Chad Reclaims Control of National Parks, Expels African Parks Over Governance and Accountability Dispute

Executive Summary

The Republic of Chad has formally terminated its 15-year partnership with the conservation NGO African Parks, accusing the organisation of disrespectful conduct toward the state, financial opacity, and poor operational performance.
The decision—announced by the Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Sustainable Development—marks a significant moment in the broader continental debate over foreign-led conservation models and sovereign environmental governance.

African Parks, whose board includes Prince Harry and is supported by major donors such as the European Union and the Buffett Foundation, managed two of Chad’s most strategic conservation zones: the Ennedi Natural and Cultural Reserve and the Greater Zakouma Ecosystem.

Government Position and Key Allegations

In an official communiqué, the Chadian authorities cited multiple grievances reflecting “a recurrent pattern of indelicate and irreverent behaviour” by African Parks representatives.
The ministry further detailed a series of management failures:

• A resurgence of poaching across key reserves.
• Lack of investment in anti-poaching infrastructure and ranger capacity.
• Insufficient coordination with Chadian state agencies.
• Opaque financial management concerning revenues from tourism and international donors.

The government justified the termination as part of a national governance reform aimed at restoring transparency, strengthening sovereignty, and ensuring that natural resource management benefits local populations.

Broader Context: African Parks Under Fire

Chad’s decision amplifies a growing pattern of African states reassessing partnerships with Western conservation NGOs amid accusations of neocolonial practices and human rights abuses.

In the Republic of Congo, an independent investigation confirmed multiple human rights violations by rangers under African Parks’ management in the Odzala-Kokoua National Park, including:

• Physical assaults and torture.
• Sexual violence and forced evictions.
• Abuse and intimidation of Indigenous Baka communities.

Such cases have intensified scrutiny of African Parks’ operational model—one often praised for efficiency but criticized for marginalising local governance structures and excluding Indigenous populations from decision-making processes.

Strategic and Geopolitical Implications

• Sovereignty and Governance: Chad’s decision represents a reassertion of national control over its conservation portfolio—a move resonating with wider Sahelian efforts to localise governance and reduce dependency on foreign NGOs.
• Diplomatic Sensitivity: The rupture may generate short-term friction with Western donors but could bolster Chad’s standing among African states pursuing decolonised conservation frameworks.
• Security Overlap: Wildlife reserves in Chad overlap with transnational trafficking corridors and conflict zones, meaning management changes could affect regional security operations and intelligence-sharing against poaching and smuggling networks.
• Reputation and Donor Oversight: The case underscores the need for robust transparency and audit mechanisms for international NGOs operating in fragile states—especially where conservation intersects with sovereignty and human rights.

Strategic Note

The expulsion of African Parks from Chad is emblematic of a broader continental recalibration of power between African governments and international conservation actors.
Behind the diplomatic language lies a clear message: states across the Sahel and Central Africa are no longer willing to outsource sovereignty over natural resources or tolerate opaque foreign management structures.

This decision may trigger a domino effect as other governments review legacy agreements signed under donor pressure or crisis-era conditions.

African Security Analysis (ASA) continues to monitor these developments through its Environmental Governance & Sovereignty Observatory, which tracks the intersections between foreign NGO influence, national security policy, and governance accountability.

For governments, donors, or corporate stakeholders seeking clarity on NGO-state relations, compliance risks, and sovereignty trends, ASA provides confidential strategic assessments, audit frameworks, and policy advisory through costed engagements.