Conservation Practices at the Beginning of the 21st Century
If the state could not care for its PAs due to a lack of funds and local communities were too undercapitalized and operating on spatially too-restricted areas, could wealthy international NGOs or philanthropists do the job? Could they do it perhaps in conjunction with communities and the state? While a strong increase in the number of NGOs had been observable, claiming a growing responsibility in the area of global environmental protection since the 1980s (Raustiala 1997), now they became key actors often at the expense of governmental administrations. Large international NGOs (INGOs) are often steering the flow of project money, and national NGOs become dependent on cooperating with them.
International NGOs claim to meet the dual task of supporting the African nation states in their conservation mission and thereby promoting rural development, and of meeting the global challenge of mitigating climate change. Major organizations in the field stress that economic development and poverty alleviation are crucial. Economic progress is clearly favoured over social development and participation.
These broadly positive agendas for a comprehensive move towards conservation are not paralleled by similar enthusiasm in governmental and intergovernmental plans and visions, which were formulated in considerable numbers for the 21st century. The ‘Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want’ of the AU prioritizes economic development, continental and regional integration, democratic governance and peace and security, all aimed at repositioning Africa to becoming a dominant player in the global arena (African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency – NEPAD 2022). While Agenda 2063 aspires to create climate-resilient economies and communities and thriving wildlife populations, its focus is on technological and infrastructural development entailing high-speed railway networks, roads, shipping lines, and sea and air transport, as well as well-developed ICT and the digital economy. In the second continental report of the African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency – NEPAD – in February 2022, the strategic plans for the future development of the African continent and the implementation of Agenda 2063 are displayed (African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency – NEPAD 2022). Among its twenty goals, none are directly targeting nature conservation. They rather aim at economic development, pan-African political visions and human well-being.
On the national level, the picture is more ambiguous, due to strong regional variations in conservation activities, as well as the varied aspirations in the future plans of the governments.
1 To assess the role of conservation in the national development strategies, we focused on several eastern and southern African countries, where extensive conservation efforts are already in place and long-term policy plans have been developed, which can be consulted to assess the role of conservation in the future plans of individual countries. In Namibia’s Vision 2030 (Government of the Republic of Namibia 2004), Botswana’s Vision 2036 (Vision 2036 Presidential Task Team 2016), Zambia’s Vision 2030 (Republic of Zambia 2006), Kenya’s Vision 2030 (Republic of Kenya 2007), or Uganda’s Vison 2040 (Government of Uganda n.d.) among others, conservation is not of key significance.
2 While most official government plans contain very few references to conservation, others have a noticeably stronger orientation towards incorporating conservation efforts into the national strategy, as in Kenya and South Africa. More often the utilization of natural resources and the creation of an ‘enabling environment’ (Chapter 6 of the Namibian Vision 2030) are emphasized, with a focus on the use of natural resources and their contribution to well-being and development. In some cases, special wildlife or conservation future plans are outlined that emphasize the importance of conservation issues as part of a strategic development vision. However, these are often also funded by external partners who embrace the conservation narrative. The Kenyan Plan of the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife (2018) for example was supported by USAID and the African Conservation Centre, which itself is funded by a great variety of partners, such as USAID, the Ford Foundation, the EU, the Netherland Development Organisation (SNV), and others.
Philanthropist Engagement
Ramutsindela et al. (2011) and Spierenburg and Wels (2010) have shown that philanthropist engagement in African conservation is frequent and certainly increasing, predominantly so in southern and eastern Africa. Ngorongosa National Park in Mozambique is a telling example. In Ngorongosa NP the private engagement of a US American philanthropist changed conservation strategies profoundly. Stalmans et al. (2019) discuss the collapse of the large mammal populations in the Ngorongosa National Park and their recovery in the post-war period and especially since the engagement of the Carr Foundation in the park’s conservation efforts. Both the independence war (1964–1974) and the later conflict between the Frelimo government of Mozambique and the national resistance movement Renamo (1977–1992) left the once famous wildlife park (established in 1960) in a disastrous state. It was in the early 2000s that nature conservation began to regain momentum, particularly as a result of the agreement between the government and the Ngorongosa Restoration Project in 2008. The subsequent success story of restoration and rewilding has attracted a great deal of international attention and is in many respects considered to be a highly successful project that addresses the potential of nature conservation and development as a joint project (National Geographic 2019, Mountain Journal 2020, BBC 2015).Ngorongoza Park experienced more than a 700 per cent increase in its wildlife population from the previous decade, after the foundation of US American philanthropist Gregory Carr spent nearly 60 million USD on park management and on socioeconomic development in surrounding buffer zones since 2008 (Adams 2019). Carr’s organization received tenure of the park from the Mozambique government for a number of decades. The efforts go beyond the protection of local wildlife populations and increasingly focus on the reintroduction of species that inhabited the area before the long-lasting effect of conflicts (Peace Parks Foundation 2019).
