Mewtee, 4157 Ranaka Street, Randfontein (2026)

15/01/2026

Looted African belongings must be returned: is it repatriation or restitution? The words we use matter

Museums and universities around the world hold vast collections of cultural artefacts, artworks, objectified belongings and even ancestral remains. Many were not freely given but taken during colonial times, through force, manipulation, theft or violence. For decades, they have sat in storerooms and display cases, classified into categories like anthropology, natural history or ethnology, separated from the people and communities to whom they once belonged.

In recent years, there has been growing recognition that these collections carry painful legacies.

Calls for their return have become part of a global conversation about decolonisation, justice and healing. In 2018 French president Emmanuel Macron produced a report which called for a new ethics of humanity, setting off a new willingness to return African artworks and material culture. But African calls for restitution were made at least five decades earlier following former president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Mobutu Sese Seko’s address to the UN.

In all these engagements, two words are often used: repatriation and restitution.

At first glance they may seem to mean the same thing, and both involve the return of something. But as South African scholars, working in the fields of history, museum studies and human biology, we argue that the difference between these terms is not just semantic. The choice of word reflects deeper politics of justice, recognition and repair.

In our recent article we explained how we see this difference, and why the work of restitution restores people’s power over their future, and gives them a sense of agency. We argue that, for its part, repatriation has come to represent something less concerned with community restoration and has more to do with an administrative and logistical exercise.

We argue that, unlike repatriation, restitution speaks directly to justice.

Repatriation: the language of return

The word repatriation comes from the Latin patria, meaning “fatherland”. Traditionally, it refers to the return of a person or their remains to their country of origin. Governments often use this term for the logistical and legal transfer of people, artworks, or ancestral remains across national borders.

In countries that were settled by colonisers, like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, repatriation has become the dominant language. This is partly due to specific laws and frameworks. In the US, for example, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires museums to return human remains and cultural items to Indigenous communities in a proactive manner.

In New Zealand, the national museum Te Papa plays a central role in repatriating Māori and Moriori ancestral remains from overseas institutions before returning them to local communities. In Australia, the choice of repatriation by activists, communities and scholars also sought strategically to draw a connection with the return of the remains of fallen soldiers.

In these contexts, repatriation is often framed as a process of giving back. States or museums take the lead, and communities receive.

Some Indigenous scholars and activists have challenged this framing, pointing out its patriarchal and statist overtones. They have introduced the concept of “rematriation”, signalling a return to “Mother Earth” rooted in Indigenous feminist perspectives, spirituality and community balance.

In South Africa, too, the term repatriation has been used, especially when the state arranged for the return of remains from abroad, as in the case of the return of Sarah Baartman from France.

Baartman was a 19th century Khoe (Indigenous South African) woman put on display in freak shows in Europe. Her body was later dissected by scientists within the realm of racial science and made to enter the systems of collecting and exhibition at the Musée de l'Homme in Paris. After being turned into an international symbol of the oppression of black women, Baartman also became a focus of claims for return made by Khoe and other activists and social movements in South Africa.

Repatriation has also been used for the return of the remains of ex-combatants and other patriots.

But unease began to grow. Was this language adequate for the deep work of justice and healing that communities were calling for? Or was it more concerned with national prestige than with community restoration?

Restitution: politics of justice beyond the transaction
Restitution is about returning something to its rightful owner, not simply as a transfer of property, but as an act of recognition, repair and healing.

Restitution is not just an event, like handing over an artefact in a ceremony. It is a process, time-consuming, emotional, and often painful. It involves research into how items were acquired, conversations with descendant communities, and decisions about how to care for or honour what has been returned. It recognises that the belongings taken were not just curiosities or objects, but were tied to community, and to language, ceremony and identity.

In many cases, ancestral remains were classified and objectified as human remains and specimens, stripping them of their humanity. Restitution, by contrast, restores them as ancestors with dignity and agency.

