In Africa, a new method of handling conservation is being tested. Nations struggling with economic instability and political challenges are starting to let private, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) manage their protected areas.
This approach is showing positive signs. NGOs have the resources and organization to tackle corruption, making them appealing to major donors such as the World Bank and the European Union.
The idea is that with proper funding, these NGOs can invest in staff, research, and technology to handle conservation efforts more efficiently.
While there are encouraging reports, extensive studies on the impact are scarce.
A group of researchers from various institutions including UC Santa Barbara examined the effects of NGO management.
They found that this approach reduced actions like elephant poaching and boosted tourism. Yet, in conflict zones, there was an unintended rise in risks to civilians. This highlights the complex relationship between conservation, wildlife, and human communities.
African Parks as a Case Study
African Parks (AP) is a prominent non-profit organization in South Africa. It partners with various African governments to manage protected areas.
They are known for taking full control over the management, staffing, and funding of these parks. The organization’s main mission is to conserve and revive wildlife populations in Africa. Additionally, AP aims to benefit local communities through tourism and development projects like building schools and hospitals.
AP often works in areas experiencing armed conflict. These regions usually see over-hunting and extreme wildlife pressures.
Protecting wildlife in such landscapes needs high levels of security and enforcement. This can sometimes create conflicts between wildlife conservation and human well-being.
The authors Denny and his co-researchers were keen on studying these trade-offs. They believed that AP’s activities might highlight these conflicts due to their operations in volatile regions.
Conducting such a study at a large scale posed a significant challenge for the researchers. They needed to compare outcomes in areas managed by AP to what might have happened without AP’s intervention.
To solve this, they designed a quasi-experiment. This approach uses real-world events to create treatment and control groups.
In real experiments, subjects are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups to ensure fair comparison. However, Denny and his team didn’t have this option.
Fortunately, AP had published a map of their “anchor sites,” which are key protected areas with large sizes, strong legal status, limited agriculture, and potential to support large wildlife populations.
Out of these anchor sites, AP managed twenty-two, while governments or other NGOs managed the rest.
The researchers used these areas managed by AP as their treatment group. The anchor sites not managed by AP or other NGOs formed the control group. Denny noted that AP’s framework essentially provided them with a ready-made control group.
African Parks’ commitment to conservation in challenging environments provided valuable insights for the researchers. The organization’s practices and the resulting trade-offs between wildlife management and human impacts were crucial to understanding the broader implications of private NGO management in conservation efforts. These findings highlight how such initiatives can influence both ecological and social landscapes.
Choosing What to Measure
The team picked several ways to judge the impact of private wildlife management on animals and people. They chose these methods because they had data that covered the whole continent of Africa.
For animals, they looked at the number of elephants being poached and how many birds were around. For people, they checked things like tourism, wealth, and the frequency of armed conflicts.
To get solid information, they used various sources.
They relied on a dataset named MIKE to track elephant poaching. For bird counts, they turned to platforms like eBird and iNaturalist, which are citizen science tools.
Wealth data came from a source called Atlas AI, while information on conflicts was provided by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.
They also assessed how well the management practices themselves were working by using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT).
This tool, created by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, looks at planning, funding, law enforcement, and how involved local communities are. METT helps to understand why the data from other sources shows what it does.
Following the results
Denny and his team observed some notable outcomes from private management in African conservation areas.
They saw a 35% reduction in elephant poaching and an increase in bird numbers by 37%.
Denny noted, “African Parks really seems to benefit wildlife,” highlighting the significant drop in elephant poaching despite the threat of armed groups.
Besides wildlife protection, NGO management also boosted tourism in these areas. However, the impact on local wealth wasn’t as clear.
Although there was positive growth in tourism numbers, the economic benefits for nearby communities remained uncertain.
On the flip side, there were some serious concerns.
In regions already troubled by conflict, private management appeared to increase the risk for civilians. This is attributed to armed groups shifting their focus to civilians when they couldn’t extract resources from protected areas effectively managed by the NGOs.
Denny and his co-authors also worried about the reduced inclusivity in decision-making under private administration. They cautioned that while the wildlife results were promising, the conflict outcomes were alarming, especially for the people living nearby.
Looking Under the Hood
The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) uncovered many details about how private management operates.
African Parks (AP) stands out compared to many financially struggling national governments. According to the METT results, AP improved capacities and resources, including bigger budgets and more staff.
They also enhanced design and planning efforts, showing higher effectiveness in some management criteria, according to Denny.
Monitoring and enforcement within these parks significantly increased under AP’s management.
They employ advanced tools—like aircraft, drones, and remote sensors—to keep an eye on illegal activities and protect wildlife.
These tools help improve conditions for wildlife but also increase the risk of armed groups targeting civilians.
However, METT highlighted a decrease in one category under private management: decision-making inclusiveness.
This dip wasn’t unexpected for Denny and his team since AP tightly controls its operations. This does present an area for potential improvement.
Improving Management
African wildlife faces significant threats, but Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) may offer a solution. Private conservation management can help protect wildlife, though the increased enforcement needed can sometimes cause issues for local communities.
Involving local communities in the stewardship of protected areas is one way to ensure these areas benefit everyone.
Ethical conservation should include compensating local communities for any costs they bear and involving them in policymaking.
Monitoring the impacts of private management on both wildlife and people is essential. Conservationists, park managers, and governments need to track these outcomes and make necessary adjustments.
Many African national parks were established during colonial times and carry those histories.
Researchers want to work with African scholars to understand how this history influences local feelings about parks and their management preferences.
Elevating local voices can lead to research and management practices that benefit both wildlife and people.