ECOTOURISM FOR CONSERVATION: A CASE STUDY OF THE MAPUTO SPECIAL RESERVE, MOZAMBIQUE.

by

Myriam Sekkat

Dr. Stuart Pimm, Adviser

April 24, 2021

Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University

Executive Summary

A tension fuels the debate around whether ecotourism contributes to conservation or represents a marketing ploy. A 2005 meta-analysis concluded that ecotourism only contributes to conservation when communities are involved, management is efficient, revenues are significant, and flagship species are present (Krueger, 2005). I explore the tension between ecotourism and conservation in the Maputo Special Reserve in Mozambique, henceforth "the reserve," by assessing the joint governmental and non-governmental ecotourism-based strategy in the protected area. Since 2006, the government (mainly through World Bank financing), and Peace Parks Foundation, support the reserve via ecotourism promotion. The partnership currently deploys substantial donor funding to promote its management plan and attain financial sustainability (ANAC, 2011; ANAC, 2020). Some conservationists question this approach. It is pivotal to reflect on strengths, weaknesses, and the way forward. The study area consists mainly of the 1040 km² large MSR, buffer zones, and the Futi corridor extending to the South African border. It also covers the neighboring Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, henceforth the "marine reserve," and the larger Matutuine district to a lesser extent. Study methods entail a literature review and a qualitative analysis informed by semi-structured questionnaires, an online survey, and field visits. The analysis identified five topics and over a hundred relevant sub-topics. Furthermore, the online survey complemented the analysis by documenting current visitors' preferences. This approach, mainly informed by the interviews, highlighted many issues within a complex landscape: - Financial sustainability: the target of attracting 70 000 tourist entries annually in eight years seems challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic and the terror attacks in the North threaten tourism prospects. The interviewees pointed out a) a weak concession set-up leading to low revenues to the reserve, b) the need to invest in infrastructures (which the reserve is currently doing), and c) the necessity to find alternative revenue streams. - Governance and management: development seems to come first, and conservation second; a historical government vision of conservation areas for touristic purposes might have influenced this outlook. The Peace Parks and the National Agency for Conservation Areas’ partnership possesses high political leverage, and Peace Parks provides high-level expertise. Operational successes lie in rewilding, anti-poaching, and strengthened management. Weaknesses consist of working with communities, being (for some) too commercially focused, having a weak monitoring and evaluation framework, and concentrating on short-term results. - Community support: governance lies at the heart of community support projects' success or failure and needs better attention. In the context of traditional hunter-gatherer culture and low productive soils, agricultural promotion is not adequate. Most communities' dissatisfaction stems from the Human-Elephant conflict. These and more factors explain a poor relationship with the reserve. - Ecological sustainability: the Futi corridor is idle. Even if ecological connectivity remains a priority, there is little to be done to move it forward apart from building fences to contain predators and protect communities. Environmental awareness raising is gaining importance in the reserve's strategy, and efforts seem promising. - Overall context, many challenges plague the area and the reserve's future, particularly the prospect of Techobanine port and real estate interests. The newly instituted Environmental Protection Area,

the possible proclamation of the Maputo National Park and the World Heritage Site candidacy raise some hope for this conservation area. The analysis of the results suggests that ecotourism might be the only realistic conservation pathway for the reserve. The joint partnership's political leverage and ecotourism approach might have slowed the process of taking over essential conservation areas for developmental purposes. The implementation of the Environmental Protection Area might prove difficult given all the interests in the region. The reserve has much to gain from supporting it. Even if challenging, financial sustainability seems relevant for many interviewees. However, some question whether the reserve should become sustainable via ecotourism or if other financing mechanisms might better protect the reserve's valuable ecosystems. To lessen the ecotourism footprint and attain financial sustainability, the partners should reflect on a cross-financing strategy through revenues from the marine reserve. Furthermore, supporting conservation effectively in an inhabited protected area requires a deep knowledge of the country's context and culture. Investing in community governance and allocating sufficient time to establish trustful connections with the communities represent a basis for successful projects and a positive relationship between the parties. Flexible donors might agree to increase project durations and lower expectations in the short term, which would yield more results in the long term. Additionally, the partners should move away from agricultural support and continue supporting tourism- related activities. In this context, agriculture does not represent an adequate revenue-generating stream. Further opportunities such as community-based management (that the reserve is currently discussing with communities) could bring much-needed income to the area. Regarding Human-Elephant conflict, the partners mitigate it mainly through physical barriers and recently started a participatory approach with communities. This inclusion effort represents the start of a much- needed systemic reflection to understand conflict drivers, root causes, and feasible solutions. Finally, on ecological sustainability, baselines and a solid monitoring and evaluation framework based on result chains (Margoluis, 2013) coupled with the reserve's adaptive management should ensure conservation and biodiversity preservation as the primary objective. This case study shows that the reserve fulfills several criteria included in the meta-analysis (Krueger, 2005), but that context matters most. The meta-analysis does not include this criterion, but Stronza highlights it (2019)). Furthermore, community involvement is not sufficient; communities need to become rightful stakeholders of the process. Finally, flagship species do not always seem necessary for successful ecotourism ventures. In summary, the partnership is fruitful and provides a massive contribution to conservation. The reserve is currently addressing most issues. However, there is room for improvement. The partners should invest in relations with communities, be cautious with remaining concessions, think of cross-financing strategies with the marine reserve, and develop a robust monitoring and evaluation framework. Complementing this framework with systemic analysis might also shed light on very complex issues. As much as possible given the context, the reserve should strive to put ecotourism at the service of conservation and future generations.

