Tlokweng — Can Africa rescue its own biodiversity before the losses become irreversible? This is a question that once hovered at the edges of policy conversations, raised by scientists and conservationists but rarely confronted by political leaders with any real urgency.
But at the recent Africa Biodiversity Summit in Tlokweng, Botswana, the question once again took centre stage — not as an abstract warning, but as a continental challenge demanding political, economic, and moral clarity.
What made this gathering distinct was not simply the gravity of the discussions, but the shift in who was owning them. Instead of waiting for external prescriptions, African leaders, experts, and institutions were interrogating themselves: What will it take for Africa to fund and shape its own ecological future? And more pointedly, what happens if it doesn’t?
At the heart of the summit was a proposal as ambitious as it was provocative — a call for each African government to allocate at least 1% of its GDP to biodiversity conservation, channelled through a new African-led, African-governed Africa Biodiversity Fund. For a continent navigating economic headwinds, social pressures, and competing national priorities, the idea presents both a promise and a dilemma.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Could African governments genuinely commit to ring-fencing domestic budgets for nature? Would such a fund move the continent beyond donor dependence? And might it finally allow Africans to benefit from the natural wealth that has long enriched the rest of the world more than it has enriched the communities living closest to it?
These questions pulsed through the plenary rooms, side meetings, and corridor debates in Tlokweng, not as rhetorical flourishes, but as the foundations of a potential new conservation philosophy. One in which Africa is no longer a passive recipient of conservation aid, but an active architect of its own biodiversity future.
Africa’s ecological crossroads
No one put the stakes more plainly than Botswana’s President Duma Gideon Boko as he addressed the summit’s closing session. “Africa carries large gaps in conservation finance. Achieving our ambitions requires adequate resources… We must collectively mobilise domestic and international finance while redirecting harmful subsidies into nature-friendly initiatives,” he said.
Boko’s message was not the romantic imagery often cast upon Africa’s wildlife. It was pragmatic; a call for new economic models that reward conservation, create green jobs, and weave biodiversity into mining, agriculture, tourism, water management, and infrastructure planning.
His central concern cut deeper: “How can we ensure that our citizens meaningfully and sustainably benefit from Africa’s rich biodiversity? How can we make sure it creates jobs in Africa for Africans?”
In many ways, this became the summit’s tune: Africa’s biodiversity is globally admired yet locally underfunded, globally monetized yet locally under-rewarding.
To Ambassador Selma Malika Haddadi, the Deputy Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC), the summit represented a “pivotal moment”; not merely a conference, but the beginning of a new continental trajectory. “We must ensure biodiversity is not treated as a peripheral issue, but as a central pillar of development, peace, and resilience,” she said.
She emphasised the African Union’s efforts to align the continent’s biodiversity priorities with Agenda 2063, the continent’s long term development blueprint, and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reaffirming that ecological well-being is inseparable from Africa’s broader development architecture.
But Commissioner Moses Vilakati, who oversees the AU’s Agriculture, Rural Development, the Blue Economy and Sustainable Environment department, distilled the optimism most sharply. To him, Tlokweng marked the beginning of a legacy. “This is historic… From now onwards we will be quoting that during the first Biodiversity Summit in Botswana, this is what was agreed upon,” he told The Independent, on the sidelines of the summit.
Vilakati also reminded delegates that biodiversity is not a luxury but the foundation of Africa’s food systems, cultural identity, and economic resilience. Yet in government budgets, it consistently sits at the bottom of the priority list. He urged sectoral ministers who attended the summit to integrate biodiversity into agriculture, fisheries, water management, tourism planning, and especially into national education systems.
The summit’s adoption of a US$30 billion annual target by 2030 for communities and ecosystem protection is a substantial step, but the real test will be whether heads of state embrace it. His warning was blunt: “Sometimes governments forget about biodiversity, yet it is key to sustaining our lives.”
Why 1% of GDP matters and why it won’t be easy
Technically, the clearest rationale came from Harsen Nyambe, the Director for Sustainable Environment and the Blue Economy at the African Union Commission. He reminded participants that Africa hosts some of the world’s richest ecosystems — the Congo Basin, Serengeti, the Sahara, the Indian Ocean reefs — yet also some of its most vulnerable. “These ecosystems are not merely landscapes; they are lifelines.”
Nyambe argued that 1% of Africa’s collective GDP would generate around US$800 million annually, modest relative to global needs but transformative compared to current continental spending. He drew parallels with the AU’s 2003 commitment to allocate 10% of budgets to agriculture, a decision that “galvanized the sector” and created political expectations against which governments were measured.
Still, Nyambe was pragmatic: “Our leaders can accept 1%, or say it is too much… or drop it to 0.2%.” He noted that biodiversity continues to be sidelined, despite underpinning food security, trade, medicine, and cultural well-being. Without mainstreaming biodiversity into national economic planning, he warned, Africa risks lagging behind global transitions toward green economies and nature-based solutions.
