Fragmented Governance, Shared Landscapes: Policy and Functional (In)Coherence Insights from the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area

Our study revealed that policies between the two national parks show a moderate alignment (3.6 out of 5) as certain aspects of the objectives show commonality and similar implementation activities to some extent. This is to be expected given that national parks globally are established with a similar mandate, hence common objectives despite the difference in detail, priority, and scope (Gissibl et al. 2022). While moderate alignment in these policies is evident, the root causes of the discrepancy are hinged on subtle emanations of power asymmetry between the two countries. Among the three GLTFCA member states, South Africa has historically played a dominant role in agenda-setting, largely due to its greater institutional capacity, financial resources, and regional geopolitical influence. The initial impetus for the GLTP—including the convening of early meetings, the drafting of foundational policy documents, and the coordination of transboundary initiatives—was predominantly led by South African institutions. In contrast, less-resourced partners such as Zimbabwe and Mozambique were positioned more as policy adopters than co-designers, reflecting asymmetrical participation in the early stages of the TFCA’s institutional development. While this study does not empirically investigate power relations, these patterns are consistent with the broader governance scholarship, where unequal resource distribution and institutional capacity often shape participation and influence in transboundary initiatives (Büscher 2013; Duffy 2006). Hence, KNP emphasizes a comprehensive, multi-tiered approach reflecting its stronger institutional capacity and broader strategic ambition. This expansion in policy regime extent, covering complex interdependent aligns with what Bolognesi et al. (2021) conceptualized as Institutional Complexity Trap (ICT). While this enables holistic coverage increasing extent, it also risks reduced internal coherence if coordination mechanisms do not evolve proportionally, resulting in a complexity trap. The numerous guidelines and institutional mapping risks, slowing down decision-making and mounting social costs without producing offsetting benefits. This, in turn makes the system potentially less responsive to immediate environmental challenges. Maor (2020) and Holstead et al. (2021) underscored economic reparations and bureaucratic inefficiencies associated with policy over-design and complexity. In contrast, GNP follows a more hands-on, action-oriented approach, a locally grounded implementation style emphasizing community-level engagement. This means that the objectives are easily unpackaged, facilitating rapid responsiveness with each objective directly tied to tangible actions, like e.g. surveying disputed areas, HWC. However, lack of depth in institutional engagement, particularly in long-term frameworks and cooperative governance, results in oversight structures, making it difficult to track progress or hold actors accountable (Howlett and Mukherjee 2017). This divergence from KNP’s more structured, policy-heavy approach reflects a major difference in how each park navigates legal pluralism. While both countries operate under plural legal systems, Zimbabwe relatively accommodates customary law within conservation governance. In South Africa, however, state law overwhelms customary systems, which have been, to a greater extent, historically marginalized within conservation. This asymmetry in the uptake and integration of customary law creates underlying misalignments in governance logic, authority structures, and stakeholder engagement strategies between the two parks, hence the policy incoherence.

Our analysis from policy coherence shows strong alignment “Conservation and Environmental Management”; “Land Use, Regional Planning, and Resource Management”, and “Community Engagement and Socio-Economic Development”. National parks globally are founded on common overarching objectives (Gissibl et al. 2022). Moreover, these themes are inherently interconnected, often guided by structured international frameworks such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program, and the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) guidelines (Dudley 2008; Vasilijević and Pezold 2011; Andersen 2018). Hence, policy standardization is often driven by these frameworks, making conservation goals highly aligned between both parks. Overall, this suggests that normative (non-regulatory) themes, which are shaped by trends of global norms such as community engagement and strategic dimensions, which are often shaped by shared international discourses or donor frameworks (top-aligned themes), are more susceptible to policy alignment. However, alignment for “Community Engagement and Socio-Economic Development” in policy coherence doesn’t resonate the same in functional coherence. Written policy activities and actual practice present a diverging phenomenon. This has been extensively documented in the policy debates as attributed to factors such as policy ambiguity and contextual factors in policy implementation (Howlett and Rayner 2005; Fowler 2021, 2023). However, the growing emphasis on integrating community values into conservation practices has resulted in significant shifts in conservation paradigms (Mace 2014; IPBES 2021; Mpofu et al. 2025), which likely accounts for the high coherence in “Community Engagement and Socio-Economic Development”. Organizations such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have championed approaches that prioritize community well-being and cultural integration, prompting changes in the policy objectives in protected areas (IPBES 2021; Munthali et al. 2023). While contemporary conservation practice reflects efforts toward decolonialization, power asymmetries in sub-Saharan Africa continue to shape institutional outcomes (Sibanda 2015; Eshuis and Gerrits 2021). In sub-Saharan Africa, colonial-era laws institutionalized through state systems coexist unequally with indigenous norms (Rautenbach 2010; Ubink et al. 2021). This top-down legal pluralism compels local systems to adapt to dominant legal frameworks, resulting in regulatory contradictions, as parks enforce formal conservation laws while communities rely on traditional norms. This aligns not only with GLTFCA but with various TFCAs similar challenges, operating under distinct yet intersecting legal regimes (Linell et al. 2019; Retief et al. 2023).