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 2 RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ...... 3

2.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 3

2.2 DETAILS ON THE CONSERVATION APPROACH IN THE MAPUTO SPECIAL RESERVE ...... 3

2.3 PROGRESS ON THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE CONSERVATION APPROACH ...... 4 Financial sustainability ...... 4 Governance and management ...... 5 Community involvement ...... 5 Ecological sustainability ...... 6

3. METHODS ...... 7

3.1 AREA STUDIED ...... 7

3.2 STUDY DEVELOPMENT AND DATA COLLECTION ...... 7

3.3 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS ...... 8

3.4 PROCESS OVERVIEW ...... 9

4 RESULTS ...... 10

4.1 OVERVIEW ...... 10

4.2 FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ...... 10 Overview of main issues ...... 10 Lessons learned with the current concessions ...... 10 The park infrastructures, services, and operators ...... 11 An ambitious revenue generation strategy ...... 11 Additional revenue generation streams ...... 11 Tourist preferences (relevant excerpts of the online survey under Appendix 1) ...... 12

4.3 COMMUNITY SUPPORT ...... 13 Overview of main issues and interlinkages ...... 13 Crucial community governance ...... 13 Issues with donor community support projects ...... 13 Poor relationships with the park ...... 14 Human-wildlife conflict ...... 15 Displacement ...... 15 Current financial benefits ...... 15

Opportunities for community support ...... 16

4.4 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT ...... 17 Rewilding and anti-poaching ...... 17 TFCA and connectivity, predators' introduction and fencing ...... 18 Other issues: Biodiversity preservation, climate change, and World Heritage Site ...... 18

4.5 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH ...... 19 Overview ...... 19 Strengths of the partnership ...... 19 Weaknesses of the partnership ...... 19 Debated aspects of the partnership ...... 20

4.6 THE BROADER CONTEXT, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES IN THE FUTURE ...... 20 Overview ...... 20 Opportunities ...... 21 Challenges ...... 21

5. DISCUSSION ...... 22

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 22

5.2 MOST IMPACTING FINDINGS LOOKING AT THE INTERDEPENDENCY BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PILLARS ...... 22

5.3 FINDINGS ON FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ...... 23

5.4 FINDINGS ON GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT ...... 25

5.5 FINDINGS ON THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMUNITIES ...... 26 Need to trust, empower and build relationships ...... 26 Need to increase revenue streams ...... 27 Need to mitigate the Human-Elephant conflict ...... 27

5.6 FINDINGS ON ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY ...... 28

5.7 RELATING THE FINDINGS TO OTHER STUDIES ...... 29

5.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...... 29

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 29 REFERENCES ...... 31 APPENDIX 1- DETAILED RESULTS OF THE SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ...... 34 APPENDIX 2- SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS ...... 50 APPENDIX 3- RECONSTRUCTED THEORY OF CHANGE ...... 58 APPENDIX 4 - LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND MEETINGS ...... 59 APPENDIX 5- INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...... 60 APPENDIX 6- ONLINE SURVEY PROTOCOL ...... 64

Abbreviations

ANAC National Agency for Conservation Areas

COVID Coronavirus Disease

DNAC National Directorate for Conservation Areas

EPA Environmental Protection Area

FNDS National Fund for Sustainable Development

HEC Human Elephant Conflict

HWC Human Wildlife Conflict

IFC International Finance Corporation

INATUR National Tourism Institute

IRB Institutional Review Board

METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

MSR Maputo Special Reserve

NGO Non Governmental Organization

PPF Peace Parks Foundation

PPMR Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve

SADC Southern African Development Community

SAPA Social Assessment for Protected Areas

SPEED Supporting the Policy Environment for Economic Development

SPV Special Purpose Vehicle

TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area

UEM University Eduardo Mondlane

USD United States Dollar

WB World Bank

WTP Willingness To Pay

1 1 Introduction

There is an inherent tension between ecotourism and conservation and a debate around whether "ecotourism contributes towards conservation of threatened species and habitats or is it just a marketing ploy of the tourism industry" (Krueger, 2005). Krueger (2005), through a meta-analysis of 251 ecotourism cases, contributes substantially to the discussion. He compares the cases and concludes that crucial elements for sustainable ecotourism cases consist of a) the involvement of local communities, b) effective planning and management and the existence of a solid strategic management plan, c) revenues and d) flagship species. He also highlights reasons for poor results: a) habitat alteration due to too many tourists, b) exclusion of local communities leading to poaching and deforestation, c) decline or change in behavior of flagship species, and d) too little revenues to avoid consumptive land use. Stronza (2018) advocates for comparing the ecotourism approach with the other available alternatives.

Using the Maputo Special Reserve (MSR) in Mozambique as a case study, I assess the joint governmental and non-governmental ecotourism-based strategy's contribution to conservation. The goal is to identify strengths and weaknesses and progress made in strategic areas (financial sustainability, management, ecological sustainability, and communities) in supporting conservation.

Support of various donors, mainly the Peace Park Foundation (PPF) and the World Bank (WB), in the last fifteen years boosted the performance of the MSR (SPEED+, 2018). Ecotourism represents the primary avenue for funding the park in the medium to long term. Donors and the government have already invested millions of USD in this strategy rewilding the reserve and promoting concessions. Some conservationists question this approach.

At the same time, even with substantial investments in communities and ecological sustainability, park authorities face highly complex and intractable ("wicked") problems (Rittel and Webber, 1973): unsatisfied communities living within and in the reserve's buffer zone, poaching occurrence, human-elephant conflict, limited ecological connectivity, and growing populations that impact conservation (ANAC, 2020). It is essential to reflect on the overall strategy's strengths and weaknesses and what the lessons learned highlight.

In the MSR's case, the findings suggest that ecotourism might be the only realistic conservation pathway. The joint partnership's political leverage and ecotourism approach might have stalled the process of taking over essential conservation areas for developmental purposes. Indeed, competing interests for alternative land-uses, smuggling, and other illicit activities threaten the MSR and adjacent Ponta do Ouro Marine Reserve (PPMR). Furthermore, the findings highlight the impressive amount of work achieved by the partnership. Operational successes lie in rewilding, anti-poaching, and strengthened management. However, the partners should invest thoughtfully in relations with communities, address the root causes of

2 Human-Elephant conflict, and be cautious with remaining concessions learning from previous shortcomings. Furthermore, it seems that financial sustainability might be challenging to achieve, highlighting the role of cross-financing with the PPMR. Finally, without a robust M&E framework, the reserve cannot assess its performance thoroughly.

2 Relevant background and context

2.1 Historical context

The reserve observed changes in legal status, in its delimitations, and population. The authorities created the reserve in 1932 as a hunting ground (Soto et al., 2000), upgraded it to a protected reserve in 1960 (legislative diploma 1980, 1960), and decreed it as the Maputo Special Reserve in 1969 (legislative diploma 2903, 1969). Ecologically-sound (up to the Maputo river) versus politically feasible delimitations of the reserve (current boundaries) were discussed (Tello. 1973) but without effect. The old boundaries remained. In 2011, the government added the Futi corridor and a five-kilometer-long buffer zone (Legal Decree 41/2011, 2011). Due to social conflicts, the reserve witnessed population movements after independence, during the war, and following the Peace accords in 1994 (Soto et al., 2000).

The issues faced by the MSR and the ecotourism approach are not new. In the seventies, the park authorities faced poaching occurrence and dealt with human-elephant conflict (Tello, 1972). In the same decade, rhino rewilding aimed at revitalizing the reserve (Swart, 2016). After the civil war disruption, in 1996, the government granted James Blanchard a vast 234 700 hectare 50-year concession covering the whole MSR for ecotourism purposes (McKeown, 2015). Ecotourism was chosen over a eucalyptus plantation project (McKeown, 2015). However, Blanchard passed away in 1999, and the government canceled the concession (McKeown, 2015).

From 2006, the government and various donors started supporting the MSR via ecotourism to attain financial sustainability. They also promoted related activities such as community support, ecological sustainability, and management strengthening in the MSR to support conservation and promote biodiversity (ANAC. 2011).

2.2 Details on the conservation approach in the Maputo Special Reserve

The latest approved management plan dates back to 2011 (ANAC, 2011). There is a 2020 draft management plan in discussion (ANAC, 2020). These management plans and discussions with Peace Parks, and the ANAC/MSR administration helped clarify the approach, the targeted outcomes, and the MSR's overall objective.

3 Figure 1 illustrates the medium and long-term outcomes and overall impact pursued in the MSR (for more details, see Appendix 2) in line with the 4 Cs of PPF’s philosophy (Commitment, Community, Conservation at Scale and Commercial Development).

Figure 1 Medium, long-term outcomes and impacts of the PPF/ANAC approach in the MSR

The park’s driving strategy is to “fast track development and tourism via significant wildlife reintroductions” (SPEED+, 2018).

2.3 Progress on the different components of the conservation approach

Financial sustainability

Donors support financially the park since nearly twenty years. More than 16 million USD have flown in the reserve and led to many investments (Interview 7). Peace Parks (PPF) supports the MSR since 2002 after Blanchard's concession fell through (McKeown, 2015). In 2007, the World Bank supported the emergence of tourism in the area as income generation to cover the park costs. It identified the MSR to possess the "hallmarks of an emerging destination," offering "high but underrealized tourism potential" (IFC, 2012).

The government, supported by its partners, promoted concessions as of 2007 as a way to support ecotourism and conservation in the MSR. The initiative led to a partially community-owned luxury eco-camp (Chemucane- Anvil Bay) and a 100-bed hotel concession (Milibangalala- Visa Beira) within the reserve. The government adjudicated both concessions after the WB program ended (IFC, 2012).

However, the concession activities are recent. Anvil Bay started its activities in 2017 (Interview 9) while the Milibangalala hotel is still closed. The Dobela concession is still outstanding. Recently, PPF constructed new sites (camping sites) to guarantee the constructions' ecotourism aspects and enable lower-paying strata to access the reserve and will concession them to service operators (Meeting with Peace Parks).

4 The MSR does not generate yet much revenue yet while having high operational costs (Peace Park data). For example, in pre-COVID times, the reserve had a monthly revenue from gate entrances in September 2019 of 30 830 Rands (about 2080 USD a month) (Peace Parks data) and 2019 total revenues around 173 500 USD 1 (including concessions fees). The “2018 Strategic Business Plan” draft estimates the MSR's operational costs around 1 million USD a year.

Therefore, financial sustainability is an overarching goal in the MSR and targets are ambitious. The target is to attract by 2028 around 70 000 tourists with an average daily contribution of 14 USD to the reserve. This target would equate to 81 000 USD per month. The draft business plan foresees an injection of 40.6 million USD (with more than half in capital investments) to attain the MSR's financial sustainability (i.e., covering operational costs) in ten years (ANAC, 2018). This strategic business plan will be revamped (pers. Comm. Anthony Alexander, PPF), so some projections and strategies will probably change.

Additionally, efforts in the next future will support the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to enable the MSR to act as a private entity, be more agile and attract funding. Furthermore, the PPF and MSR will redesign a more private sector-oriented strategic business plan and implement it to achieve the park's sustainability through ecotourism promotion (pers. Communication with Anthony Alexander, PPF).

Governance and management

While the technical-financial agreement2 between PPF and ANAC does not delegate many powers to PPF, the MSR enjoys higher government support and displays more performance than other similar conservation areas (SPEED+,2018). A government-appointed warden (with a PPF top-up) leads the MSR and manages most of the staff, 50 out of 56 in 2018 (SPEED+, 2018).

However, to gain increased agility and private-sector orientation, an SPV, as mentioned above, might be created (pers. comm. Anthony Alexander).

Community involvement

The 2014 Community Development Management plan (ANAC, 2014) highlights the importance of community support in and around the MSR. PPF, WB, and ANAC invested millions of dollars in community development projects in the last years. Through these programs, the government, in cooperation with PPF and the World Bank, supported community livelihoods in and around the MSR through economic

1 MSR revenues of 2019 corresponded to 12 930 501 Meticais calculated taking the 20% to the communities for 2019 (FNDS data)

2 As well as the current 2018 co-financing agreement according to some interviewees

5 activities (chili farms, beekeeping), social services, and environmental awareness-raising (Peace Parks, n.d- a).

However, there are community grievances that government and its partners are trying to address. The FNDS (Fundo National de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel), financed by the World Bank, launched a SAPA (Social Assessment in Protected Areas) exercise in 2018 in the Maputo Special Reserve and the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve (PPMR). In 2018, meetings with communities were realized (222 participants), and in 2019 a survey was launched (399 community inhabitants) to identify negative and positive social impacts. In the third phase in 2020, FNDS/ ANAC organized reporting meetings to share ideas and developed an action plan (ANAC, 2020). The 2019 survey highlighted that more than 90% of the respondents see human-wildlife conflict as their highest preoccupation, 73% consider that the support projects are insufficient and 73% consider having bad relations with the park (FNDS data). On the positive side, 75% appreciate species' re-introductions, 72% the fishing authorization in the lakes, and 68% the existence of community development projects (FNDS data).

Ecological sustainability

Between 2010 and 2019, PPF/ANAC, in an intergovernmental effort, re-introduced successfully species in the park (4922 animals, including eight locally extinct species) in part to revitalize the reserve and make it attractive to tourists. The aerial surveys indicate that the growth trends are positive (MSR data and meeting with the MSR ecologist).

The South Africa, Eswatini, and Mozambique Lubombo Transfrontier conservation area (TFCA) has massive potential to reconnect MSR and Tembe and elephant migration routes. However, it is de facto idle. Tembe Park introduced lions, and therefore the fence between both parks remains closed. The potential for ecological connectivity remains unfulfilled. From an ecological perspective, fences impede species' gene flow and the isolation of already fragmented elephant communities (Schaffer et al., 2019). Furthermore, fences interfere with migrations and dispersal and accentuate habitat fragmentation (Pekor et al., 2019).

The re-activation of the TFCA is on the top of PPF/MSR's agenda in terms of ecological sustainability to promote ecological connectivity and conservation at scale (pers. comm Anthony Alexander, PPF).

6 3. Methods

3.1 Area studied

The area studied is the 1040 km2 large Maputo Special Reserve and its buffer zones and the Futi corridor that extends until the South African Border. It also covers the neighboring Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, henceforth the "marine reserve," and the larger Matutuine district to a lesser extent.

Figure 2 Map of the study area (Source: Peace Parks Foundation)

3.2 Study development and Data Collection

I consulted secondary and grey literature in Summer 2020 after an initial meeting with the PPF project manager. Subsequently, I requested the Mozambican research approval and launched the IRB process.

The semi-structured questions built upon the four pillars indicated in the 2011 management plan as well as on the context to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the approach in the reserve. The SAPA survey results informed the community-related section of the questionnaires. Appendix 5 contains the interview 7 protocol. Furthermore, I prepared a survey to assess tourists' preferences in the MSR through the Qualtrics platform. I discussed the survey with the MSR tourism specialist and shared it before publication with the MSR Administrator.

Field visits to the Membene campsite, to Milibangalala, to Anvil Bay exclusive lodge, to Xingute and Piti lakes, and crossing over to the Machangulo Peninsula helped get a spatial sense of the reserve as well as a sense of the accommodation quality and availability in the reserve.

ANAC approved the research on August 19, 2020 and the IRB committee granted its approval on December 9, 20203 after which all 16 interviews and the online survey took place.

The interviews lasted between one and one and a half hours. Interviewees included representatives of government, donors, NGOs, private sector, community representative, and local government. All but two had a thorough knowledge of the MSR or the PPMR. An additional technical meeting took place with the MSR ecologist.

The survey link was published on the Maputo Special Reserve Facebook page on December 15, 2020 (7352 followers in mid-December). Most participants responded until mid-January 2021. The gate personnel also requested visitants' emails, but not systematically. Only a few respondents participated through this approach. A selection bias might have occurred because only people who enjoy visiting the park and are followers of the MSR Facebook page might have responded to the survey. To limit the selection bias, I published the link to the survey in "Moz Info", a Facebook page of information about Mozambique (42 500 members) as well as other smaller Facebook pages such as "Bird Mozambique" (1272 members) and "Escape the City: Maputo" (820 members). Appendix 6 contains the online survey protocol.

Finally, to understand the park's conservation approach, I reconstructed a simplified logical results chain (more commonly referred to as Theory of Change-ToC) that was commented upon by PPF/MSR, representing a useful base for analysis (see Appendix 2).

3.3 Data processing and analysis

After holding the qualitative interviews, I proceeded with the transcription of the interviews using the Trint service which helped initiate transcribing the interviews in the various languages used during the interviews (English, Portuguese, and Italian). Subsequently, I had to manually revise every transcript. Nvivo, the software used for the transcripts' analysis allowed for coding the interviews by topic and having sub-topics

3 The delay was due to related COVID-protection measures and protocol.

8 emerge. Regarding the online survey, the data was gathered and analyzed through Qualtrics. Appendix 1 presents the online survey results.

3.4 Process overview

Figure 3 Process overview

9 4 Results

4.1 Overview

I conducted 16 in-depth interviews (list of interviewees under Appendix 4). The semi-structured interviews focused on the main pillars of the Maputo Special Reserve strategy (MSR): financial sustainability, community support, ecological sustainability, and governance/management. The analysis identified five topics and over hundred relevant sub-topics. Furthermore, the online survey complemented the analysis by documenting current visitors' preferences. This approach highlighted many issues within a complex landscape.

Under this section, the results are summarized. Appendix 1 contains the detailed analysis of the interviews with main comments and quotes and the number of interviewees that commented on the sub-topics. Furthermore, Appendix 2 contains the online survey results.

4.2 Financial sustainability

Overview of main issues

Figure 4 Overview of financial sustainability challenges

Lessons learned with the current concessions

Interviewees highlighted valuable lessons learned about the reserve's current concessions, such as the weak capacity to negotiate successful concessions, too little attention to environmental considerations, little revenue generation for the MSR and the communities, and a too high level of ambitions in a zone with

10 limited infrastructure. The negotiation capacity improved, and renegotiations are underway. However, renegotiating financial aspects could jeopardy the government's credibility.

Interviewees have diverging opinions on the future of Dobela: a six-star concession, lower impact concessions like camping, or just preserving at least one bay as an important turtle breeding ground.

Furthermore, interviewees mentioned the government's need to strip away the concession from INATUR to avoid the same mistake made in Milibangalala but advocating in this sense had not yielded fruits yet.

The park infrastructures, services, and operators

Interviewees indicated the current perceived challenges with the sandy paths and the lacking service infrastructure. The visitors' online survey confirms these perceptions. The reserve is currently working on those shortcomings building additional accommodation and tendering for service operators. The MSR decided to promote game drive operators after a WB-supported road upgrading project fell through. Support service for stranded vehicles might be worth investing in as long as the sandy roads are difficult to drive on. The roads prove to be a delicate issue in terms of balance between ecotourism and conservation.

An ambitious revenue generation strategy

PPF foresees the reserve to be self-sustainable in eight years through 70 000 entries per year. Interviewees are rather doubtful that tourist entries would increase up to this target given the COVID-19 pandemic, the insurrection up north, and an adverse business environment. Additionally, interviewees mentioned the high variability of preferences depending on the tourist's origin. Some highlighted that the majority of Maputo tourists would not necessarily be attracted to nature. Therefore, there is a need for product diversification and more communication.

Additional revenue generation streams

Interviewees mentioned the importance of additional revenue streams to increase the financial sustainability prospects such as gate fees for half-days visitors especially for tourists coming or going to Ponta do Ouro, road fees included in the toll fee just before the entrance to the park, cross-financing from the PPMR through environmental taxes, and external funding. Regarding PPMR revenues, the potential is substantial with the mass of tourists from Maputo traveling there, but no tax is collected yet. Furthermore, the current legislation is unsuitable with sportfishing and taxes to operate boats going to other ministries. Currently, Biofund, in partnership with ANAC/PPF and Blue Finance, tries to improve tourism and revenues on the marine side.

11 Tourist preferences (relevant excerpts of the online survey under Appendix 1)

86 people responded to the online survey, and 55 of those filled in the questionnaires, including demographic data. Most of the respondents were between 36 and 59 years old (73%, n=40), and 67% of the respondents were male. In terms of origin, 58 % are foreign residents in Mozambique (n=32), 27% are Mozambicans (n=15), 9% South African (n=5), and other (non-SADC) account for 5% (n=3). The majority of respondents are either extremely satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the animal sightings. In terms of flora, respondents are overwhelmingly satisfied with the general landscape and beaches. The satisfaction level is very high for check-in and check-out procedures, with 73 % satisfied (30 % extremely satisfied and 43% somewhat satisfied). In terms of the staff support at the gate (pumping tires, showing directions), 26% are extremely satisfied, and 33% somewhat satisfied, 15 are somewhat dissatisfied. While camping seems to satisfy 67 % of the respondents who camped, the luxury accommodation satisfied 34% of those who experienced it. 41% are satisfied with the accommodation options in the park. In terms of activities, 44 % are satisfied. Data disaggregation by nationality indicates that more Mozambicans are extremely satisfied with the check-in and check-out procedures and the MSR support at the gate. More Mozambicans are satisfied with the camping in general than the foreign residents. Regarding the luxury lodge, which is not rated high as value for money, Mozambicans still indicate a higher level of satisfaction and a much lower level of dissatisfaction. From 9 respondents that did the guided tour, 8 were extremely satisfied and one satisfied. Regarding the level of satisfaction with price at the entrance, all (n=51) but three respondents indicated that the gate price was just right. In terms of satisfaction with the guided tours' prices, the picture is mixed: 60% (n=5) find it just right, and 40 % find it too expensive. When asked about various criteria that would incentivize the respondents to go back more often, the option that got most counts in terms of "extremely important" and "very important" consist of "more variety of accommodation options" (n=36). It was followed by the "existence of an environmental education center" (n=32) and "increased availability of accommodation options" (n=32). Interestingly, the introduction of the big 5 got the fewer counts (n=26) of all options available. Data disaggregated by nationality show that Mozambican nationals put less emphasis than foreign residents on the big five reintroductions. More accommodation variety and availability and restaurant options appear much more important to them than foreign residents. The Mozambican nationals also value much more the existence of guided tours and an environmental education center. The comments box: Various park fans used the comment box to express their love for the park. In terms of concerns, various respondents indicated that further construction should stop, camping promoted, and access for camping in Milibangalala preserved. In terms of suggestions, a few respondents mentioned the development of guided and non-guided tracks. A respondent mentioned the need to protect the Xingute lake's shores against four-by-four cars, and one person suggested to foresee a midbudget option for accommodation. Another respondent mentioned that it "would be nice to have a separate small gift shop with quality T-Shirts, Hats, Pins," and "a picnic area at selected areas within the park." In terms of negative experiences, some respondents reported that breaking down with their car in the reserve and the poor quality of the roads as a source of negative experiences.

12 4.3 Community support

I concentrated the questions on the central issues affecting the populations to understand why, after many years of effort by the park and donors, the communities inside the MSR and the buffer zones were unsatisfied.

Overview of main issues and interlinkages

The following figure depicts the interlinkages that emerged from the interviews:

Figure 5 Interlinkages between issues affecting communities

Crucial community governance

Community governance lies at the heart of the success or failure of community support projects. Leadership styles or conflict in communities can tremendously impact support actions. Furthermore, management committees are not remunerated enough and are not permanent, decreasing inputs in community support activities.

Communities need to be empowered and share ownership of the area instead of being the “beneficiaries” of a top-down approach. Finally, the fact that land is government property undermined the relationship between people and nature.

Issues with donor community support projects

76% of the people interviewed via SAPA indicated a lack of support of community projects. It seems antithetic to the fact that a multi-million-dollar community program had been launched in 2014 (ANAC, 2014), with some results published on the Peace Parks website.

Interviewees mentioned various issues that might explain this data:

13 - Various interviewees concur that agriculture should not be at the center of community activities. It does not work. It is not ANAC's expertise and should not be at the top of the priorities. Furthermore, as soon as the support stops, the initiatives collapse. - Not enough attention is given to community governance during support projects design, leading to community members sometimes sabotaging processes or not getting involved. - Working with the community and community governance is a lengthy process, demanding investments in time and building relationships. However, the short project durations and donor pressure to deliver results to their constituencies do not allow a slow pace. - People are hunters and not smallholders in the MSR area: the requested behavioral change constitutes a laborious cultural process. - Participation, contribution, and community involvement are crucial instead of a top-down approach creating false expectations. - NGOs and donors often victimize communities; however, communities can also be manipulative and tailor their discourse to specific audiences. They also tend not to mention well-done work.

Poor relationships with the park

73% of the people interviewed via SAPA indicated having bad relations with the Maputo Special Reserve. When asked why interviewees mentioned eight issues that might explain this data:

- Some interviewees mentioned the need to interpret the SAPA results carefully. Respondents might influence other people to respond in a certain way if they are poachers, for example, or linked to car trafficking. People might answer what they think should be said and not what they feel. Furthermore, interviewers were trained for one or two days only. - The increased anti-poaching capacity in the MSR means fewer opportunities to extract natural resources. - Communities deem the MSR responsible for increased HWC, which impoverishes communities. - Sometimes MSR staff do not respect communities during inspection raids - The low success and limited coverage of support projects influence the relationship with the reserve. - The issue with communities is often communication. - People partially lost their livelihoods with natural resource access restrictions. With hunting, a person could earn much more than with agriculture.

14 Human-wildlife conflict

96% of the people interviewed via SAPA indicated that the human-wildlife conflict is their central preoccupation. When asked why, given that the MSR made many efforts to build electric fences around the reserve, interviewees mentioned various issues that might explain this data.

- Elephants and the human population are in the landscape. Both their numbers are increasing; there is a competition for resources. The fundamental question is water. Ecologically speaking, the reserve's natural limits should have been the Rio Maputo. However, given its socio-economic importance for irrigation and cattle, the riverine area remained outside the park boundaries. - The MSR’s challenges in terms of the electrical fences consist of fallen electrical poles, theft of the solar panel batteries, theft of the fence itself. Solar battery theft is also linked to community governance since it might be due to a community that did not agree on guaranteeing its safety. - The elephant is an extremely intelligent animal and learns quickly to bridge fences or circumvent other strategies to protect water or food resources. A measure works for a few years, and then the elephants find a way to lead with the issue. The control process needs to be constant and adaptive. - The conflict's perceptions are frequently more acute than the conflict's actual occurrence. The conflict entails an important psychological side. Often, the elephant destroys only small parts of crops. Credible information collection mechanisms help understand the actual dimension of the problem. - Human-wildlife conflict can jeopardize the political support for conservation; this issue needs to be addressed not only for the communities' sake but for conservation.

Displacement

73% of the people interviewed via SAPA indicated negative impacts from displacement from the MSR. When asked why, given that it was voluntary, interviewees mentioned several issues that might explain this data:

- Sociologically, the relocation of people from their native land is not easy. - The displacement is not totally voluntary; indirectly, the authorities pressure people to move. - Conditions within the reserve are worsening with no protection from increasing wildlife. - People are ambivalent in terms of wanting to stay and wanting to leave. The proposed package does not seem satisfactory, and elephants being also outside the reserve, staying might be an option.

Current financial benefits

20% of the MSR revenues flow to the communities. Some interviewees mentioned these revenues as too low since the MSR revenues are still small. Furthermore, there are challenges linked to receiving and

15 disbursing those funds, such as transparency, lack of IDs, and formal documentation for well-functioning community accounts. The MSR with the FNDS recently started working on these issues.

Additional community or bed taxes flowing to the reserve might be valuable. In the MSR, for example, a bed tax flows to the community in Chemucane but not in Milibangalala.

Opportunities for community support

Various interviewees highlighted numerous opportunities for communities clustered around three areas: employment and revenue promotion, HWC mitigation, community empowerment. Various of these efforts are already underway.

Figure 6 Main opportunities for community support

Here are the main opportunities highlighted by the interviewees:

- The MSR identified land for community-managed areas (alongside the Futi corridor) to generate revenues through game farming or ecotourism. The communities are still ambivalent, but it would be an excellent opportunity to have more revenues than the 20%. If those areas are declared community-managed, the communities will have a base to negotiate with the private sector. Channeling excess fauna to game ranching areas could improve the reserve's ecosystem's functionality while providing for jobs and revenues in the communities. However, an interviewee warned that while game farming could work, it would only support a small number of jobs, not the entire population. - Tourism value chains should be better exploited for the communities' benefit; granted funds in examples like Chemucane do not necessarily bring enough return to the communities. Adequate

16 programs should provide people with hospitality or handicraft skills, train them as tourist guides, or for other jobs not linked to conservation. - Hunting for own consumption is not illegal but needs to respect the law. Training of community hunters, as already foreseen in the law, could support livelihoods. - The reserve, through the SAPA process, just launched a participatory approach to HWC. The communities will be in charge of putting the fences, barriers, and denounce abuse, motivating and empowering the community. The Ecojobs program will provide remuneration for some activities, and water points will be put outside of conflict areas. - In Mozambique, the law nor the HWC strategy do foresee compensation. Therefore. officials do not discuss it with the communities. However, some interviewees think it would make sense, while one interviewee considers it a negative incentive. - Augmenting tolerance for elephants represents an activity of the MSR. Investing in tourist guides might increase the elephant's acceptance as a revenue source. - Currently, support teams arrive generally too late when the animals' damages have already occurred. Ione interviewee mentioned that it could make sense to have brigades posted near HWC hotspots. - An interviewee suggested that fences could protect community farms (including various plots). - The MSR plans to build a research camp and training center to host more students, research, and work on environmental awareness. Many community members outside the park do not know the park and have a negative perception of it. There is a dire need for conservation champions of which the best ambassadors could emerge in the communities. The partners support environmental groups in the area; however, efforts on environmental awareness raising also need to be mainstreamed in schools and addressed at universities. - Regarding community governance, the FNDS will support it through a service provider in four communities. The goal is to establish a community governance model, clarify the communities' rights and duties, capacitate them in knowledge sharing, joint decision-making, and accountability.

4.4 Ecological support

Rewilding and anti-poaching

In principle, interviewees consider the rewilding and anti-poaching efforts a success. Rewilding sparked a debate: some argue that animals might endanger the MSR’s endemic species. In contrast, others think that rewilding restores a better ecosystem balance since some pastures were underutilized. Careful vegetation studies will be essential. Rewilding creates the need to deal with a limited carrying capacity. The MSR will

17 have to decide whether animals will be translocated, predators introduced, or the meat used for the local population's benefit.

TFCA and connectivity, predators' introduction and fencing

According to interviewees, the ecological corridor might materialize only in the long term because Elephant Tembe Park has lions, and the MSR has communities living within the protected areas. Additionally, land management on the Mozambican side is very disorganized. Big five proof fences might be the only viable option that brings challenges to ecological connectivity too.

Furthermore, interviewees pointed out that human population growth is threatening the viability of the corridor and that predators might arrive independently. If the reserve continues to be well managed and fencing complete, public acceptance of predators might rise.

An interviewee summarizes well the situation with the Futi corridor:

“For now, the politicians can agree on the fact that there is a TFCA, but the corridor is only a corridor of friendship and collaboration but not an ecological corridor."

Other issues: Biodiversity preservation, climate change, and World Heritage Site

The biggest challenge is maintaining a balance between the need to attract funding and the protection of the reserve's ecological integrity; conservation is the primary objective of the reserve. PPF and the WB- funded Mozbio project seem to give more attention to the tourism and community part.

With several partners, the reserve is preparing a World Heritage Site listing application that would bring much higher environmental protection to the region and boost tourism.

The opening of the ecological corridor might help mitigate the effects of climate change like species migration. However, migration would occur in both directions from the MSR to Tembe and the other way around.

18 4.5 Governance and management approach

Overview

Figure 7 Strengths and weaknesses of the partnership

Strengths of the partnership

- Having Mandela as a patron and the former Mozambican president and various directors of ANAC on its Board, confers PPF credibility and political leverage; this helps to overcome obstacles along the way. - Some interviewees consider the PPF/ANAC partnership as one of the most successful in the country. - PPF has an anchor role in mobilizing funding from other donors, bringing in additional funding. Various interviewees underlined PPF's high-level conservation knowledge and PPF's provision of high- level experts, especially in park management, infrastructures, wildlife crime, and fencing. - PPF is also more dynamic and less bureaucratic than the World Bank in terms of procedures, enabling quick processes and dynamism, closing funding gaps when necessary. - Various interviewees mentioned their respect for the MSR/PPMR warden. He is outstanding and dedicated, representing a strength (and a risk for the MSR if he gets replaced). - The reserve and PPF have an adaptive management approach trying to implement adequate solutions when problems emerge. A significant quantitative and qualitative improvement in the last years brought about an entirely new dynamic.

Weaknesses of the partnership

- With the level of investment made in the MSR, PPF needs to have more say. Without the governmental bureaucracy, many more results could be achieved. Some interviewees believe that a better

19 management model would avoid red tape and be more efficient at an operational level to deal with concessions and operators. Ideas of developing an SPV exist. However, there is no legal framework in the country to allow for this. - PPF, like many other organizations, needs to show results fast. Working in Mozambique, with communities, with agriculture requires time and realistic expectations about what is feasible. - PPF's has difficulties in working with the communities. The headquarters designed the approach even if they have some solid local people on the ground. Much progress has been made lately, though, by ANAC and PPF. - ANAC is not absorbing the know-how and learning how to adapt models for the Mozambican reality so that if PPF and other donors are gone, park management could proceed efficiently. - Monitoring is not systematized. However, PPF/MSR plan to develop a broader and more detailed M&E framework, including sectoral and project level management plans. There is also the need to have outcome-level results and understand the impacts of projects on the communities.

Debated aspects of the partnership

- PPF has a commercial approach to conservation. However, according to some interviewees, the reserve should also be conserved for its biodiversity first and foremost. In the Chissano area, conservation areas were called conservation areas for touristic purposes. Thus, conservation stayed behind in terms of priorities. According to various interviewees, areas of conservation for touristic goals do not work but other interviewees believe in private sector and market forces in this context. - PPF is highly centralized, with headquarters in South Africa. To manage a conservation area, people need to be on the ground on a day-to-day basis. In various interviewees’ opinions, PPF does not understand Mozambican reality well, even if it is technically and financially sound. However, another interviewee mentioned that he disagrees with the perception of PPF being too South African. He added that conservation needs highly qualified and experienced people Mozambique does not have.

4.6 The broader context, opportunities, and challenges in the future

Overview

The following figure summarizes the opportunities and challenges for the MSR in the future.

20

Figure 8 Future opportunities and challenges (Map from www.protectedplanet.com)

Opportunities

- Various interviewees mentioned the recent Environmental Protection Area (EPA) covering the MSR and the PPMR and were very excited about it. It should help manage the coastal dunes management and coordinate between conservation and development. Furthermore, the whole region is a center of endemism. The EPA will be able to protect more than the two reserves since there is a lot of pressure on the coast with mass tourism and real estate development since the road construction. Various interviewees mentioned, though, that implementation would be a challenge. - The Maputo National Park (currently in discussion) would elevate the conservation category of the MSR and the PPMR. The park's creation could secure taxes and licenses currently not going to MSR and PPMR and improve management efficiency. - There is a need to have conservation champions and an increased Mozambican capacity in conservation. Biofund now has a Conservation Leadership program and a program for interns that is already operational.

Challenges

- Techobanine: Various interviewees believe that Techobanine deep seaport represents the most significant risk in the area. For Techobanine not to move forward, investment in conservation and tourism is needed as an alternative. - Disorganized territorial development: since the construction of the bridge and the road from Maputo to Ponta do Ouro, there is a real rush to develop the area. Coastal dunes are being devastated. People

21 construct houses with no respect for norms, but there are strong political interests and corruption schemes. - Business environment and tourism stressors: COVID did impact tourism, and the conflict situation in the north might too. The business environment is also not conducive to investments and tourism. - Safety and smuggling: The region has always been a smuggling point for stolen cars. However, crime increased in the region and Ponta do Ouro with the asphalted road. - Coordination: Coordination might become a challenge because now there are EPA, the reserves, tourism activities in Ponta do Ouro, and in the MSR. - Human Development: An environment that alleviates poverty and promotes skill development in a region with increased demographic growth is needed. - Climate change: Implications in the area will be high. Therefore, the best way to respond to this challenge is to let nature heal itself and avoid stressors. - Finding a balance between financial sustainability and conservation to maintain the integrity of the reserve and contribute to local economic development.

5. Discussion

5.1 Introduction

The results of the qualitative interviews and the online survey provide considerable elements to assess the joint governmental and non-governmental ecotourism-based strategy's contribution to conservation. Some findings emerge from the interdependency between the different pillars and others from delving into the pillars themselves.

5.2 Most impacting findings looking at the interdependency between the different pillars

The broader context shapes the conservation approach in the park. Given the threat of the Techobanine port just south of the reserve, the MSR needs to show that it can produce revenues. Furthermore, historically, the government identified conservation areas as contributors to development. