In Africa, Powerful NGO Accused of Seizing Land in the Name of Conservation

Over the past two decades, African Parks has emerged as the largest nature conservation organization in Africa. Supported by Western nations, philanthropists, and celebrities, the NGO now oversees 23 national parks in thirteen African countries, spanning over 20 million hectares—an area equivalent to the size of Great Britain.

After four years of research, visiting six countries and conducting nearly 300 interviews, journalist Olivier van Beemen highlights the “neocolonialist practices” of this powerful NGO in his investigative book In the Name of Nature (Éditions de l’Échiquier), released on February 21.

He exposes a conservation model based on militarization, land privatization, and governance dominated by Western elites. We met him in Amsterdam (Netherlands).

Decatur Metro — What motivated you to investigate this NGO, which is presented as a model of nature conservation?

Olivier van Beemen — It all started by chance in Zambia, during a meeting with two Dutch entrepreneurs. Although they were at odds, they agreed on one thing: they hoped that African Parks would replace the Zambian state in managing Kafue National Park. I had never heard of this NGO before. I soon discovered an organization of unsuspected power.

Its motto, “a business approach to conservation”, immediately piqued my curiosity. The more I read, the more I uncovered opaque management and a logic of land grabbing under the guise of nature protection.

What also struck me was the significant role played by major donors and international institutions in the expansion of African Parks. It benefits from the support of billionaires and Western governments, including France and the European Union.

Your investigation lasted nearly four years. What was your biggest revelation?

The most shocking element was discovering cases of torture inflicted on suspected poachers. A former ranger confessed to me that “there are no human rights in the park”. The militarization of conservation under African Parks is such that local populations are treated as potential enemies. Residents who hunt small game or collect wood for their homes are arrested, sometimes brutalized, just like ivory traffickers.

African Parks employs a model known as “delegated management”, meaning the NGO is 100% responsible for everything concerning the parks, which often cover large areas. In doing so, it takes over sovereign powers, such as maintaining order and the monopoly on legitimate violence. According to its critics, African Parks acts like a veritable “state within a state.”

Local sources and former employees of African Parks have told me that the organization does whatever it wants. In Benin, it pressured a court to increase the sentences of suspected poachers. This omnipotence fuels tensions and leads to increasing resistance. Several testimonies also mention severe movement restrictions for local populations, exacerbating their marginalization and generating open conflicts with park authorities.

You mention that African Parks’ management of the parks is based on contracts with African governments. How are these agreements negotiated?

African Parks imposes a very rigid model. Either the state accepts its conditions, or it does not engage. These contracts grant it total control over the parks: financial decisions, management of natural resources, and even security aspects. This model thrives particularly in countries in crisis or with weak governance, such as the Central African Republic or South Sudan.

In Benin, for example, African Parks manages Pendjari National Park, and its rangers have been involved in anti-terrorist operations, which goes far beyond their original mission. On the other hand, some governments, such as those of Senegal, Kenya, or Tanzania, refuse to cede so much sovereignty.

What is striking is that the contracts remain confidential, even to the local populations living near the parks and directly suffering the consequences. They are not allowed to know the conditions under which “their lands” are managed. And this, for 20 or 25 years… The residents discover too late that they have lost their right to access lands they have occupied for generations.

African Parks claims that its projects benefit local communities by creating jobs and infrastructure. Is this really the case?

This is an argument often put forward. Indeed, some residents benefit: a few children receive scholarships, some village chiefs see their houses renovated. However, overall, African Parks deprives populations of their livelihoods without fulfilling its promises of economic development.

In African Parks’ vision, taking over a park generates more tourists and various economic activities, but in a park like Liuwa Plains, located in a stable country, Zambia, and managed by the NGO for over twenty years, there are only 900 tourists per year. Thus, the economic argument is highly questionable.

You describe strict control of information by African Parks. How did the NGO attempt to prevent you from investigating?

It sees itself as almost untouchable in the world of nature protection. Its official discourse highlights spectacular successes in reintroducing endangered species and securing vast territories, supported by glossy promotional videos, features in prestigious media like National Geographic. Journalists who cover African Parks are often invited to visit the parks under escort.

Behind this facade lies an organization that does not tolerate criticism. While investigating, I quickly encountered resistance. African Parks initially tried to ignore my requests, refusing any official interview. When it became evident that my investigation was progressing regardless, the NGO changed its strategy, agreeing to meet me. I was then faced with explicit legal threats: African Parks warned me that they could claim millions of euros in damages if my book harmed its funding.

The NGO also enlisted the help of Hill+Knowlton Strategies, an agency specializing in crisis and reputation management, a company that usually works for controversial industries like oil and tobacco. It is often accused of practicing greenwashing and manipulating public opinion in favor of its clients.

Simultaneously, I also faced obstacles on the ground. In Benin, I was arrested and accused of espionage, a clearly baseless allegation. Officially, the NGO denies any involvement, but it is hard to believe it was not aware of my presence, given its tight control over the areas it administers.

In Rwanda, I was unable to obtain press accreditation, which hindered my investigative work, and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I was blocked for hours without apparent reason. I am often asked if it is dangerous to investigate a powerful multinational like Heineken [to which the journalist has dedicated a previous investigation]. I can affirm that it is much more troublesome to dig into the affairs of a conservation NGO.

Your book shows that African Parks perpetuates a Western vision of African nature. How does this myth of the “pristine nature” shape its actions?

The NGO subscribes to a vision where Africa is seen as an “Eden” to be preserved from any human presence. This Western fantasy justifies an authoritarian approach to conservation, erasing all traces of human presence. The example of the expansion of Marakele Park in South Africa is telling: its initiator, the Dutchman Paul Fentener van Vlissingen, wanted to “turn back the clock 100 years.” A century ago, Africa was under colonial rule. This underlying ideology explains many excesses.

More broadly, this fuels an imagination where Africa is a playground for wealthy philanthropists and adventurers, perpetuating a colonial logic under the guise of environmental protection. This vision is reinforced by the involvement of public figures like Prince Harry, Taylor Swift, or Leonardo DiCaprio, who promote African Parks as a success, without questioning the consequences for local populations.

Historian Guillaume Blanc talks about “green colonialism” in Africa. Does your investigation confirm this thesis?

Absolutely. In The Invention of Green Colonialism, the French historian Guillaume Blanc argues that the management of natural environments is one of the last areas where there has been almost no decolonization. African Parks is a textbook case of green neocolonialism. Its model is based on the idea that Africans are incapable of managing their parks themselves. Yet, its leaders are almost exclusively white, and decisions are made without consulting local populations, who have little say in the matter.

Are there more respectful models of park management regarding the rights of local populations?

My role is to investigate, not necessarily to propose solutions. However, some initiatives offer more inclusive approaches. For example, models of convivial conservation or mixed landscapes seek to avoid strict barriers between protected areas and human living spaces. They favor coexistence between wildlife and local populations. Of course, these models also present challenges, particularly due to the dangers that some wild species may pose.

What is certain is that the model of African Parks, which relies on the exclusion of local populations and centralized governance, is deeply problematic. Conservation should not pit humans against nature but should seek to integrate local communities into the management of parks.

There needs to be a balance where residents have a real say and are not viewed as obstacles to conservation. As it currently stands, African Parks imposes its rules authoritatively, leading to rejection by local populations and, ultimately, jeopardizing its own conservation goals.

In the Name of Nature, by Olivier van Beemen, Éditions de l’Échiquier, February 2025, 296 p., 23 euros.

Similar Posts

• Chad Ends African Parks’ Management of National Reserves: A Shift in Conservation Strategy
• Government Plans to Cut Costs: National Parks on the Chopping Block
• Crisis in Congo Park: Belgian Prince’s Management and European Funds Under Scrutiny
• Thousands of Succulents Uprooted from Desert: The Dark Side of Home Decor
• Elephants in Gabon: Conservation Efforts Turn Sour as Villagers Battle Crop Destruction