Protecting Liberia's forests and oceans for the benefit of people

 
 

Since 2001, Conservation International-Liberia has worked to balance conservation, sustainable production and the economic development of Liberia.

By working with local communities to promote forest protection, we're helping conserve biodiversity-rich forests in East Nimba — securing their climate and socioeconomic benefits for generations to come. Our Blue Oceans Program is promoting the establishment of new protected areas, tackling plastic pollution and restoring the critical benefits that Liberia's coastal and marine ecosystems provide for communities and wildlife.

We're working closely with the government to incorporate natural climate solutions into Liberia's commitments to the Paris Agreement, helping the West African country to develop a nature-first strategy that prioritizes the protection and restoration of vital ecosystems that store large amounts of potentially climate-warming carbon.

 

Highlight project

© Michael Christopher Brown

Protecting threatened forests and mangroves

As part of the Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration (FOLUR) Impact Program — a joint effort by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and World Bank — Conservation International-Liberia is working to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable food systems in northwest Liberia.

Home to some of the largest remaining forests in West Africa, northwest Liberia is a global conservation priority for carbon, biodiversity and vital ecosystems that provide fresh water for more than a million Liberians.

The multi-year project, which began in 2021, will strengthen land-use planning to identify essential areas for forest protection and restoration, and for the sustainable production of crops, including palm oil and cacao.

Under our GEF Natural Capital Accounting Project, we are also working with the government of Liberia to establish mangrove ecosystem accounts. The objective is to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of Liberia's natural capital by integrating the value of nature into the country's development trajectory.

 

Where we work in Liberia

 

News from Liberia

Protections for African wildlife face growing threat: a lack of money

© Jon McCormack

Some 90 percent of the almost 300 protected areas in Africa are underfunded, according to a recent study, The New York Times reported this week. These combined deficits — totaling at least US$ 1 billion — mean that iconic fixtures of Africa’s permanent landscape, such as lions, could face severe population declines if no action is taken.

We spoke with Michael O’Brien-Onyeka, senior vice president of Conservation International’s Africa Field Division, and Rachel Golden Kroner, a social scientist at Conservation International and an expert on protected areas, about the study’s findings, and what can be done to better protect nature in Africa and beyond.

Question: What was your first reaction to the results of this study?

O’Brien-Onyeka: The assessment about the gross underfunding of parks in Africa is correct and perhaps even conservative — the funding shortfall could be higher, in my view.

Golden Kroner: The study resonates with research that I have read – in particular, a study led by David Gill (former Conservation International postdoctoral associate) and co-authored by Mike Mascia (Senior Vice President of the Moore Center for Science). Their research found that in marine protected areas, staff and capacity — essentially funding — were the most important predictors of success for ecological outcomes. So, this new study in Africa very much aligns with the idea that funding for management is key to ensure that protected areas can be effective.

Q: Michael, from your perspective, what explains this funding shortfall? 

O’Brien-Onyeka: Africa’s vast natural capital — that is, the sources of the benefits that nature provides to people — is not properly valued or accounted for in decision-making, and represents one of the key underlying reasons why parks are being taken for granted in terms of funding.

The shortage of funding could also be caused by lack of understanding about the linkages between conserving critical ecosystems where wildlife live and food security, peace and security, and so on. The conservation community is still just beginning to take a holistic approach to this — where you are not just looking at a specific park, but also outlying communities and ecosystems connected to those parks and the aggregate contributions of the parks to the livelihood and well-being of people in the area.

Q: Rachel, you’re an expert on the downsizing of protected areas. How does that come into play here?

Golden Kroner: From our work looking at downgrading, downsizing and degazettement of protected areas — weakening, shrinking or removing their protected status, respectively —  the findings of this study make a lot of sense. Although we don’t explicitly know the connection between funding and legal changes to protected areas, we have found a connection between so called “paper parks” — parks that are legally written down as protected, but have no management, marked boundaries or patrolling — and our work. In the case of Rondônia, Brazil — one of the most heavily deforested states in that country — our research found that protected areas that were poorly managed, and in turn more deforested, were more likely to be downsized or degazetted. In other words, paper parks were more likely to lose protections.  This suggests that if protected area management isn’t supported by adequate funding, there is a risk of future loss of protections.

Q: What is a potential solution to Africa’s protected area problem?

Golden Kroner: A sustainable financing mechanism could be beneficial to protected areas in Africa. For example, in Brazil, the ARPA model — Amazon Region Protected Areas Programme — helps to permanently finance protected areas through a funding commitment between the government and various foundations. The government gradually commits more funding and foundations commit less over time, eventually leading to almost full support from the government alone. It’s a model that has worked in Brazil and other countries are now looking into adapting it, so I think a similar type of sustainable financing model could work in Africa.

O’Brien-Onyeka: The suggestion that developed countries and multilateral agencies should increase their support for protected areas in Africa is good, because it would go a long way in supporting protection of wildlife — but it may not be reliable in the long run, as it depends on the good will of donors. What we need is a combination of different funding mechanisms including donor funds, trust funds, carbon credits and others. There is no silver bullet.

Our plan at Conservation International is to develop sustainable funding mechanisms for protected areas that don’t rely solely on philanthropic or donor funding. This year in Liberia, for example, we launched and capitalized the first endowment fund for the country’s protected areas, in collaboration with the government, to provide perpetual funding for these areas. The fund accepts funding from all sources including government and the private sector, and it is a model that can be replicated across Africa.

Michael O’Brien-Onyeka is senior vice president of Conservation International’s Africa Field Division. Rachel Golden Kroner is a social scientist at Conservation International. Olivia DeSmit is a staff writer for Conservation International. Ally Jamah, Conservation International’s regional communication manager for Africa, contributed to this report. 

Further reading

 

Learn more

Hear directly from Conservation International employees on the ground in Liberia.

 

References

  1. Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Bornacelly, I., & Hole, D. G. (2021). Nature-dependent people: Mapping human direct use of nature for basic needs across the tropics. ScienceDirect, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102368
  2. Conservation International (2021, November). Irrecoverable Carbon. Retrieved January 2025, from https://www.conservation.org/projects/irrecoverable-carbon
  3. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (2024). Table 8a: Total, threatened, and EX & EW endemic species in each country [Fact sheet]. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/summary-statistics#Summary%20Tables