Convivial Conservation

Coexistence with large carnivores poses challenges to human well-being, livelihoods, development, resource management, and policy. Even where people and carnivores have historically coexisted, traditional patterns of behavior toward large carnivores may be disrupted by wider processes of economic, social, political, and climate change. Conservation interventions have typically focused on changing behaviors of those living alongside large carnivores to promote sustainable practices. While these interventions remain important, their success is inextricably linked to broader socio-political contexts, including natural resource governance and equitable distribution of conservation-linked costs and benefits. In this context we propose a Theory of Change to identify logical pathways of action through which coexistence with large carnivores can be enhanced. We focus on Africa's dryland landscapes, known for their diverse guild of large carnivores that remain relatively widespread acros...

Ecological Vulnerability by Katie Woolaston discusses the 'wicked' problem of human-wildlife conflict and the socio-legal context in which it plays out. It starts off with an introduction to the topic, delving into the semantics of conflict and coexistence whilst articulating the need to understand the complexities of human-wildlife relationships. The book describes in detail three case studies and ends with a concluding chapter that coherently connects all the dots. The author makes a case for the recognition and inclusion of ecological or eco-vulnerability in our analysis of conflict. They refer to literature on vulnerability theory and ecological feminism to identify three kinds of vulnerabilities-embodied (related to one's physical body), embedded (one's social, political, and culturally constructed place in society), and ecological (interconnected web of relationships between people and the environment). The author argues that the cumulative impact of human-wildlife conflict is more than the sum of its parts, but often, the resolution of such conflicts is carried out in a piecemeal fashion without adequate attention to interconnected vulnerabilities. The argument is furthered using examples of conflicts over dingo conservation and management, heritage tourism, and indigenous cultures in K'gari island in Australia, the socio-political and legal/policy dimensions of conflicts over elephants in northern Botswana, and the interrelatedness of wildlife trade, zoonotic diseases, and pandemics such as COVID-19. The book is an ideal reference for environmental lawyers, conservation researchers ... (especially students), practitioners, and policy makers looking to delve deeper into the nuances of environmental jurisprudence vis-à-vis human-wildlife conflict. The language is accessible, and the arguments are welldeveloped with an extensive review of peer-reviewed literature. The author has articulated the theory of eco-vulnerability in a stepwise and concise manner, without excessive repetition of the predominant ideas. The case studies have been researched thoroughly and contain valuable observations that drive home the idea that our vulnerabilities are closely tied to that of the environment and vice-versa. Woolaston, in effect, demonstrates that our notion of individual and institutional autonomy is a fallacy as well as the driver of conflict and its governance. Each case study is an impressive attempt at highlighting the various dimensions, tangible and hidden, that interact with each other to produce conflicts. The conclusion carefully links them back to the theory of eco-vulnerability. Some of the

Controversy exists about the act of giving as altruistic instead of self-interested behavior. Each side of this argument interprets similar results from similar experiments in different ways. One side argues the results show that the appearance of altruistic behavior can be explained by self-interested motives. The other side argues these results are evidence of something called "group selection," where a group member takes an action that is harmful to itself but beneficial to the group. We consider this question using a novel approach. We create a rich experimental environment in which subjects have the ability to cooperate to improve the group's outcome by sharing their wealth in non-compulsory, non-enforceable risk-sharing arrangements. We find that average subject behavior appears to be motivated by self-interest more than group survival.

This article advances a novel analytical framework for investigating the influence of political-economic processes in human-wildlife interactions (HWI) to support efforts to transform wildlife conservation governance. To date, the majority of research and advocacy addressing HWI focuses on micro-level processes, while even the small body of existing literature exploring social dimensions of such interactions has largely neglected attention to political-economic forces. This is consonant with efforts to transform conservation policy and practice more broadly, which tend to emphasize "circular" change within current political-economic structures rather than "axial" transformation aiming to transcend these structures themselves. Our analysis thus advances understanding of potential for axial transformation in HWI via confrontation with, and "unmaking" of, constraining political-economic structures. It does so through cross-site analysis of conservation policy and practice in relation to three apex predator species (lions, jaguars and wolves) in varied geographic and socio-political contexts, grounded in qualitative ethnographic study within the different sites by members of an international research team. We explore how the relative power of different political-economic interests within each case influences how the animals are perceived and valued, and how this in turn influences conservation interventions and their impact on HWI within these spaces. We term this analysis of the "production-protection nexus" (the interrelation between process of resource extraction and conservation, respectively) in rural landscapes. We emphasize importance of attention to this formative nexus both within and across specific locales in growing global efforts to transform situations of human-wildlife conflict into less contentious coexistence.

Controversy exists about the act of giving as altruistic instead of self-interested behavior. Each side of this argument interprets similar results from similar experiments in different ways. One side argues the results show that the appearance of altruistic behavior can be explained by self-interested motives. The other side argues these results are evidence of something called "group selection," where a group member takes an action that is harmful to itself but beneficial to the group. We consider this question using a novel approach. We create a rich experimental environment in which subjects have the ability to cooperate to improve the group's outcome by sharing their wealth in non-compulsory, non-enforceable risk-sharing arrangements. We find that average subject behavior appears to be motivated by self-interest more than group survival.

