir), Natural Resources, Socio-Ecological Sensitivity and Climate Change in the Volta-Oti Basin, West Africa, CRC Press, Chapitre 8, 11 p.

Wainwright, C., Wehrmeyer, W., 1998, Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia, World Development, 26, 6, pp. 933-944.

Wei, F., Wang, S., Fu, B., Zhang, L., Fu, C. et Kanga, E., 2018, Balancing community livelihoods and biodiversity conservation of protected areas in East Africa, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 33, pp. 26-33.

Weldemichel, T. G., 2020, Othering pastoralists, state violence, and the remaking of boundaries in Tanzania’s militarised wildlife conservation sector. Antipode, 52 (5), 1496–1518.

West, P., 2006, Conservation is our government now: the politics of ecology in Papua New Guinea. Durham, Duke University Press.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Nicolas Hubert, Stéphanie Leyronas, Jessica Andriamasinoro et Alexis Nagalo, « Introduction - Environmental conflicts and community management of natural protected areas in French-speaking Africa  »VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [En ligne], 24-1 | Juillet 2024, mis en ligne le 13 février 2025, consulté le 12 novembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/50441 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14qqo

Haut de page

Auteurs

Nicolas Hubert

Politologue, post-doctorant au Centre FrancoPaix en résolution des conflits de l’Université du Québec à Montréal, adresse courriel : nicolas.b.hubert@gmail.com

Articles du même auteur

Stéphanie Leyronas

Chargée de recherche, Agence Française de Développement, adresse courriel : leyronass@afd.fr

Jessica Andriamasinoro

Professeure en études de l’environnement, Université de Moncton, adresse courriel : jessica.andriamasinoro@umoncton.ca

Alexis Nagalo

Juriste, chargé de recherche à l’Institut des Sciences des Sociétés du Burkina Faso, adresse courriel : alexis.nagalo@gmail.com

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search