“Wildlife filmmakers from Africa are rarer than mountain gorillas.” (Dr Paula Kahumbu; Kenyan conservationist and documentary filmmaker/ Wildlife Direct CEO.) 

Films, especially documentaries, have been a communication and informative medium since their inception. In documentary filmmaking, content on natural history, conservation, and science storytelling is one of the most popular types of content. Influential individuals and celebrities have been fronted in the production of conservation documentaries; – Barrack Obama in Netflix Documentary “Our Great National Parks” (2022), Actor Adjoah Andoh in Love Nature/Mara Media “Chasing the Rains (2023), Leonardo DiCaprio in ‘11th Hour” (2007),  amongst many others. Influential corporations and leading companies have also invested in blue-chip documentary filmmaking.

With the increased voices and calls for conservation and climate mitigation practices, most filmmakers have used their voices to show the impact of climate change.Filmmakers have also deliberately shown the work specific individuals and communities do to mitigate the changes and the resilience of different ecosystems in adapting to climate change. The storytelling field and the consumption of audio-visual content is growing with technological advancement. At the same time, a new scramble for Africa has emerged. Africa, a vast land for the development of carbon sinks, conservation and biodiversity recovery and a “vast wilderness” for filmmakers to record the wild ecosystem. Filmmakers, within their scope of work, have mostly documented all these works either for academic, entertainment or journalistic work. The irony, however, is that most of the filmmakers involved have always been foreigners. Most of the films have always been shot by American and European crews and ended up providing biased and uninformed stories. This can be an effect of cultural and background differences, causing an inability to understand the diversity and interconnectedness of African cultures and ecosystems and prejudiced experiences that they (un)knowingly adapted due to their non-African backgrounds. This paper analyses distinct characteristics of call-to-action variation and activist statements of nature documentaries filmed in Africa. It also discusses the intervention, driven by African filmmakers and conservationists, to ensure that the developed stories in films carry unbiased content. While the discourse touches on social justice, the films and projects in the discussion are all non-fiction wildlife and nature-based documentaries that feature the African wildlife ecosystems.   

Africa(n)’s representations and participation in Filmmaking

Scholars, activists, and conservationists have always brought out their concerns on the issue of African stories told by foreigners and narrated from a singular perspective. In the early 2000s, scholarly discussions on the creation and perception of African films by Africans and foreigners also existed. Some of the earliest presentations of this were in fictional entertainment films, where they discuss the accuracy of the representation of African cinemas and the influences of colonial assimilation in storytelling. More recently, there have been opinionated discussions on the inclusion of African filmmakers in the whole chain of production of nature, science, and conservation documentaries. A world-renowned conservationist and filmmaker, Dr Paula Kahumbu, mentions rather radically that “wildlife filmmakers from Africa are rarer than mountain gorillas,” referring to mountain gorillas, which, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is one of the critically endangered species and has dominated the screens of blue-chip documentaries to raise awareness about their protection. To act on her own statement, Dr Paula Kahumbu went ahead and launched the WLD Studios, housed under the organisation Wildlife Direct, “a TV series about Kenyan wildlife heroes at the front line, and the species that they are saving.” The documentaries produced carry a conservation message and acknowledge the people, who would be referred to as wildlife activists in this context. The nature and arrangement of their stories differ from most other documentaries created by non-African filmmakers, as discussed later in this paper. 

Scholar, author and activist Nanjala Nyabola also posed the question, “Why are white middle-class men so obsessed with making wildlife films?” Highlighting the observation of the demographic group – white middle-class men – as the ones mostly involved in the value chain of conservation storytelling. There are several arguments trying to validate these cases. In conservation films, the created media is mostly recorded inside ecologically protected areas and national parks and reserves, which, despite the recent increased participation of locals in conservation, the initial setups of the spaces were built on colonial structures and practices . The camera gears used in blue-chip documentaries are also extremely expensive. The arguments show the aspect of how the management, use, production, and consumption of resources within the spaces are more of an elitist privilege for the assimilated Africans and their non-African collaborators – which is a direct representation of the colonial structures – and not accessible to the ‘common’ people. 

All the provided scenarios depict the presence of underrepresentation, the systems that provide for prejudiced productions and the deliberate restriction and non-participation of Africans in the non-fiction film industry, especially in natural history documentary production and distribution. With nature documentaries being active tools of activism , the missing participation of Africans in the film production cycle has also affected the nature of the stories shared, as discussed subsequently.