Restitutionary work: healing and reconnection

Our research uses the phrase “restitutionary work” to describe the labour involved. This work goes far beyond diplomacy, logistics and transport. It includes:

Acknowledgment of injustice: Recognising that items were wrongly taken, whether through violence, coercion, or theft.

De-objectification: Treating ancestral remains and cultural belongings not as human remains and museum objects but as ancestors or cultural treasures.

Community involvement: Ensuring that descendant groups and local communities decide what happens after return, in conversation with museums and national governments.

Healing processes: Creating spaces for mourning, ceremony and closure.

New futures: Seeing restitution not just as recovering the past but as opening pathways for cultural renewal and social justice.

For example, South Africa’s land restitution programme has shown that restitution is not simply about restoring what once was. It is about creating conditions for justice today and possibilities for tomorrow.

Similarly, cultural restitution is less about putting things “back where they came from” and more about empowering communities to reconnect with their heritage in ways that matter today.

Why words matter

The distinction between repatriation and restitution is not academic nitpicking. Words shape power. If return is framed as repatriation, the emphasis is often on the giver, the returner, in the form of the state or museum, granting something back. If it is framed as restitution, the emphasis shifts to the claimant, to the community asserting rights and demanding justice.

Restitution is not about recovering a lost past. That past cannot be restored exactly as it was. Instead, it is about creating new futures built on justice, dignity and respect. For communities around the world still living with the legacies of colonial dispossession, that distinction matters deeply.

Authors
Victoria Gibbon
Professor in Biological Anthropology, Division of Clinical Anatomy and Biological Anthropology, University of Cape Town

Ciraj Rassool
Senior Professor of History, University of the Western Cape

Disclosure statement
Victoria Gibbon receives funding from the South African National Research Foundation. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the authors and not necessarily attributed to the NRF.

Ciraj Rassool receives funding from the Volkswagen Foundation, and has previously received funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Open Society Foundations. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the authors.

14/01/2026

If demand declines after 2030, Nigeria’s expensive fossil fuel infrastructure could become stranded assets. This will severely affect Nigerians, because decreasing export revenues may lead to a tightening of fiscal spending and cutting of services.

The other risk is environmental. Nigeria still has sizeable oil reserves. But a history of oil spills, gas flaring and sabotaged pipelines has led to ecological devastation in the Niger Delta. Most of its land and waterways are toxic and biologically degraded. Continuing to expand oil production in this region could severely worsen agriculture, fisheries and public health.

South Africa also risks stranded coal production assets as global buyers shift towards cleaner energy. If South Africa continues to use coal-fired power to run its factories, it could face Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms, or fees added by importing countries on emissions-intensive goods. These fees will make South African goods more expensive and less competitive globally.

Investing in new fossil fuel projects also undermines South Africa’s Just Transition framework (its plan to move away from coal).

What needs to happen next?
The 20 countries that produce most of the world’s coal, oil and gas have collectively failed to cut production or reduce global emissions.

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, these countries will need to move away from fossil fuels much faster.

South Africa and Nigeria, in particular, need clear plans to close the gap between fossil fuel production and their promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Nigeria and South Africa plan to boost fossil fuel production, risking their climate change pledges

Just 20 countries produce 80% of the world’s oil, gas and coal. Since 2019, researchers have released regular reports analysing how these governments plan to continue drilling and mining for fossil fuels – and how those plans diverge from the global climate goal set out in the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit temperature rise to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The 2025 Production Gap Report found that many of these countries still plan to produce far more fossil fuels by 2030 than is safe for the climate. Scientists Emily Ghosh, Derik Broekhoff, Bathandwa Vazi and Olivier Bois von Kursk were among the co-authors of the report, which found that Nigeria and South Africa – already among the world’s largest fossil fuel producers – plan to increase fossil fuel production despite their climate commitments.

How much fossil fuel are South Africa and Nigeria planning to produce?

The Nigerian government’s latest short-term fossil fuel production targets show that it wants to almost double oil output over the next five years, aiming to produce three million barrels per day by 2030.

