Lee White is a British-Gabonese conservationist, zoologist, environmental policy expert, and former government minister best known for his work protecting the rainforests and wildlife of the Congo Basin. He served as Gabon’s minister of Water, Forests, the Sea and Environment from 2019 until 2023. He talked to Derrick Wandera about conservation funding cuts, Africa’s forests and the future of protected area.
International conservation funding has faced major cuts in recent years. From your perspective, how serious is the impact of declining aid and charity funding on forest and wildlife protection globally?
I think we’re seeing a transition rather than a complete collapse.
My experience is mainly in Central Africa, particularly the Congo Basin, although I’ve also worked in countries such as Sierra Leone, Uganda and Rwanda. We have seen major reductions in American funding for conservation in the Congo Basin. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, which was previously a major funder, has cut almost all of its funding. Government support has declined significantly.
However, some of that has been replaced by philanthropy. Wealthy donors, including foundations linked to the Walton family, are now looking to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in national parks across Africa.
So the picture is mixed. Some sources of funding are declining while others are emerging.
You have managed large conservation programmes over the years. What has been your experience with donor funding?
Over my career, I’ve raised and managed about $500 million from bilateral donors, multilateral institutions, NGOs, philanthropy and the private sector. Looking back, I believe much of that donor money was actually more negative than positive.
The procedures imposed by donors are often so complicated that spending the money becomes extremely difficult. For example, in a typical aid project it can take two and a half years just to buy a vehicle.
If you’re running a four-year conservation programme, that creates huge operational challenges. Another problem is that donors sometimes change priorities midway through a project. Funding that was promised for one activity can suddenly disappear, leaving significant gaps.
So what is the solution?
My view, after almost 40 years working in conservation, is that African governments must recognise conservation as a valuable investment. Take the Congo Basin rainforest. I consider it the heart of Africa.
It recycles water, generates rainfall, supports the Nile system, feeds the Sahel and sustains major river basins across the continent. If we lose the Congo Basin rainforest, Africa faces a catastrophic future. We could see hundreds of millions of climate and water refugees.
Protected areas should be viewed as critical infrastructure. They generate economic value just as roads, dams and power stations do.
For example, Mont de Cristal National Park in Gabon protects the water resources that supply hydroelectric dams serving Libreville. The value of that water, in terms of electricity generation alone, is estimated at about $30 million annually.
Do we know how much conservation funding has actually declined?
I have not calculated the figures across the entire Congo Basin, but in Gabon I estimate conservation funding has fallen by between 30 and 40 percent.
Additionally, many of the large pledges announced internationally have not materialised. For example, a significant portion of the funding promised for the Congo Basin at the Glasgow climate conference has been reduced or delayed.
Even before recent policy changes in the United States and Europe, only about 50 to 60 percent of promised donor funding typically arrived.
When you look deeper, a considerable share of that money returns to developed countries through consultants, equipment procurement and administrative costs rather than directly benefiting African conservation efforts.
You also mentioned climate finance and REDD+. What has been your experience there?
REDD+ was designed to reward developing countries for reducing deforestation. Gabon generated 187 million tonnes of verified REDD+ carbon credits, validated through United Nations processes.
At the agreed price of five dollars per tonne, the country should have received nearly one billion dollars. Instead, Gabon received only $17 million.
Even that money was not provided directly to the government but channelled through third-party organisations and UN agencies. After four years, only a fraction of those funds had actually been spent. This illustrates a broader problem. Developed countries negotiate agreements and make commitments, but often fail to honour them fully.
Some argue that deforestation, poaching and forest degradation in African countries may be contributing to reduced funding. Do you see a connection?
That may be true in some cases, particularly under mechanisms like REDD+, where payments are linked to reducing deforestation. However, most conservation funding is provided precisely because those problems exist.
Donors fund anti-poaching operations and forest protection because they recognise there are challenges that need to be addressed. In my experience, donors rarely withdraw support simply because a country is experiencing deforestation or poaching.
It’s also important to recognise that many African countries outperform developed nations in forest conservation. Scotland, for example, has only about three percent of its natural forests remaining. Uganda’s forest cover is significantly higher than that.
You argue that African countries must take greater responsibility for conservation. Is that realistic given the limited resources available?
The real question is whether it is realistic to expect developed countries to do it for us. I don’t believe it is. Do developed countries have a moral obligation? Yes. Their wealth was built partly on natural resource exploitation and high levels of pollution. But whether they will fulfil that obligation is another matter.
Ultimately, African countries must recognise the value of their natural resources and lead their own conservation efforts. If we demonstrate leadership, international partners may be more willing to support us.
What local solutions can help sustain conservation programmes such as anti-poaching units and ranger operations?
We need to integrate conservation into broader national development strategies. Protected areas should generate economic value through ecotourism, carbon markets and ecosystem services.
Countries such as Kenya, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa have demonstrated that conservation can support significant economic activity.
The long-term solution is not dependence on aid. It is recognising that forests, wildlife and ecosystems are national assets that contribute directly to economic growth, water security and public welfare. If governments value those assets and invest accordingly, conservation programmes can become more sustainable and resilient.