The transboundary dilemma
No voice illustrated Africa’s structural challenges more vividly than Dr. Andrew Seguya, the Executive Secretary of the Greater Virunga Transboundary Collaboration — spanning Uganda, Rwanda, and the DRC. He described transboundary ecosystems as “no man’s lands” — valued by all countries, owned by none, financed by few.
The Greater Virunga landscape is among the most biodiverse regions on Earth, yet also among the most densely populated, with 400-1,000 people per square kilometre, and some of the highest poverty levels worldwide. “If you transpose biodiversity, population density, and poverty into the same place, the chances of conservation are next to zero unless something changes.” For Seguya, conservation is not primarily a question of protecting forests or wildlife; it is a question of helping communities escape daily survival: “Poor people don’t conserve.”
He argued that the Africa Biodiversity Fund’s recognition of transboundary conservation is groundbreaking, but funding must extend well beyond protection into education, health, livelihoods, agricultural support, and security. Without this, Africa’s most valuable ecosystems will continue to erode.
Rethinking the financing model
A pointed critique came from Chanda Mwale, the Senior Coordinator at the Sustainable Finance Coalition, who said the continent must overhaul the way it finances nature. Her assessment was unflinching: “The current financing model is not fit for purpose. It is short-term, inflexible, and not enough.”
Biodiversity restoration requires decades, she argued, yet funding cycles are typically two to five years — a structure suited for development projects, not ecological recovery. She also challenged the prevailing notion that biodiversity competes with social sectors.
“If you do not have a healthy environment, you will be sick,” she said. For Mwale, Africa’s biodiversity should be seen not as a burden but as its comparative advantage, offering immense potential in tourism revenues, green value chains, and carbon and biodiversity credits.
Businesses too were taking notice. Matthias Naab, the Director of UNDP’s Regional Service Centre for Africa, reframed biodiversity as a strategic business asset. He said “investing in nature is investing in risk management, brand reputation, and long-term profitability.”
The global market is shifting toward ESG frameworks, Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure (TFND) requirements, and nature-positive investment strategies. African institutions are slowly adapting — suggesting that private capital could follow if the continent builds the right policy and de-risking instruments.
Catalytic capital for conservation
However, one of the summit’s most urgent pleas came from James Arnott, the Founder of Rewilding Africa CIC, who illuminated a hidden bottleneck: the lack of catalytic capital. Catalytic capital or early-stage funding needed to prepare landscapes and communities for major investment, is virtually absent in Africa.
“There are no funds available globally for catalytic capital. And without it, we cannot take projects from concept to bankable,” Arnott told The Independent.
Arnott envisions a network of large-scale community conservancies, linking national parks across borders, generating jobs, tourism flows, and long-term ecological resilience. But before investors come in, communities need land-use planning, governance structures, and economic readiness — steps that require catalytic funding. He argued that the Africa Biodiversity Fund could fill this void if designed ambitiously.
Arnott’s deeper critique, however, was cultural: “The biggest weakness for conservation in Africa is communication, alignment, and collaboration. Everyone is in their own silo.” If Africa can unify these efforts, he believes its natural resources could become a leading economic asset.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Africa Wildlife Foundation commitment
A major highlight was the African Wildlife Foundation’s (AWF) announcement of US$30 million annually to support the African Union’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. AWF’s CEO, Kaddu Sebunya, captured the changing mood: “Africa’s biodiversity is Africa’s responsibility and Africa’s opportunity.”
AWF supports landscapes across East, Central, and Southern Africa — from the Congo Basin to savannas — focusing on community conservation, climate adaptation, and anti-poaching efforts. Their pledge signaled confidence: if African governments commit financially, global partners are more likely to follow.
So, is 1% of GDP feasible and would it be enough? The proposal’s viability rests on both political and economic calculations.
Africa already spends billions on harmful subsidies that could be redirected. Biodiversity underpins agriculture, water systems, energy, and tourism — making the investment economically rational. Regional blocs increasingly support nature-positive financing frameworks. Precedents like the agriculture budget commitment show that political targets can shift continental priorities.
Many African states face debt stress and budget pressures. Health, education, and security often overshadow environmental investments. Implementation and governance capacity vary widely across countries. Political cycles reward short-term gains, not long-term ecological commitments. But perhaps the point is not whether 1% is perfect. It is that Africa is signaling a willingness to finance its own ecological survival.
A new African conservation ethic?
The most striking element of the summit was the rhetorical shift. This was not a continent pleading for external funding. It was a continent asking itself difficult questions about sovereignty, equity, and responsibility. It recognised that biodiversity is not merely something to be protected for the world, but something Africa must invest in because its prosperity, identity, and future depend on it. This shift , subtle yet profound, may be the most important outcome of the first Africa Biodiversity Summit in Tlokweng.