Coexistence between humans and large carnivores is mediated by diverse values and interactions. We focus on four sites in the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain with a history of continuous wolf presence to examine how perceptions of coexistence vary across contexts. We conducted semi-structured and informal interviews with livestock farmers (n = 271), hunters (n = 157), and local community members (n = 60) to collect quantitative and qualitative data on people’s experiences of coexistence with wolves. We use an environmentality framework to analyse approaches to wolf governance across sites and explore how local resource users perceive, negotiate, and respond to different governance approaches. Our analysis is firstly structured around coexistence subjectivities associated with pastoralist and hunter cultures. These encompass ambivalent and multi-layered relations founded on notions of reciprocity with nature and on resource users’ roles as producers and land stewards. Secondly, we explore encounters between local cultures, interests, and environmental regulations in the context of different site-based environmentalities. The framework we adopt enables coexistence to be conceived as a space of competing knowledges and practices, arising from everyday embodied interactions with wolves and the cultural politics through which local communities negotiate different ways of governing, knowing, and relating to nature.

Coexistence between humans and large carnivores is mediated by diverse values and interactions. We focus on four sites in the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain with a history of continuous wolf presence to examine how perceptions of coexistence vary across contexts. We conducted semi-structured and informal interviews with livestock farmers (n = 271), hunters (n = 157), and local community members (n = 60) to collect quantitative and qualitative data on people’s experiences of coexistence with wolves. We use an environmentality framework to analyse approaches to wolf governance across sites and explore how local resource users perceive, negotiate, and respond to different governance approaches. Our analysis is firstly structured around coexistence subjectivities associated with pastoralist and hunter cultures. These encompass ambivalent and multi-layered relations founded on notions of reciprocity with nature and on resource users’ roles as producers and land stewards. Secondly, we explore encounters between local cultures, interests, and environmental regulations in the context of different site-based environmentalities. The framework we adopt enables coexistence to be conceived as a space of competing knowledges and practices, arising from everyday embodied interactions with wolves and the cultural politics through which local communities negotiate different ways of governing, knowing, and relating to nature.

Increasingly heated debates concerning species extinction, climate change and global socioeconomic inequality reflect an urgent need to transform biodiversity governance. A central question in these debates is whether fundamental transformation can be achieved within mainstream institutional and societal structures. Chapter 12 argues that it cannot. Indeed, mainstream neoprotectionist and natural capital governance paradigms that do not sufficiently address structural issues, including an increase of authoritarian politics, might even set us back. The way out, the chapter contends, is to combine radical reformism with a vision for structural transformation that directly challenges neoliberal political economy and its newfound turn to authoritarianism. Convivial conservation is a recent paradigm that promises just this. The chapter reviews convivial conservation as a vision, politics and set of governance mechanisms that move biodiversity governance beyond market mechanisms and protected areas. It further introduces the concept of “biodiversity impact chains” as one  otential way to operationalize its transformative potential.

As a solutions-oriented discipline, our attention is often placed on the substance of conservation challenges. Ideally, conservation science is relevant for policy and practice, contributing relevant data to fill key knowledge gaps. Thus, the data value is not only determined by methodological rigor, but also

Over the past decade, several big international non-governmental organisations (BINGOs) have been instrumental in increasing the attention brought to the lived experiences of environmental and land defenders and the atmospheres of violence they face. Among the many BINGOs who frame themselves as 'supporters' or 'protectors' of environmental and land defenders, several have been complicit in violence perpetrated by park guards and oil companies. In this paper, we unpack the multifaceted nature of the role BINGOs play in shaping the atmospheres of violence with which environmental defenders contend. While BINGOs have acted as whistle-blowers and advocates providing legal assistance to at-risk defenders, they have also been complicit in 'green violence' perpetrated in the name of conservation, and more subtle relationships of 'partnership' with industries and specific corporations engaged in neo-colonial forms of extraction and violence against defenders. BINGO complicity with the violence against defenders replays the historical entanglement of some organizations with displacement and violence enacted in the name of colonial era conservation. We argue that BINGOs can, and must, work towards more radical forms of decolonial solidarity with environmental and land defenders who contend with atmospheres of violence shaped, in many cases, by conservation efforts and resource extraction activities with which BINGOs may be complicit, either directly, or through various forms of 'partnership.'

Recently, new approaches to wildlife management are being developed, such as coexistence management and convivial conservation. These approaches aim to shift management practices from mitigating human–wildlife conflicts towards cohabitation and explore mutual benefits. To align empirical research to these new approaches, we argue for the relevance of positive psychology theory to inspire and structure research into the benefits of human–wildlife interactions. Positive psychology suggests three pathways through which human–wildlife interactions may lead to happiness and well-being: pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Applying these pathways to human–wildlife research may (i) structure existing research into the benefits of human–wildlife interactions, (ii) disclose unidentified benefits of human–wildlife interactions, and (iii) unravel mechanisms which make experiencing and protecting wildlife worthwhile and rewarding. Also, we suggest a potential feedback loop between wildlife experi...

Economists commissioned by the Center for Biological Diversity have released a report entitled "Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program." They document the many subsidies that support grazing on public lands by the 23,600 permittees in the western US. They also document the numerous costs to the public of compensating or mitigating for the damage to public resources, wildlife, watersheds and human health by livestock on public lands.