I’m well aware of big Western “conservation” organizations who want
to get rid of the people in the name of the wildlife. Once they’ve done
that, some set up lodges for wealthy people who want to go on safari.
Some even propose that having spent so much money, these tourists should
be allowed to shoot “big game,” including endangered species that a
native African would be arrested for “poaching.” However, my piece was
not meant as a critique of the conservation industrial complex.
Second, I wrote “DRC’s Virunga: Park, Gorillas, and Rangers All Under Attack”
in response to reports that unidentified militiamen had attacked a
civilian convoy guarded by park rangers, killing 4 civilians and 13
rangers in DRC’s Virunga National Park. I attempted to describe the park
as it is, not as I think it should be. That’s why I wrote, “The park
authority, Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN) ,
is a partner of the Congolese government, the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the European
Union, and international NGOs and foundations, so there are, no doubt,
multiple political pressures and degrees of awareness involved.”
Perhaps I should have said “multiple neocolonial pressures and
motivations in play.” I might also have added that Emmanuel de Merode,
the Belgian prince and Virunga Park Director, has made his case for the
park at the World Economic Forum in Davos , an imperial organization if there ever was one.
I wrote that “the gorillas help build an international conservation
constituency of NGOs, foundations, government agencies, and nature
lovers who are committed to the park’s survival. And that if the
gorillas were gone, that constituency would be greatly weakened.” That
is true but it does not mean that I applaud the park’s dependence.
-- Ann Garrison, "Neocolonial African Conservation Inspired by 'Tarzan'" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).