Nigeria also aims to increase gas production by 75% from 2024 levels by 2030.

These reported increases in production don’t align with Nigeria’s latest climate commitments. Nigeria made a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 29% by 2030 and 32% by 2035. It also aims to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 (where its greenhouse gas emissions are so low that they can all be absorbed by nature).

South Africa’s draft Gas Utilisation Master Plan shows the country intends to increase domestic gas production from offshore fields. It also wants to import liquefied natural gas.

South Africa’s plans for future coal and oil production are not available. However, in 2025, the country officially launched the state-owned South African National Petroleum Company. This will likely expand domestic fossil fuel production.

Since 2020, South Africa’s government has given fossil fuel companies an average of R611 million (US$38 million) per year in tax breaks for oil and gas development and direct payments to coal power plants and coal mine projects.

South Africa has a climate change law that promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions and shut down coal power plants. But its state-owned electric utility, Eskom, did the opposite, instead extending the life of its oldest coal power plants by nearly 10 years, undermining these commitments. This suggests that South Africa will maintain its dependence on coal for at least another decade.

Since both countries want to continue relying heavily on fossil fuels for revenues and energy needs, this is going to lock them into costly and uncertain energy futures.

What’s the gap between the climate promises and investment in fossil fuels?
Nigeria’s latest climate pledge, known as its nationally determined contribution (NDC) to reducing global greenhouse gases, promises to reduce the country’s emissions by 29% before 2030.

Nigeria’s NDC notes that “fossil fuels generate significant government revenues and foreign exchange, while at the same time they contribute little to GDP and job creation”. The oil industry has also been in decline for over 10 years.

At the same time, Nigeria is trying to revive its onshore oil industry. African regional companies have purchased onshore assets from Shell and Equinor and plan to resume onshore operations.

This presents a gap between Nigeria’s promises to protect the climate and its actions.

South Africa’s coal production is largely used to make coal-fired electricity for local needs, but is also a major source of export revenue. South Africa says it’s extending the life of several coal fired electricity plants to make sure the country has enough electricity. The country’s latest national energy plan also proposes to add new fossil fuel based electricity in the next five years. Nearly 30% of all new energy capacity added by 2030 will be made up of coal and gas-fired power.

South Africa’s energy sector already generates the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. Further investment in fossil fuels could jeopardise its commitment to reduce emissions by 27% by 2035.

If South Africa and Nigeria don’t move away from fossil fuels fast, what are the risks?
Shifting to cheaper renewable energy could improve energy security, lower costs, and reduce the risk of stranded assets (where investors are unable to recover the money they’ve spent on developing fossil fuel infrastructure). But continuing to invest in fossil fuels leaves both countries vulnerable to price shocks and oil price cycles, which are volatile.

Experts disagree about the future of global oil demand. Scenarios from the International Energy Agency and BP suggest that oil demand could peak before 2030 and then decline. In contrast, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (a group of countries that export oil and coordinate their production) and the US Energy Information Administration forecast continued growth in oil demand through 2050.

These plans should also show how they will stop over-investing in new fossil fuel projects and help workers move into green jobs. They should make sure communities that depend on coal mines or other fossil fuel industries can find new ways to earn a living.

By taking these steps, countries can signal to fossil fuel industries and communities that the green energy transition will be managed in a well-planned and equitable manner.

Authors
Emily Ghosh
Senior Scientist and Equitable Transitions Program Director, Stockholm Environment Institute

Derik Broekhoff
Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute

Disclosure statement
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

13/01/2026

🚀 Exciting News from Mewtee! 🚀

We're thrilled to introduce two game-changing products we built in collaboration with cutting-edge AI tech:

📊 **Report Narrator**: Turn boring excel data reports into captivating stories instantly! Perfect for busy teams who need quick, actionable insights.

⏰ **ShiftTrack**: Say goodbye to manual timesheets! This automatic dispenser tracks shifts, generates reports, and saves you hours every week. Perfect for WIL programmes

Starting from just $19 (R300)/month. Ready to supercharge your workflow? Request a demo on our site or DM us directly!