Policies from both parks highlight the need for proactive community engagement, demonstrating a shared commitment to integrate local perspectives despite variations in implementation across different locations. While policy documents reflect a stronger alignment on these issues, several scholars seem to contradict this notion as they highlight the neglection of communities (Büscher 2013; Chibememe et al. 2014; Zanamwe et al. 2018). Communities have voiced their concerns regarding the lack of awareness and inadequate information dissemination, which remains unresolved (Dhliwayo et al. 2023; Mpofu et al. 2023; Thakholi et al. 2024). Perhaps the starting point of community exclusion is this absence of landscape-related information and knowledge at their disposal, an assertion noted by various scholars (Hosseininia et al. 2016; Chiutsi and Saarinen 2017, 2019). This is further substantiated by the policy results, which indicate that “communication and Awareness” is mostly lagging when it comes to policy coherence. The absence of a communication framework cripples the functionality of TFCAs. Chirozva (2015) and Chiutsi and Saarinen (2017) have also highlighted the lack of a robust and formalized communication framework within the GLTFCA.

The absence of structured communication mechanisms contributes to confusion, exacerbating role ambiguity and creating mandate overlaps, a phenomenon associated with institutional inefficiency (Nilsson et al. 2012; Kalaba et al. 2014). This corresponds with our results in functional coherence, which show the dominance of “Corporate Governance and Institutional Efficiency” as a major barrier to coherence and coordination. Comparable challenges have also been reported in similar transboundary protected areas, particularly TFCAs, where the comprehensive framework for policy harmonization remains an ongoing priority (Büscher and Schoon 2009; Chitakira et al. 2022; Retief et al. 2023). Bureaucratic hurdles and issues of sovereignty hinder transboundary collaborations; hence, national governments and central institutions are often seen as ineffective in comprehensively facilitating coherence (Spierenburg and Wels 2006; Dressler and Büscher 2008). Literature suggests decentralization as a mechanism to ease this inefficiency as it allows management to occur incrementally, addressing distinct issues in smaller, more manageable units rather than imposing a top-down, “one-size-fits-all” solution (Ribot 2003; Murphree 2009; Clement 2010; Thaler et al. 2017). While this is not as easy as it sounds, institutional structures first have to be well coordinated horizontally and vertically, mimicking a synergistic but not fragmented model with clear roles and responsibilities, along with communication guidelines and protocols. Additionally, in the context of institutional inefficiency, cognitive factors should be taken into consideration as LG is inherently linked to uncertain human behavior, given that institutions are cognitive, normative, and regulative structures (Gilardi and Radaelli 2012; Chaffin and Gunderson 2016).

While the essence of LG is seamless cooperation, this has been met with considerable friction when it comes to TFCAs (Sjöstedt and Linell 2021; Thakholi et al. 2024). “Connectivity and Transboundary Cooperation” also remain significant challenges both in theory and practice as indicated by functional coherency results. Linell et al. (2019) highlighted the existence of TFCAs with many theoretical puzzles, further expressing that it is difficult to implement the practice without comprehending the theory. However, some scholars argue that practice precedes theory, aligning with our assertion that policies should be informed by practical challenges. The dysfunctionality of the Sengwe-Tshipise corridor which should facilitate connectivity, practically segregates GNP from other national parks. This is mainly due to bureaucratic and institutional inefficiencies which further cripples the collaboration. While the corridor might be functional for wildlife, the contemporary conservation paradigm also takes into consideration humans, a principle highlighted in the IPBES and a primary objective for the TFCAs (Wolmer 2003; Mace 2014; IPBES 2021). Therefore, concerted efforts must be made to address infrastructure gaps and improve connectivity. This can ease joint operations such as anti-poaching patrols, fire management, and habitat restoration while increasing revenue for GLTFCA member countries.

