October 14, 2025 – Kinshasa, October 10 — Under a veneer of ecological cooperation, a new alliance may be taking shape between the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN) and the European Union Delegation in Kinshasa. The stated objective is the implementation of an “ambitious support program focused on ex situ conservation and the international trade of protected species in the DRC.” At first glance, this phrase might seem harmless. Yet for many Congolese observers, it rings alarm bells: what if conservation becomes the new face of international trade?
For several analysts, this initiative does not appear out of nowhere. It seems to continue the controversial partnership between ICCN and the Indian group Vantara, accused of transferring exotic animals under the guise of “rescue” projects. Herein lies the need for vigilance: the program combines ex situ conservation with the international trade of protected species, a pairing of words that raises questions and concerns. Behind the diplomatic gloss, some see the opening of a new market for living organisms, under foreign supervision.
The concept of “ex situ conservation”—protecting species outside their natural habitat—is particularly striking. Beneath this technical terminology lies a logic of confinement reminiscent of zoos, laboratories, and private collections. “Since when do we protect nature by putting it in a cage?” asks an ecologist from the University of Kinshasa. The inclusion of the word “trade” in an agreement supposedly aimed at protecting biodiversity raises a simple question: what is being sold, and to whom? Especially since this initiative echoes previous ICCN agreements with Vantara, an Indian group already criticized for animal transfers and its network of private sanctuaries abroad. For Congolese ecologists, this sudden rapprochement with the European Union could serve to legitimize or diplomatically cover practices of transferring protected species under the pretext of care, reproduction, or “scientific rescue.” For many biodiversity advocates, linking “trade” and “protected species” in the same sentence is an ethical contradiction. This language reveals an ideological shift: nature is no longer a heritage to defend but a resource to monetize.
According to sources close to the matter, the program could be led by Ms. Julie Sherman, an American expert, surrounded by a team of “highly qualified” international specialists. The pattern is now familiar: Congo provides the forest, while the Global North provides the experts. An environmental sociologist interviewed by Kilalopress commented, “We are talking about conservation, but without the Congolese. This is not cooperation—it’s scientific subcontracting.” Meanwhile, Congolese universities and research centers continue to lack funding, equipment, and recognition.
Yves Milan Ngangay, Director General of ICCN, reportedly emphasized the “transparency” of the institution toward its partners. But again, observers question: transparency toward whom? There is no indication that contracts with Vantara or the European Union will be made public. “Transparency is being confused with docility toward donors,” laments an environmental journalist. “True transparency is toward the citizens, not Brussels.”
One of the project’s highlighted components is the rehabilitation of the Kinshasa Zoo. For many, this is a potent symbol: a space embodying the colonial relationship to life—exhibition and control. Rehabilitating a zoo risks perpetuating a vision of nature reduced to a spectacle. “What they are selling as an ecological project increasingly looks like a return to domination logic: controlling wildlife, controlling the forest, controlling the narrative,” says an independent anthropologist.
Presented as progress, this project could institutionalize a new ecological dependence: one in which Congolese biodiversity becomes a bargaining chip in European “green diplomacy.” For the European Union, it would be a way to greenwash its image and secure access to biological and genetic resources. For ICCN, it could be a way to reposition itself after controversies around Vantara and accusations of opaque management. Some analysts do not rule out that the European Union aims to “regularize” ICCN–Vantara cooperation by giving it an institutional basis. In other words, Brussels would not simply act as a partner but as guarantor of a system linking conservation and cross-border biological exchanges. This semantic shift—from “protection” to “management,” and from “natural heritage” to “resource”—deserves close monitoring, as it is often in these nuances that the privatization of life takes shape.
Congolese observers warn gravely: one cannot defend nature while losing sovereignty. Congo cannot be both the solution and the weak link in environmental governance. It is time for conservation to cease being a testing ground for foreign powers and become a shared responsibility, rooted in local knowledge, communities, and realities. “They talk about saving species, but it is always us who end up locked behind their projects,” a conservation enthusiast laments bitterly. This is called strategic partnership. But when biodiversity becomes a commodity and forests a diplomatic currency, it is no longer conservation—it is a green transaction.
By Kilalopress