Check them out: www.mewtee.xyz/

13/01/2026

Land reform in South Africa: how new landholders could prosper from wildlife and not just farming

South Africa has a thriving wildlife economy – enterprises like trophy and meat hunting, ecotourism, live wildlife sales and game meat production.

Over the past few decades private (predominantly white) farmers have converted millions of hectares once reserved for livestock into game ranches. These enterprises generate profits and jobs while maintaining natural vegetation and conserving indigenous large mammals.

Government policy considers the sector key to integrating conservation with rural development. The national 2024 strategy is to grow “sustainable and inclusive eco-tourism-based businesses by 10%” every year.

It is also projected that the GDP contribution of game meat will increase from US$4.6 billion (2020) to US$27.6 billion by 2036. The overarching aim is to:

grow the wildlife economy to include more black landholders and communities

expand the amount of land that is conserved “from 20 million ha (hectares) to 34 million ha by 2040”.

In South Africa, land uses based on wildlife could address the twin land reform objectives of economic development and empowerment, while also conserving biodiversity.

Land reform is central to the country’s strategy to rectify historical inequities in land access. Beneficiaries of reform include black individuals, families and communities.

Yet little is known about how land reform beneficiaries – who often begin with fewer resources – might realistically participate in the wildlife economy.

We are conservation and wildlife economy researchers with a focus on South Africa’s inclusive conservation agenda. In a recent paper, we explored whether land reform beneficiaries were engaging in the wildlife economy, and what might hold them back or help them.

Knowing more about this would be useful for policymakers.

We found that new landholders were not yet participating meaningfully in the wildlife economy. With focused government help and investment they could benefit from the land through mixed livestock–wildlife enterprises that align with their experience and resources. In this way, South Africa could promote inclusive economic development while safeguarding its wildlife.

The study
Since 1994, the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development has pursued a constitutional mandate of land restitution, land tenure reform and land redistribution. The intention is to redress the historical injustices of apartheid and promote equitable access to land and livelihoods. Many redistributed farms fall within areas of high biodiversity value that are well-suited to wildlife-based enterprises.

In South Africa’s Eastern Cape province, for instance, herds of kudu and springbok are a common sight on hillsides. The land that they roam is no longer managed by white farmers only, but also by black farmers, enabled in part by the country’s land reform programme.

During our study in Addo-Amathole Biodiversity Economy Node we interviewed 19 land reform beneficiaries. It is one of the government’s focal areas in the Eastern Cape for promoting the wildlife economy. It also overlaps with one of the “mega living landscapes” in South African National Parks’ new Vision 2040. The farms in our study cover nearly 50,000ha. They represent two-thirds of the land reform beneficiaries in the province who aspire to be part of the wildlife economy.

To date, land reform programmes in rural South Africa have focused strongly on agriculture. In the Addo-Amathole region, this means livestock farming.

Interviews were conducted in English and isiXhosa and covered wildlife and livestock numbers, revenue streams, infrastructure, business planning, employment, skills and barriers to market access.

We set out to understand how the characteristics of land reform farms align with existing wildlife ranches, what types of infrastructure and investment they would need to grow, and where their strengths already lie. These 19 properties were compared with 74 established wildlife ranches in the region.

The findings
One of the most striking findings is that land reform farms in this region hold a lot of ecological value. Most of the land overlaps with critical biodiversity areas.

Yet only 42% of the farms earned any income from wildlife. On average it contributed less than 5% of total income. Almost all income still came from livestock, despite all of the beneficiaries’ business plans being focused on wildlife enterprises.

The greatest barrier was the lack of basic infrastructure needed to participate legally and commercially in wildlife markets.

Only six farms out of 19 had any perimeter game fencing. Water systems, vehicles and access to game meat processing facilities were very limited. Accommodation for visitors was scarce, with about two-thirds of farms lacking suitable facilities.