Parastatal Conservation through International NGOs
Another model of organizational reform for protected-area governance has been developed by the NGO African Parks, a highly specialized company that organizes park management on behalf of national authorities and is backed by immense international funding. Today, African Parks has a portfolio of 24 parks in nine African countries. For these parks, the NGO holds management contracts of 20 years or more. African Parks has a comprehensive mandate: in protected areas, it is responsible for both tourism infrastructure and public infrastructure in surrounding buffer zones. Law enforcement also falls under its mandate, as it coordinates armed anti-poaching units. They may arrest people to hand them over to the police later, and they may shoot in self-defence. African Parks also runs refaunation projects in depleted protection areas; for example, it relocated black rhinos from South Africa to Chad’s Zakouma Park.
African Parks is supported by a vast range of North American and European philanthropic organizations, as well as the National Geographic Society, the European Union, the Wildcat Foundation and WWF, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and the US Forest Service. The website also lists organizations as diverse as the Dutch Postcode Lottery, the Department for International Development (DFID), and various African governmental authorities, such as the Zambian Department of National Parks and Wildlife, traditional authorities such as the Barotse Royal Establishment of Zambia, and less transient funds, such as the Adessium Foundation and the hedge fund Acacia Conservation Fund (Offshore) Ltd.
While African Parks runs the management of protected areas on its own, the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) developed a business and management model that tends more towards co-management between NGO and administration. In 2007, Zimbabwe Parks ‘invited’ FZS to support Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe’s share of the giant Limpopo Transboundary Park. FZS was instrumental in developing a 10-year management plan in a comprehensive stakeholder process. The plan entailed the establishment of the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust, which has a mandate to assume all management responsibilities since March 2017. The trust is directed by a board of six trustees, nominated in equal numbers by ZimParks and FZS. The trust has employed a number of senior management positions and has appointed a finance and administration manager. Recruitment of staff from communities living adjacent to the park is prioritized. The FZS runs similar projects in Tanzania and Zambia, where, for example, the North Luangwa National Park is managed along similar lines. Unlike African Parks, FZS finances its projects through a combination of donations and public funds (ministries and governmental agencies, but it also has a strong international orientation in acquiring such funds).
Transboundary Conservation
Transboundary conservation with aggregations of different legal statuses across international boundaries is yet another approach that gained considerable attention over the past two decades in southern and eastern Africa to expand the reach of protected areas.
The South Africa-based Peace Parks Foundation has been the driving force behind transboundary conservation projects, conveniently highlighting their contribution to conservation, development, and peaceful transboundary relations. The Peace Parks Foundation is funded by a vast array of national South African and international funders, ranging from De Beers and Anglo American (a multinational mining company) to the US International Bureau of Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the Deutsche Post Foundation. Their website lists dozens of funders and partners but does not disclose what amount of money each donor leaves to the foundation, how long-term their support is or what roles the partners have. The Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area KAZA TFCA) with 520,000 km2 of land, and the Greater Limpopo Transboundary Park with 35,000 km2 of land (with current plans to expand it to nearly 100,000 km2), have gained the status of the world’s largest contiguous conservation areas. In both conservation areas, existing national parks, protected forests, and community conservation areas have been fused. While national administrations are still in charge of governing protected areas within their boundaries, another, international layer of conservation governance has been added. In such transnational conservation areas, administrations combine their efforts in order to guarantee the connectivity of protected lands and the mobility of species, and to increase their attractiveness to tourists (Barrett 2013).