In a context where the governance of natural resources is increasingly emerging as a central issue of sovereignty and transparency in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a parliamentary inquiry has reignited the debate on the management of protected areas and the role of the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN) in public-private partnerships.
In a letter dated April 1, 2026, Member of Parliament Robert Agenong’a, elected from the Mahagi constituency, submitted a written question to the Minister of Environment, Sustainable Development and the New Climate Economy. The lawmaker is acting within the framework of parliamentary oversight as provided for by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, particularly referring to Articles 100, 138, and 147 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 179 and 180 of the Rules of Procedure.
In his document, the MP also recalls Articles 9 and 56 of the Constitution, which establish the State’s permanent sovereignty over natural resources and qualify any form of squandering of national wealth as an act of economic genocide. It is on this legal basis that he structures a series of sixteen questions addressed to the government.
At the heart of his inquiry is the issue of ICCN funding. The MP requests detailed data on the budget allocated to the institution for the fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, broken down by protected area—national parks, wildlife reserves, scientific reserves, and hunting areas—as well as by province. He also requests the amounts actually disbursed, in order to compare budget allocations with real execution, as well as explanations for any discrepancies.
Beyond the figures, the lawmaker questions whether current public funding is sufficient to ensure the effective protection of protected areas. He asks whether the government itself acknowledges the insufficiency of resources allocated to the ICCN and, if so, what concrete measures are being considered to address this gap.
A significant portion of the correspondence is devoted to public-private partnerships (PPPs) and co-management agreements concluded by the ICCN. The MP questions the role of Parliament in their validation, stating that several agreements with foreign organizations may have been concluded without official information being provided to the National Assembly. He asks the government to explain this lack of consultation, while requesting the submission of legal documents required under PPP legislation, including feasibility studies, minutes of technical committees, decisions of procurement and oversight bodies, as well as the full texts of agreements and their annexes.
In the same vein, Robert Agenong’a questions the internal control procedures governing these agreements. He asks who within the government validates or approves ICCN agreements and whether the supervising minister exercises systematic oversight over each signed partnership. He also calls on the executive to clarify the institutional coordination framework governing these commitments.
The MP further raises the issue of the involvement of national actors in the management of protected areas. According to him, Congolese NGOs, companies governed by Congolese law, and community initiatives possess proven expertise but are insufficiently included in partnership mechanisms. He asks what policies are in place to promote their integration and whether applications from national actors have already been reviewed or rejected.
Another sensitive point concerns the mapping of ongoing agreements. The MP demands a comprehensive list of PPP, co-management, or delegated management agreements concluded with foreign organizations, including their legal identity, country of registration, the protected areas concerned, surface areas, durations, signing dates, and annual funding amounts mobilized. He also requests clarification, for each protected area in the country, on whether it is covered by an active partnership or managed without a formal agreement.
The letter also addresses the ICCN’s overall financial resources, requesting a comparative table between state contributions and those of foreign partners, broken down by protected area. The MP also questions the possible presence of mineral or strategic resources within areas covered by these agreements, and the existence of contractual clauses governing access to subsoil and forest resources, requesting their compliance with the Mining Code and Forestry Code.
Finally, the lawmaker demands that the government demonstrate the legal compliance of all agreements concluded since 2018 with PPP legislation, by providing the required administrative documents. Failing this, he argues that their validity could be legally challenged.
At the end of his correspondence, Robert Agenong’a refocuses the debate on a fundamental question: who truly benefits from the management of protected areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo? If these spaces are recognized as a national heritage intended for the Congolese people, he argues, then local communities, national organizations, and Congolese companies should be the primary beneficiaries and stakeholders. This inquiry, strictly within a parliamentary framework, opens a phase of political scrutiny over a sector where ecological, financial, and sovereignty issues intersect. It now places the government under pressure to provide documented transparency regarding ICCN governance and the partnership mechanisms structuring the management of the country’s protected areas.
By Kilalopress