Rangelands are land on which the possible native vegetation includes grasses, sedges and shrubs suited for grazing, covering around 54% of the earth’s surface (Yahdjian et al., 2015). Rangelands support about 30% of the world’s human population (Yahdjian et al., 2015), and about 21% of the African population directly depends on rangeland resources (D’Adamo et al., 2021). Given the importance of rangelands to human livelihoods and wellbeing, it is crucial to examine the governance and policy frameworks that impact rangeland management (Münch et al., 2017; Matsa et al., 2020; D’Adamo et al., 2021; Leweri et al., 2021). Within the broader context of global changes, rangeland condition is strongly influenced by the legal and policy frameworks that inform institutional operations to enhance resource management (Mulale et al., 2014; Falayi et al., 2021; Igshaan Samuels et al., 2021). These institutions can either interact together to help deliver effective rangeland management or can undermine sustainable rangeland management (Falayi et al., 2022).

In southern Africa, rangelands comprise Grassland, Savanna, Thicket, Nama-karoo, Succulent karoo, Desert, Forests, and Fynbos biomes. Although southern Africa’s rangelands are multipurpose, livestock production is the main activity (Naidoo et al., 2013). Communal rangelands within the region have undergone management transformation over the years, and it is strongly believed that these changes are critical in understanding the current state of rangelands. It is well established that in many developing countries, dynamics in rangeland management are strongly linked to the colonial past (Menestrey Schwieger and Mbidzo, 2020; Igshaan Samuels et al., 2021). For example, in most cases, the appropriation of productive land by colonial powers led to indigenous people being left with marginal land and resettlement in overcrowded landscapes (Falayi et al., 2022).

The nature of the property regime influences the effectiveness of the management system in any landscape. A dual system of livestock ranching characterised by communal and commercial livestock or wildlife ranching has persisted due to land tenure arrangements established during colonial rule in southern Africa. For example, freehold tenure (commercial ranching) allows for tighter control and regimented grazing systems, resulting in more effective rangeland management (Mani et al., 2021). On the other hand, in the communal sector, it is difficult to implement requisite rangeland management interventions such as controlled grazing. This has partly led to degradation and inequality in the communal sector (Gusha et al., 2017). In this study, rangeland degradation refers to the decline in the condition of rangelands, primarily due to human activities such as overgrazing, deforestation, and unsustainable agricultural practices (Angerer et al., 2016). However, some studies did not find evidence of rangeland deterioration or overgrazing in communal rangelands (Palmer and Ainslie, 2009; Gwate et al., 2021). Nevertheless, given the historical context of colonialism, some communal rangelands in southern Africa, may have been degraded due to a very weak management regime (Bennett, 2013). Therefore, innovative rangeland management interventions that create an enabling environment will be crucial in dealing with rangeland management challenges such as improving production and reducing rangeland deterioration in the communal sector.

Despite the positive impact of political independence in many southern African countries, rangelands in communal lands continue to be perceived as degraded and of low productivity, partly due to overgrazing (Palmer and Bennett, 2013; Gusha et al., 2017; Falayi et al., 2022). Although biophysical changes drive rangeland degradation (Fauchereau et al., 2003; Engelbrecht et al., 2009), we argue that ineffective human management interventions have contributed to the degradation of communal rangelands. We hypothesise that current policies (post-colonial), institutions, and rangeland management approaches have yet to be effective in curbing the degradation of communal rangelands. In this paper we evaluated the impact of policy and governance institutions on rangeland management practices. Such an evaluation is vital since it will help us to understand how these practices have influenced the state of communal rangelands and it will also inform possible pathways for enhancing the sustainable utilisation of communal rangelands.

We carried out a scoping review based on the methodological framework that Arksey and O’Malley (2005) outlined to identify studies that assessed communal rangeland management practices in southern Africa. We adopted a scoping review because it enabled us to comprehensively gather, synthesise, document knowledge and gaps and identify policy implications on the impacts of rangeland management in communal areas. The review process included the following key steps: 1) defining the research aim, 2) gathering the literature, and 3) conducting data analysis and reporting the results.

The first step of the review process was to define the research aim, which was to examine the impact of communal policy and governance institutions on rangeland management practices in southern Africa. We achieved this by reviewing past scoping review papers on rangeland management in the region to distinguish ourselves from prior reviews. This process led to the identification of our research aim and objectives.

The second step was literature gathering using Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost databases. The first two were selected because they are considered two of the largest online databases (Biesbroek et al., 2018), while EBSCOhost provided comprehensive coverage of African shared pool studies.

The third step involved literature gathering (Figure 1). To gather literature, we used a search query of keywords such as (Commons) OR Communal rangelands) AND southern Africa, Commons OR Communal rangelands AND policy OR governance OR management AND southern Africa with southern Africa replaced by each of the 16 countries within the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region. A total of 587 peer-reviewed academic articles were retrieved from the three bibliographic databases. Google Scholar was further used to identify any other relevant literature that might have been missed in the above-mentioned databases.

