No abstract

Given growing human influence on the earth system's functioning, caring for nature has never been this critical. However, whether for economic interests or ‘wilderness’ preservation, attempts to save nature have been grounded on a Western scientific philosophy of separating it from people's ways of living, especially through ‘protected areas'. Under the banner ‘convivial conservation', which advocates socio-ecological justice and structural transformations in the global economic system, an alternative idea called ‘promoted areas’ has been proposed, advocating for conservation which promotes nature for, to, and by humans. Here, we argue that ‘promoted areas’ are best fitted with decolonial thinking in conservation science and practice. In southern Africa, one available ‘decolonial option’ is Ubuntu philosophy, which is anchored on the ethical principle of promoting life through mutual caring and sharing between and among humans and nonhumans. Ubuntu disengages from western ways of knowing about human–environment interactions, as it is predicated on promoting the many links between humans and nonhumans. From this, we argue that instituted through Ubuntu, ‘promoted areas’ re-initiate a harmony between human beings and physical nature, as practices of individualistic, excessive extractions of nonhuman nature are discouraged, and human–nonhuman relationships based on respect, solidarity, and collaboration are celebrated.

Decentralised environmental governance has become a catchy solution to environmental problems caused by the failure of traditional centralised environmental governance. It promises to transfer power and authority, improve efficiency, equity, accountability, and inclusion of local people who were previously excluded by the command and control model. This paper examines the efficacy of decentralised environmental governance as an alternative approach to wildlife conservation in Tanzania. We analyse the policy and legal framework for Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in Tanzania over the past two decades as a case study on current practice and its implications. We find that despite the rhetoric of community-based conservation (CBC), the wildlife industry remains heavily under state control, while the promises of CBC remain elusive. Questioning the effectiveness of decentralised environmental governance through CBC, we recommend that actors return to the drawing board and re-negotiate their positions, interests, power and authority if meaningfully decentralised environmental governance is to be achieved.Key Words: decentralization, governance, wildlife management areas, development, Tanzania RésuméLa gouvernance environnementale décentralisée est devenue une solution attirante en réponse aux problèmes environnementaux liés à l'échec des approches gouvernementales centralisées et traditionnelles concernant l'environnement. Elle permet le transfert du pouvoir et d'autorisation gouvernementale, d'améliorer l'efficacité, l'équité, la responsabilité et l'inclusion des populations locales précédemment exclues par l'approche gouvernementale d'autorité et contrôle. Dans cet article, nous utilisons la gouvernance environnementale décentralisée pour examiner son efficacité comme outil de protection de la nature communautaire (PNC) en Tanzanie. En particulier, nous analysons la cadre politique et juridique des Zones de Gestion des Ressources Fauniques (ZGF) mise en oeuvre en Tanzanie au cours des deux dernières décennies comme une étude de cas pour illustrer la pratique courante et les implications de cette approche. Nous constatons que malgré la rhétorique de la conservation communautaire, l'industrie de la faune reste fortement sous le contrôle de l'État, tandis que les promesses de l'approche communautaire restent douteuses. Ayant questionné l'efficacité de la gouvernance environnementale décentralisée par l'entremise de la PNC, nous conseillons que les acteurs renégocient leur positions, intérêts, pouvoir et autorité pour qu'une réelle gouvernance environnementale décentralisée puisse être atteinte.

INTRODUCTION: TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE AND CONVIVIAL CONSERVATION We are living in a time of widespread anxiety about the state of our planet, in relation to issues including climate change, social injustice, ecosystem degradation, and biodiversity loss. These issues are largely driven by human activity, leading to many labelling the current epoch 'the Anthropocene' (Lorimer 2015). Growing concerns about global biodiversity loss have led many in the conservation communityconservationists, academics, governments officials, and civil society groups-to call for radical transformation in biodiversity conservation policy and practice (IPBES 2019; Wyborn et al. 2020). Transformation can be defined as a "substantial, profound and fundamental change, which requires a paradigm shift in how we relate to and manage the environment" (Massarella et al. 2021: 79). Such a shift requires moving away from approaches to transformation that O'Brien et al. (2013) label as 'circular' (implementing new ideas within existing power structure) and towards those labelled as 'axial' (fundamentally challenging the status quo).

Increases in data availability coupled with enhanced computational capacities are revolutionizing conservation. But in the excitement over the opportunities afforded by new data, there has been less discussion of the justice implications of data used in conservation, that is, how people and environments are represented through data, the conservation choices made based on data, and the distribution of benefits and harms arising from these choices. We propose a framework for understanding the justice dimensions of conservation data composed of five elements: data composition, data control, data access, data processing and use, and data consequences. For each element, we suggest a set of guiding questions that conservationists could use to think through their collection and use of data and to identify potential data injustices. The need for such a framework is illustrated by a synthesis of recent critiques of global conservation prioritization analyses. These critiques demonstrate the range of ways data could serve to produce social and ecological harms due to the choice of underlying data sets, assumptions made in the analysis, oversimplification of realworld conservation practice, and crowding out of other forms of knowledge. We conclude by arguing that there are ways to mitigate risks of conservation data injustices, through formal ethical and legal frameworks and by promoting a more inclusive and more reflexive conservation research ethos. These will help ensure that data contribute to conservation strategies that are both socially just and ecologically effective.