When the guns finally fell silent in 1992, little was left alive in Gorongosa national park. During the 15 years of Mozambique’s civil war – in which more than a million people died – the country’s wildlife also paid a terrible price. Poaching for meat and ivory was so intense that the small surviving elephant population rapidly evolved to lose their tusks. Leopards, wild dogs and spotted hyenas had all disappeared. Populations of zebra, buffalo and other herbivores had collapsed.
In the following years, a huge effort to restore the park took shape. Led by the philanthropist Gregory Carr and Mozambique’s government, it was the start of the park’s journey to becoming one of Africa’s most celebrated wildlife conservation success stories. Today, elephants, lions, hippos, antelope, painted wolves, hyenas and leopards all thrive in the park once again – thanks to work that for the past 20 years has been supported by a long-term partnership with USAID.
But now, Gorongosa is among hundreds of conservation projects around the world thrown into uncertainty by Donald Trump’s budget cuts to USAID and other branches of the American government. Experts warn the cuts could cause a global surge in wildlife trafficking and poaching, as support for schemes protecting critically endangered species has ended.
From combating illegal fishing in the Galápagos islands to backing anti-rhino poaching initiatives in east Africa, the US government has been one of the largest funders of conservation around the world, providing, on average, 12.1% of the world’s biodiversity funding between 2015 and 2022, according to the OECD.
But the Trump administration’s cuts and funding reviews have forced many to reduce ranger patrols and critical restoration work, leaving vulnerable species with dramatically diminished protection.
Speaking to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity, conservation NGOs say the cuts have resulted in job losses and an immediate scaling back of projects, prompting concern for the future of the species they were meant to protect. None believes the shortfall can be made up from other funding sources.
“These funding cuts could not have come at a worse time. The loss of US funding means an immediate reduction in rangers protecting wildlife on the frontlines,” says one wildlife trafficking expert, who did not want to be named. “We were already experiencing rapid growth in trafficking of live wildlife, jaguar canines and bone products as substitutes for tiger from Latin America; an expanding illegal trade of elephant ivory in southeast Asia; an uptick in rhino poaching in southern Africa; and professional tiger poaching groups targeting tigers.”
Another, also requesting anonymity, says: “Efforts to prevent the illicit trade in high-value wildlife products also disrupt the transnational crime cartels driving the illegal trafficking of narcotics, people and weapons. Demand and the illicit money for wildlife products largely originates from China, and the consequences of slackening existing controls is terrifying.”
Through USAID, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Forest Service and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, the American government has supported a vast network of conservation initiatives, averaging about $740m a year of direct assistance between 2015 and 2022, according to the OECD. Schemes range from helping Indigenous communities to secure formal land rights to helping to tackle illegal logging and gold mining in the Amazon. USAID alone provided at least $350m in 2023 for conservation initiatives, making it one of the largest funders in the cash-strapped sector, and was often matched by contributions from philanthropists and the private sector.
Mark Freudenberger, an environmental expert who has worked on USAID schemes for more than 30 years, says that while it is too early to know the immediate effects of the cuts, he fears there will be a rise in poaching and encroachment in national parks in the coming years.
“I’m very concerned about the future of lemurs in Madagascar; white rhinos and elephants in southern Africa; gorillas in Rwanda, Congo and the Central African Republic; orangutans in south-east Asia. The list goes on, and it is long. These species are of great intrinsic value to the global community,” he says.
Organisations working to strengthen the voice of Indigenous communities in the Amazon and African were among those to lose funding. Marcia Wong, a former USAID administrator for humanitarian assistance, says it is likely that they have fallen foul of efforts to crack down on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) schemes.
“Working with Indigenous communities was seen as DEI. That’s too ‘woke’ for this administration. It makes me sad. If you care about the environment, I don’t think that’s woke. I think that’s being conscious of the future and it also makes America safer,” says Wong, who was a Democratic political appointee under Biden.
Projects that have not yet received a final decision about their funding have had to fill in a survey to explain how their work contributes to the US government’s interests and supports US sovereignty. The survey includes questions about how they work to protect women and children from “gender ideology”, with a link to Trump’s 20 January executive order rolling back transgender and gender-identity rights. The review process extends until 19 April.
Matthew Hansen, a professor at University of Maryland and an expert on remote sensing, says USAID funding of conservation has been critical for soft power. In recent years, his team has worked on improving monitoring of the Congo basin rainforest, the world’s second largest, to reduce deforestation threats.
“Some people seem to believe our international engagement should only consist of guns, Bibles and the occasional Band-Aid. Unfortunately, we have not defended, nor advertised, more substantive interactions that create a world of global engagement and partnership, which is what USAID does,” he says.
“Being a generous and concerned partner with other countries in their quest to develop stable, participatory political systems, human development, conservation of nature and institutions that serve their populations across a range of needs, should remain a critical national mission for the United States. It is incredible that we are purposefully withdrawing from such interactions when they are most needed,” he says.
