Human-elephant conflict (HEC) is a common problem for rural populations in sub-Saharan Africa. Recent studies have shown that willingness to tolerate wildlife is largely a function of perceived risks and benefits, but most technical assessments are limited to the immediate cause of the conflict and neglect the broader socioeconomic and political contexts. Based on two sets of interviews, this article provides a socioeconomic analysis of HEC in the buffer zone of Chimanimani National Reserve in Mozambique. Although traditional methods to scare off elephants were found to have little effect, a beehive fence introduced in 2016 initially appeared to be successful. However, follow-up three years later showed that results were controversial and HEC was even more acute. Underlying factors include the failure to establish a common understanding between the local population and authorities about the risks versus benefits involved and the elements for an acceptable solution.

It is now broadly recognised that in order to be sustainable, protected areas (PAs) must bring concrete benefits to local populations who suffer from the restrictions imposed for conservation. Natural disasters, such as major floods, bring additional challenges to conservation efforts and related support activities, notably nature-based tourism. Disasters often intensify conflicts between conservation objectives and local community needs, but they may also bring some mutual benefits. Reduced income from decreased nature-based tourism can, for example, lead to expansion of agricultural fields to protected forests, and subsequent land-use conflicts. Yet, disasters can also strengthen feelings of solidarity and result in additional investment in the area for both income generating activities and production of services. This chapter is based on comparative analysis of the impact of Cyclone Idai in two contrasting PAs in Mozambique, the national parks of Chimanimani and Gorongosa. The former is a relatively little known PA, where local benefits derive mainly from nature-based tourism operated by a small community-based venture, and other activities are supported by a variegated set of externally funded microprojects. The latter is a renowned sanctuary operated as a public-private joint venture, which enjoys ample funding from various private and public donors. In addition to donor funding, Gorongosa partakes of substantial income from upmarket ecotourism ventures operated by private companies. The comparative set-up of the study therefore provides a good opportunity to examine the complex ways such unexpected challenges may change the prospects of different types of ecotourism venturesand the situation of local populations.