Variation of Call-to-Action 

The representation goes beyond the physical participation in the creation of the film; it also includes the nature of the story propagated. An analysis of several academic discourses on conservation documentaries shows discrepancies that can be associated with misinformation and deliberate withholding of crucial information when developing wildlife documentaries.In his articles, The Wildlife Docusoap: A New Ethical Practice for Wildlife Documentary?, Richards elaborates on the process of filmmakers creating imaginary wild spaces, editing out instances of human interaction with wildlife when shooting the film Big Cat Diary, then at the Maasai Mara National Reserve, which was a conservation space occupied by the indigenous Maasai community. A true depiction of the location would involve the presence of people and instances of interaction between the locals and nature itself. While the film Big Cat Diary was first aired in 1996, the trend continued to the most current documentaries. Aitchison, Aitchison and Devas explain how several films that had a global audience;  Virunga (2014), Our Planet (2020), and the Serengeti Rules (2019), were built on the personas narrating the film for consumption and distribution purposes, and were deliberately edited to meet the expectations of the British audiences. Watching the film Serengeti Rules (2019), the filmmakers depict a wild, unoccupied Serengeti and Maasai Mara ‘wilderness’ full of wild animals. The cast scientists collect information and research on the human understanding of nature. The film focuses on the perceived new knowledge on the behaviour of the biodiversity in Serengeti and Maasai Mara ecosystem, being studied by non-African scientists and explorers. The film embodies a characteristic of a ‘new discovery and exploration’ and portraying a picture of being the ‘first voice’ of conservation science in the area. A comparison of the Serengeti Rules (2019), with a low-budget film shot by the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), “Saving the Vulture: One Man’s Quest” (2023) shows a massive difference where the creators of the film depict the human-wildlife interaction in the Maasai Mara region, the role that the existing community has in wildlife protection and defines the role of the specific species in the biodiversity. The film gives a clear call to action statement, for viewers to understand the environmental value of the species in discussion. 

The trend where African wildlife filmmakers develop inclusive and interconnected stories while non-African filmmakers curate entertainment content is also seen in several other films set within the African continent. Episode 3 of the documentary film “Our Great National Parks – Tsavo, Kenya.” (2022), narrated by the former American president, Barrack Obama, describes the Tsavo region in Kenya as a ‘an extraordinary wilderness’ and calls for the creation of new park for the sake of protecting nature, but fails to acknowledge the numerous communities around the Tsavo area, and their contribution in setting up, maintaining, and protecting the Tsavo West and East National Parks. The film, though with the desired call to action in conservation activism, brings out the perception that the filmed location has no human occupation whose existence and work are a direct work of activism in maintaining the ecosystem. A comparison with a short film made by the AWF, “The Last Hunt” (2023), shot in the same national parks, goes ahead to feature the wildlife and members of the communities within the Tsavo and Amboseli conservation regions in Kenya. 

There, however, is a trend where a film shot in collaboration with locals acknowledges the locals’ voice and conservation work while still holding the entertainment feature. The primary entertainment characteristic is paramount in films shot by non-locals in Africa. The balance is mostly a result of both parties working based on their experience and knowledge base. Produced by the National Geographic Society, “Nkashi; Race into the Okavango” (2023), “Chasing the Rains” (2023), and a Minecraft film by Kenyan filmmaker, Manu Akatsa “Rooted Together”(2023),  maintain the entertaining ‘blue-chip’ quality of the wildlife documentaries, and at the same time share the activist characteristics of a call to action to protect conservation spaces, while acknowledging the communities that are already protecting the featured locations of the films. All three films are commissioned by non-African entities, but their development was heavily dependent on the participation of African filmmakers and storytellers.

Intervention and Change of Activist Voice

Scholars have brought about the definitions and differences in confrontational and less-confrontational activist work, with the latter including scenarios where individuals join established entities whose roles are already intertwined with activism . The African Conservation Voices Program (ACV program) is a conservation filmmaking training project that was initiated by the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) in collaboration with the Jackson Wild organisation to change the one-sided narrative in conservation documentaries. The goal of the ACV project was to run a fast-tracked, two-week-long film training workshop and have the participants develop a short film in five days. 

African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) has been in existence for over six decades. Their understanding of the African geographies, people, and culture is deep-rooted, considering their long-term mutual collaboration with numerous communities in over half of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Their status as a non-governmental conservation organisation shows their agency working with locals to protect African wildlife. 

The Jackson Wild organisation has been operating globally, convening the leading conservation and nature storytellers for over thirty years, placing a majority of the big names of conservation filmmaking under one roof for a whole week of their signature Jackson Wild Summit. The two teamed up to launch the inaugural ACV project. The specificity of the roles and expertise of the two organisations brought out the desired nexus for collaboration; AWF had the desired and relevant accessibility to up-and-coming African filmmakers and photographers, while Jackson Wild had access to experienced filmmakers, including those who had initially worked in within the African continent and had relatively commendable collaboration with the bearer of the stories; the locals. 

The pilot programme of the ACV Project was first launched in Kenya, 2021. All the selected participants of the ACV project had prior knowledge and participation in a form of conservation storytelling. Filmmakers, podcasters, photographers, tour guides and journalists. Though not explicitly of activist agency, their backgrounds directly built communication in specific fields and developed knowledge that activists could use. The participants had not fronted themselves in any of what can be defined as the “collective identity linked to participation in social movement and action.” However, their description of the project carries evidence of political statements, new commitments, and the urge to spread the agency beyond their own experiences. Reviewing the behind-the-scenes film of the project, the participants make specific statements that are meant to drive agency and, in context, display their unintended and unplanned activist work. By the end of the project, the filmmakers mostly described their work as storytelling and impact creation. Their choice of words, description of the project and intentions beyond the project period also drew aspects of collective agency and the need to participate in what can be referred to as ‘social movement and action’. Below are excerpts from the behind-the-scenes of the ACV participants.

“I am changing my whole outlook on storytelling, and now I see a way I can use my skills to create impact to the world (Peter Ndung’u, ACV participant, Kenya)” 

“I think it is extremely important for Africans to tell their own stories, they are close to the stories, they are able to understand the nuances and reflect it back to the people who in most cases do not have access to seeing their stories being told in a dignified manner (Tracy Keza , ACV participant, Rwanda)“

“When you are looking for a very much nuanced ground level impact, it is important to have the representation of the local voices (Rachel Wambui, ACV Participant Kenya”)

The participants of the project bring it out of their own experiences, knowing the dynamics of the filmmaking industry and make it their responsibility to demand and work towards a specific change within their work capacities. It is paramount to note that the project participants were not specific on what they referred to as ‘creating impact’, ‘ground level impact’ or expressing the nature of their stories. The assumption here is that all their impact statements refer to the development of conservation stories and their effect on their audiences. This is because the convenors of the project, Jackson Wild and African Wildlife Foundation, are in the space of wildlife conservation, and the films that were developed during the project were all conservation stories. 

Instances of activism here are not just restricted to the participants’ outcome, but also the nature of the project itself. In the selection of the participants in Rwanda, AWF selected amateur filmmakers who were working in different forms of filmmaking, and the programme transformed their methods and themes of filmmaking, pulling them into the collective movement of the filmmaking community.

Defining Activism in the ACV Project. 

This is borrowed from the definition of activism as ‘a practice or behaviour that accentuates the flow of ideas, providing power and agency that moves from one specific group to another‘ . The ACV Project influenced other entities that were already working within the African continent to take on the task of training local filmmakers. An immediate ‘flow of the activist idea’ is the continuation of the intensive training and workshops by the Nature, Environment and Wildlife Filmmakers Organization (NEWF) in South Africa and the African school of Storytelling (AFRISOS) in Tanzania,  

The case of NEWF

Nature, Environment and Wildlife Filmmakers Organization (NEWF), for a long time, has been a collaborator with the Jackson Wild organisation, working together to create an audience for African-made film projects. It is, however, after the success of the ACV project that the NEWF organisation launched the #AfricaRefocused program, with the aim of “continuing NEWF’s capacity building initiatives for emerging storytellers by providing them with the tools and skills they need to succeed within the industry.” NEWF’s initial focus was activist-oriented as they worked to promote the visibility of marginalised groups in the Conservation film industries. This is evidenced by their contribution to hosting the Nature Through Her Eyes event, which brings together women in nature filmmaking and environmental photography. The new point of activism here is the participation of the ACV fellows in training more individuals. This amplifies the statements of the participants of the ACV; ‘I am changing my whole outlook on storytelling, and now I see a way I can use my skills to create impact to the world’ – Peter, who used to be a travel and event photographer, went through the ACV training and immediately transitioned to be a nature filmmaker and joined the #AfricaRefocused project by NEWF to be a facilitator. Peter’s photography portfolio, which only had travel-related photographs, now has a ‘wildlife’ category. The first conservation film that Peter created is “The Last Hunt” (2023), alongside the other participants in the ACV program. 

While the organisation supporting the training can be associated with activist ideologies, the films created by the #AfricaRefocused project are fully owned by the participants. NEWF is only granted theatrical rights to distribute the films and use if for further training of new program cohorts.  

Conclusion

A continued review of conservation documentary films made in Africa by non-African filmmakers withholds the same activist voice that is different from those made by African filmmakers. While they all share the message of the need for conservation, films by African filmmakers recognise the activists’ voices within conservation practices. The non-African filmmakers centre their stories around the biodiversity and the wilderness of the setting of the documentary, eliminating the majority of the grassroots voices that already embody the conservation requests in some of the films. The deliberate alteration of documentaries affects the factual characteristics of films and end up serving a different purpose than what they are claimed to be (Richards, 2012). The interventions, however, show that when collaboration happens and films are developed with the inclusion of the locals, the non-fiction authenticity of documentaries is maintained. The collaboration practice, as well as the films made by solely African filmmakers, carry a supporting voice of activism, recognising the people and practices within the filming area. The increased participation of African film entities in the process (NEWF, AFRISOS, AWF, etc), the statements by the ACV participants and their associated films, however, show that with the necessary intervention, the whole filmmaking community will be sharing the same message. At the same time, still maintain their primary characteristics of entertainment and activist statements.