Another important finding was that almost all of the land reform beneficiaries’ business plans (submitted to government in their application for land) emphasised specialised trophy hunting or high-end ecotourism enterprises.

These enterprises require hundreds of millions of rands in infrastructure, charismatic wildlife such as rhinos and lions, skilled staff and access to specialised markets.

However, the size and current wildlife densities on land reform farms closely resemble mixed livestock–wildlife ranches. These focus on a mix of trophy and meat hunting, game meat sales and domestic tourism, alongside more traditional livestock farming.

Mixed ranches require far less initial investment and align more closely with the skills many emerging farmers already have. As seen in the COVID-19 pandemic, diversified wildlife ranches can also be more resilient.

What should happen
South Africa’s wildlife economy could become more inclusive if land reform farms were supported to adopt realistic business models in stages. It’s not realistic to copy the high-capital enterprises of some established ranches.

This starts with growing mixed livestock-wildlife enterprises that match existing knowledge and allow farmers to build experience and capital.

The first investment should not be animals, but infrastructure – notably perimeter fencing, water systems and modest visitor accommodation. Then wildlife numbers should be boosted, using existing programmes such as South African National Parks’ innovative game loan and donation programme.

Landscape partnerships like conservancies – where landowners cooperate to manage their land for environmental and economic sustainability – are an option.

National and regional government entities responsible for agriculture, land reform or the environment need to work together.

Joint initiatives could also allow for private investment via the government’s Biodiversity Sector Investment Platform. The platform aims to connect investors with investment opportunities in the sector.

Meanwhile, established ranchers and private operators can mentor emerging wildlife ranchers and help them access markets. Beneficiaries could build on their existing livestock experience while gradually expanding into wildlife activities that match their capacities and resources.

Inclusive wildlife economies could connect economic opportunity, land justice and biodiversity conservation in ways that advance South Africa’s transformation and development goals.

But this will only happen if support is grounded on evidence from research.

Naledi Mneno co-authored the research on which this article is based.

Authors
Hayley Clements
Senior Researcher, African Wildlife Economy Institute and Centre for Sustainability Transitions, Stellenbosch University

Alta De Vos
Associate Professor, Centre for Sustainability Transitions, Stellenbosch University

Matthew Child
PhD candidate, University of Pretoria

Siviwe Shwababa
Associate Researcher, Rhodes University

Disclosure statement
Hayley Clements receives funding from Agence Française de Développement, Oppenheimer Generations Research and Conservation, the Benjamin Raymond Oppenheimer Trust, Jamma Communities and Conservation, and Kone Foundation

Alta De Vos has received funding from gence Française de Développement, the National Research Foundation, Google, the National Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Global Resilience Partnership, and the Australian Research Council.

Matthew Child and Siviwe Shwababa do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

12/09/2025

The West African ebony tree (Diospyros crassiflora) can grow up to 25 metres tall. It is a culturally iconic and economically valuable tree prized for its deep black heartwood. Ebony has been used for centuries to make carvings, piano keys and guitars due to its special harmonics.

Our research found that no other animals in the Congo Basin are able to disperse the ebony tree’s seeds in the same way. This has left a functional gap in the forest – one that current conservation strategies too often overlook. Forest elephants have been poached out of two-thirds of the ebony trees’ natural habitat so most of the Congo Basin’s adult ebony trees are in elephant-free areas. This means they won’t be able to get any help from elephants in dispersing or concealing their seeds within dung.

Ebony and ivory: why elephants and forests rise and fall together in the Congo Basin.

The forest elephants of the Congo Basin are critically endangered and face extinction.

They live in Africa’s largest forest, extending over the continent’s west and central regions. Large populations are found in Gabon and the Republic of Congo and smaller groups in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Nigeria.

But ivory poaching means their numbers have plummeted by 86% over the past three decades.

The sharp reduction of their population has a knock-on effect on the Congo Basin forest itself. This is because African forest elephants are the rainforest’s gardeners. They disperse more plant species than any other animal, regenerating and reshaping plant communities.

