Making conservation sustainable under unfavourable conditions: the case of Chimanimani National Reserve, Mozambique

Abstract

Based on a case study from the Chimanimani National Reserve in Mozambique, the article analyses to what extent different types of operational practices can contribute to the sustainability of PAs in relatively unfavourable external conditions. While current conservation policies highlight community participation and market-based approaches, the same 'best practices' are not equally valid under different conditions. Where unfavourable natural conditions, lack of infrastructure, difficult access and political instability limit the potential for upmarket ecotourism, the actors should focus on community empowerment, diversification of livelihoods, and building joint conservation ideology, on which they have direct influence through the operational practices.

Complex effects of natural disasters on protected areas

“…In the early 1970s, there was a plan to create a large PA covering the Mozambican side of the mountains adjacent to the Rhodesian NP, which would benefit from Rhodesian tourists arriving through a newly opened border post and road connection to Beira, a popular beach resort. However, Mozambican independence in 1975 and subsequent international boycott of the minority rule regime in Rhodesia made the plan obsolete and it was shelved for 20 years (Virtanen, 2020). The wildlife in both Gorongosa and Chimanimani suffered heavily during the civil war (1976)(1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992), which started soon after independence.…”

“…Though the numbers of both wildlife and visiting tourists started to grow in GNP, according to a senior staff member the facilities were in decay by 2006 (interview, May 2018). In Chimanimani, the situation was even worse: in 2000 a cyclone largely destroyed the simple improvised infrastructure built by then, and in the mid 2000's artisanal gold miners, numbering approximately 10 000 at the peak phase, invaded the PA. From 2005 to 2008 the average number of tourists entering the recently declared reserve was approximately 80 per year, which was not sufficient for maintaining even the few rustic services, such as campsites and tourist guides (Virtanen, 2020).…”

“…As the community participation and tourism promotion activities of the earlier project had largely failed, the new projects have placed considerable effort on these areas. The rugged landscape is not suitable for traditional safari tourism, and the existing potential for adventure or cultural tourism has failed to attract significant numbers of visitors (Virtanen, 2020). There is only one small lodge in the BZ of CNP i , operated since 2010 as a joint venture between a local community association and MICAIA, a UK-based foundation (Kingman, 2010).…”

“…Initially, the venture benefited from the World Bank funding, but has since struggled on its own. The only other self-sustained economic activity is a cooperative beekeeping project (Virtanen, 2020).…”

“…In Chimanimani, a similar land delimitation exercise was extended into the PA, which strengthened the communities' sense of ownership. Moreover, the new plan finalised in 2010 adjusted the boundaries of the PA to exclude two major settlements, and there are no plans to expand it (Dondeyne et al, Although most of the community development activities and development of conservation infrastructure depend on donor funding, both the community eco-lodge and the honey cooperative are joint enterprises with formal structures for community participation (Virtanen, 2020). Discussions with community members indicated, however, that active participation is limited to a rather small group within the community (interviews, May 2019).…”