Ambazonia is home to some of the most biologically diverse forests in West-Central Africa, including Korup National Park, the Takamanda–Mone corridor, and the Mount Cameroon ecosystem.
By Ali Dan Ismael editor-in chief just back from vacation
The Chadian government’s recent decision to end its partnership with African Parks has cast a sharp light on the complex relationship between international conservation efforts and sovereign authority in Africa. Prince Harry, who serves on the board of African Parks, now finds himself at the centre of a wider debate about how conservation is practiced — and whose voices are heard in the process.
African Parks manages vast protected landscapes in several African countries under agreements with their governments. The charity has long received praise for revitalizing wildlife reserves and improving conservation outcomes. However, it has also faced growing scrutiny over allegations of human rights abuses in places such as the Republic of Congo, where some rangers were accused of rape and torture. Chad’s environment ministry, citing “lack of investment,” failure to respect contractual clauses, and “recurring irreverence” toward state institutions, recently announced the termination of African Parks’ management of the Ennedi Natural and Cultural Reserve and the Greater Zakouma Ecosystem.
Much of the current discussion focuses on Chad and Congo. But for Ambazonians, this moment exposes a deeper structural oversight: Britain’s charitable and conservation engagements in Africa routinely ignore the unresolved legal and political status of Ambazonia — the former British Southern Cameroons.
Ambazonia is home to some of the most biologically diverse forests in West-Central Africa, including Korup National Park, the Takamanda–Mone corridor, and the Mount Cameroon ecosystem. Yet international NGOs and donors have historically treated these territories as though they fell unquestionably under the sovereignty of Yaoundé. This assumption is not legally grounded. UN General Assembly Resolution 1608 (XV) of 1961 recognized the territory’s right to self-determination, but no binding treaty of union was ever ratified between Southern Cameroons and La République du Cameroun. As a result, Ambazonia remains a distinct political entity under international law — a reality Britain has consistently sidestepped.
The consequences of this neglect are real. Conservation agreements negotiated solely with Yaoundé exclude legitimate Ambazonian authorities and local communities, many of whom have stewarded these forests for generations. In several areas, conservation zones have been militarized or used for operations unrelated to environmental protection, undermining trust and alienating local populations.
Ambazonians do not oppose conservation. On the contrary, they recognize that organizations like African Parks have made significant contributions to biodiversity protection in other regions. But effective, ethical conservation must respect both human rights and the legal context of the land. In Ambazonia, that means acknowledging its distinct political status, involving legitimate local actors in decision-making, and ensuring that conservation initiatives do not indirectly legitimize contested political claims.
For Britain — and for figures such as Prince Harry — this is a moment to reassess, not retreat. A more responsible approach would involve engaging directly with Ambazonian communities and representatives, conducting transparent reviews of existing conservation arrangements, and ensuring that environmental protection aligns with self-determination. This is not only a matter of justice; it is a prerequisite for sustainable conservation.
As Chad’s case shows, top-down conservation that bypasses local sovereignty is increasingly untenable. Britain’s moral leadership in environmental matters will ring hollow if it continues to overlook the unresolved status of its own former trust territory.
Ali Dan Ismael editor in chief
