African Wildlife Foundation

What it reported doing in 2024

National and landscape level conservation programsin kenya, work focused on rangeland restoration and coexistence. Water security remained central in the tsavomkomazi landscape where awf worked with communities to restore catchments and improve access to freshwater for people and wildlife, while also launching an ambitious partnership with the wildlife clubs of kenya to engage school children in conservation. Additionally, awf supported the government of kajiado county with a sustainable business investment strategy tied to local management of amboseli national park. In rwanda, the government's vision of regional green growth tied to increased habitat for gorillas advanced significantly, with a community-endorsed compensation and land valuation framework approved through rigorous fpic processes established by awf. Awf also invested in women-led agriculture, nature-based enterprises, and early planning for smart green villages. In cameroon, awf strengthened governance in the campo ma'an landscape through enhanced community participation, a grievance redress system, updated protected area management planning, and ecological monitoring of elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, and other iconic species. Parallel livelihood investments in sustainable cocoa, rubber, and plantain farming helped reduce local reliance on forest extraction. In the dja landscape, awf enhanced protected area management of the dja faunal reserve, reinforced anti-poaching efforts, and engaged local communities through rights-based training. Simultaneously, awf promoted alternative livelihoods, like fish farming, to boost food security and ensure community cooperation in maintaining the reserve's integrity. In faro landscape, awf strengthened management and anti-poaching operations in faro national park. Conflict between local residents and herders was reduced via the tango initiative, and local communities were engaged in sustainable enterprise, including training indigenous mbororo communities in plant nursery management and providing equipment for crop processing and rice farming. In drc, awf strengthened conservation outcomes across two critical congo basin landscapes bili-ul and maringa-lopori-wamba advancing protection, community governance, and long-term ecological resilience. In bili-ul, awf's co-management agreement with national wildlife authority, the institut congolais por la conservation de la nature (iccn) enhanced security across a core zone of the protected area through intensified patrols and strengthened operational bases. Law-enforcement outcomes improved and ecological monitoring progressed with camera traps and a new research camp. Community engagement and rights-based approaches were reinforced through active complaint-management mechanisms, training for ecoguards, and infrastructure upgrades benefiting nearly 36,000 people. In the maringa-lopori-wamba landscape, awf advanced integrated conservation and community development across the lomako-yokokala and iyondji community bonobo reserves. The renovated public school in ilima emerged as center for environmental education, complementing ongoing rights-based awareness campaigns and governance training for local authorities. Awf advanced opportunities for women and youth through the development of business incubation centers. Awf continued to collaborate with wildlife authorities on monitoring and anti-trafficking efforts. In ethiopia, despite disruptions caused by regional insecurity, awf continued to work closely with the ethiopian wildlife conservation authority (ewca), supporting the development of the walia ibex national strategy and action recovery plan, and strengthening ewca's institutional capacity for improved coordination and data-driven management. The counter wildlife trafficking program provided ongoing support to canine units at bole international airport and assisted the judiciary in wildlife crime prosecution. Work in simien mountains included support to the local primary schoo

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 86.3%; rating input score 86
• Program expense ratio: 83.1%; rating input score 83
• Fundraising efficiency: $7.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
  • Compensation committee: Pass
  • Independent consultant: Pass
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Pass
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
  • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
  • Requires narrative reports: Fail
  • Conducts field audits: Fail
  • May suspend future funding: Fail
  • Requires financial reports: Pass
  • Conducts site visits: Fail
  • Requires grant agreements: Pass
  • May require repayment: Fail
• Grant itemization coverage: 98%; rating input score 98; 29th percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 31st percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -1.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.45; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings