In pursuit of multidimensional justice: Lessons from a charcoal ‘greening’ project in Tanzania

Abstract

Over the last 30 years, Tanzania has adopted different policy approaches to conserve forests. However, the idea that providing livelihood benefits is a key strategy for achieving conservation effectiveness has persisted throughout the shift from earlier integrated conservation and development approach to the ‘newer’ green economy. This one-dimensional conception of what ‘local people’ value and why precludes a clear understanding of substantive social justice considerations – what is being contested, why, and by whom – when conflicts arise in policy implementation settings. Using a green economy project that addresses charcoal-driven forest loss in Kilosa, the paper examines a conflict between forest conservation and farming and studies the variegated notions of justice that farmers express in relation to the conflict. The paper builds upon a developing strand in the political ecology literature, namely of empirical analyses of rural people’s justice conceptions in environmental conservation, to demonstrate analytic and practical values of a multidimensional justice framework. It illustrates how the framework can help to assess and reframe environmental interventions, going beyond one-dimensional conceptions, to focus attention on the diverse ways in which justice can be recognised or denied at different levels and in different ways for different groups of people. Particularly, it highlights that context matters, as despite the distributional ‘success’ of the project, disregarded concerns over procedural and recognition justice dimensions led to farmers’ loss of land, covert resistance, and continued struggles over compensations. This paper therefore argues that being attentive to a range of justice dimensions can expose locally valued and contested conservation aspects, as well as guide more just environmental conservation.

The size of clearings for charcoal production in miombo woodlands affects soil hydrological properties and soil organic carbon

“…They cover approximately 15 % of the entire village land forest reserve, the remaining 85 % being dedicated to protection and beekeeping, with occasional low-intensity selective logging. Although grazing lands have been set aside, livestock keepers often graze in these FMUs and the reserve, especially during the dry season, although this is illegal under village by-laws (Mabele, 2019).…”

Exploring Convivial Conservation in Theory and Practice

“…When characterising different visions of transformative change in biodiversity conservation, Massarella et al (2021) identify convivial conservation as a 'just transformation' approach. The goal of just transformation is to radically shift conservation research, policy and practice in a way that pays particular attention to issues of power, addresses historical and contemporary injustices, and questions who is recognised and who gets to participate in knowledge production and decision-making (Temper et al 2018;Álvarez and Coolsaet 2020;Mabele 2020;Martin et al 2020). The concept of just transformation aligns with the idea of transformative justice, which is characterised by a shift away from affirmative action (e.g., making policy changes to increase representation of marginalised groups in decision-making) towards transformative action (e.g., questioning the power structures and assumptions that exclude these groups in the first place) (Fraser 2009;Temper 2019).…”

“…Simply put, distributive justice focuses on the uneven distribution of conservation benefits and harms (Mabele 2020).…”

Plotting the coloniality of conservation

“…Residents in implementing villages of Ihombwe and Ulaya Mbuyuni have said that they feel a sense of having secured rights to forests, as they attain legal rights over forests found in the village land and retain 100% of all revenues accrued from charcoal making. In the two villages, more than US$150,000 has been generated from charcoal sales, with 60% of the revenues used for local forestry activities, and 40% funding community development initiatives (see Mabele, 2020).…”