The fourth step involved title screening and removing duplicates; 413 articles were excluded in this way, while a further 94 articles were removed by abstract screening. In total, 507 articles were removed because they did not explicitly focus on communal rangelands management. Most of the articles excluded focused on commercial rangeland management. Only 80 articles met the eligibility criteria: they focused on communal rangeland management in southern Africa and were in English.

Full-text screening resulted in the exclusion of a further 20 articles, and a double screening by an independent reviewer excluded two more articles. Using the reference lists from the articles included for the full-text screening, nine articles were added to the sample. A total of 67 articles were considered for the in-depth review, where information on rangeland management practices was analysed (Figure 1).

In southern Africa, efforts to promote sustainable rangeland management have been implemented, but explicit policies are only present in a few countries. While literature reports various rangeland management practices and governance institutions in Namibia and Tanzania, overarching policies on rangeland management still need to be found, suggesting that scholars need to be fully engaged in rangeland policy discussions in relevant countries. Despite undergoing significant land and agrarian reforms, it is concerning that some countries like Zimbabwe still lack policies addressing rangeland management issues despite the pivotal role of the pastoral economy in sustaining rural livelihoods (Gwate, 2014). For example, due to a lack of policies or restrictions on livestock movements, large-scale seasonal cattle movements between communal and resettlement areas are widespread in Zimbabwe. Similarly, Moyo et al. (2013) have suggested that the destruction of fences around relief grazing farms designated after independence in 1980 in Zimbabwe have transferred degradation problems in communal areas to relief grazing farms around communal areas. This may lead to overstocking in newly resettled regions, transferring communal land degradation issues to new resettlement regions and exacerbating degradation concerns. Considering the rapid environmental changes associated with the Anthropocene era, the absence of published papers on policies suggests that there is a need for more policy engagement on rangelands to enable the development of more clearly defined policies in some countries.

It is essential to acknowledge that lack of policy support for southern African communal rangeland systems is leading to transformations in structure, productivity, rainfall variability, and species composition changes. The current top-down government interventions should consider a bottom-up approach where community priority needs are at the forefront since they are the primary implementers and land users. National-level policies and institutions often lead to conflicts and discord in communal rangeland management practice, disenfranchising traditional institutions that administer communal rangelands. Farmers that depend on communal rangelands are likely to remain at the lowest policy level and under-represented in policy agendas where decisions about the common resource property are being made. Therefore, policies and frameworks on communal rangelands should focus on inclusivity through participatory bottom-up approaches for sustainable rangeland management as the policies are implemented at local levels.

Most southern African countries share similar climate systems, suggesting that rangeland problems could be similar, particularly in countries sharing borders. Most studies were isolated and did not describe regional links and similarities in rangeland problems, yet environmental issues have no boundaries. Isolated islands of success in the form of localised projects may not engender regional sustainability in rangelands. We, therefore, submit that the development of regional initiatives for rangeland management could be critical for sustainable rangeland management in the sub-region. This would require close collaboration between governments and researchers from different countries. Such an arrangement could lead to the development of a regional rangelands management guide, which will be relevant to the entire sub-region and reduce degradation. There is an urgent need for such a guide and an attendant monitoring and evaluation system to document best practices and lessons learnt to improve rangeland management.

Since southern Africa is a primary livestock grazing region, interventions that seek to improve livestock production through improving livestock market value chains have been implemented by non-government organisations (NGOs) such as Free-Range Premium Beef and Heading for Health in South Africa. This intervention promotes communal rangeland institutions, linking communities with market value chains while improving rangeland conditions. This has a multiplier effect of incentivising farmers to judiciously manage rangelands as links between a well-managed rangeland and monetary value derived from sale of livestock or livestock products become apparent. On the other hand, no government policies support these NGOs efforts to formalise these institutions to develop profitable businesses in these communities. Consequently, impediments to improving livestock value chains, such as increasing market participation of emerging farmers through encouraging group marketing, upgrading of roads to enable smooth accessibility of farmers to output markets and the establishment of local point sales in rural areas (Khapayi and Celliers, 2016) have remained deeply entrenched in communal grazing lands of southern Africa. Such initiatives to strengthen value chains in livestock farming should also be linked to rangeland management and award farmers for improved rangeland management to enhance livestock value chains.

Effective communication systems should underwrite these, as this is a critical factor in targeting knowledge dissemination, which can help build potential drivers for behavioural change. Elsewhere, the positive effect of carefully planned communication targeted at different farmer types has been demonstrated in helping to encourage a positive change in farm management practices. In this regard, revamped communication strategies could be critical in disseminating information linking improved livestock value chains and sustainable rangeland management to ignite requisite changes within the commons worldwide.