Given that coordination aspects serve as key dimensions that determine how well different institutions and actors work together to achieve common goals, our results reveal major flaws in the “coordination via knowledge” aspect. This also corresponds to the policy analysis results, which indicated shortcomings in “communication and awareness”. While communication precedes knowledge, these two are interrelated (Tengö et al. 2014; Galafassi et al. 2018). A detailed analysis further indicated that within functional coherence, “Community Engagement and Socio-Economic Development” suffers the most impact under “Coordination via knowledge”. This can be attributed to either fragmented information sharing, lack of access to critical information or unidirectional knowledge flow. Without communication, knowledge co-creation is impossible hence, information remains the backbone of all processes going forward (Sayer et al. 2013; Tengö et al. 2014). Transdisciplinary research has advanced, recognizing that knowledge is non-linear, multi-dimensional, and co-created (Schneider et al. 2019; Gugerell et al. 2023). However, many conservation areas still rely primarily on scientific and technocratic knowledge (Ainsworth et al. 2020; Torrents-Ticó et al. 2021; Jessen et al. 2022). While models for weaving knowledge exist, conservationists should leverage these approaches to address challenges from a multi-dimensional knowledge perspective. This also explains why coherence challenges are more prominent at the process level than the outcome level (Fig. 2), as the process level is mainly facilitated through effective communication before anything can be put to the next stage (Dombrowsky et al. 2022). Although communication is two-way, the challenges associated with the transfer of tacit knowledge are well-acknowledged (Connell et al. 2003; Schmidt 2012). However, a structured and clear model for transdisciplinary knowledge sharing and information exchange remains absent in the GLTFCA. In this contemporary era, often referred to as the “Information Age”, technological advancements have significantly transformed knowledge dissemination (Goldman and Scardamalia 2013; Soma et al. 2016). In previous decades, perhaps we would have argued strongly on limited technological advancement as a barrier to knowledge, awareness, and information. However, the perpetuation of communication and knowledge co-creation challenges today points to factors beyond technological access. Such challenges can only be attributed to institutional inefficiency, which is also echoed in our results for both policy and functional coherence analysis.

Bild vergrößern

Our results also show that “Coordination via institution” aspect presents another significant challenge with ties to “Corporate Governance and Institutional Efficiency”. Despite previous studies attributing these challenges to resource limitations (Chiutsi and Saarinen 2017; Kansky 2022), which to some extent is true, it should not be regarded as the primary factor, lest one succumb to a scarcity mindset. The concept of adaptive governance even highlights the importance of flexibility, innovation, and the ability to navigate constraints (Folke et al. 2005; Yasmin et al. 2020). However, this approach must be complemented by the notion of a minimum resource threshold, which asserts that a certain baseline of resources is essential for the effective functioning of governance systems (Park et al. 2024). Unproductive meetings have been noted as a major setback, as several respondents indicated that these meetings fail to produce actionable outcomes despite their frequency. This situation has contributed to policy alienation a condition in which actors experience diminishing engagement and effectiveness due to continuous policy implementation challenges (Tummers et al. 2015; van Engen et al. 2016). This further diminishes individual morale and motivation, leading to cascading inefficiencies that extend from lower levels of the organization to leadership, a phenomenon conceptualized as “illusion of participation” (Forde 2005; Dawodu et al. 2021). This illusion is also attributed to the complicated instructional structures to which participants alluded to. There is no doubt that GLTFCA has unintentionally established of a pattern of delayed policy implementation as reiterated by respondents (Bhatasara et al. 2013; Retief et al. 2023; Thakholi et al. 2024). This reinforces institutional inefficiency, often resulting in erosion of trust, a foundational element in governance and institutional stability, particularly from ground-level actors (Sayer et al. 2013; Westerink et al. 2017).