I’m a conservation scientist and part of a research team of international and Cameroonian scientists who set out to examine how forest elephants interact with West African ebony trees.

We wanted to know if the decline of elephants had negative, cascading effects on other Congo Basin forest species. We focused on ebony because it was known to be a food for elephants and its wood is prized for numerous uses.

The research team set up tree plots and experiments in forests with and without elephants (often lost due to hunting). We used hidden cameras to record which animals ate ebony fruit and how ebony seeds enclosed in dung grew into seedlings. Our lead researcher, Vincent Deblauwe, spent years in the field conducting these experiments and even built a custom camera trap to observe ebony pollinators for the first time in the canopy.

We also collected ebony seeds from within elephant dung, manually planted them, and carefully monitored germination rates and seedling survival.

Additionally, the project developed cloning propagation methods to support future replanting of ebony trees and ebony plantations.

Our research found that forest elephants, a different and smaller species than savannah elephants, are tightly linked to ebony’s life cycle.

The impact of elephants

These little four-tonne elephants support ebony reproduction in at least two ways.

Distance matters: Elephants move the ebony seeds quite far away from the parent tree. This reduces the risk of ebony trees growing close together and inbreeding. Inbreeding weakens the genetics and lowers their chances of being resilient and adaptable to future environmental change.

Dung as armour: Elephants consume ebony fruits whole and the pulp is digested from around the seeds before they p**p them out intact. We found digestion did not help the ebony seeds germinate. However, being encased in dung protected the seeds from rodents that eat and kill the seeds. This greatly improved the seeds’ chances of survival and germinating.

Our research found that there are nearly 70% fewer small (younger) ebony trees in the areas where elephants have disappeared. Most adult ebony trees alive today were dispersed by elephants decades ago because ebony is a slow growing wood that can take 50 years to begin reproducing, and 60 to 200 years to fully grow.

Our conclusion is that it is not certain that ebony trees in the Congo Basin will be able to survive naturally without the help of elephants.

Both elephants and rare ebony lie at the heart of the national heritage of Cameroon. By safeguarding elephants, Cameroon can protect the long-term viability of sustainably managed ebony and other valuable timbers.

A wake-up call for Central African forests

It’s not only the future of ebony that’s at stake. Other large-seeded trees may also rely on elephants to move their seeds. Elephant declines could be quietly reshaping forests in ways scientists are only beginning to uncover.

The takeaway is clear: plant-animal interactions are not a luxury add-on to conservation plans; they’re foundational to keeping forests functioning.

What needs to happen next

There are already many efforts to protect elephants and the processes they drive. Sadly, these seem insufficient to date.

The most urgent conservation action is halting the killing of elephants for ivory. Reducing illegal logging of ebony trees is also important. Both of these can be accomplished by better education with local residents about the ecological and economic importance of elephants and ebony, and improved enforcement of existing poaching and logging regulations.

Another important step is monitoring less charismatic tree species that also depend on elephants. Similar plant-animal relationships and the species and services they provide might be at risk.

Our project increases international research partnerships with Cameroon’s domestic experts and attracted expertise and funding for local institutions. For example, this research project provided education and capacity-building for Cameroonian researchers and practitioners, growing national expertise in biodiversity management.

Finally, African forest elephants don’t just live in the Congo Basin’s rainforests – they shape them. Increased poaching of elephants for ivory not only threatens the ebony tree – forest elephant declines can ripple through forest structure, biodiversity, and carbon storage.

This work was part of the Congo Basin Institute at UCLA and was largely funded by Taylor Guitars, which uses ebony for their instruments. They have invested nearly a decade in ebony research and conservation.

Author
Matthew Scott Luskin
Researcher and Lecturer in Conservation Science, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement
Matthew Scott Luskin receives funding from NASA, ARC, and the National Geographic Society.

Mewtee

15/01/2026

14/01/2026

13/01/2026

13/01/2026

12/09/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share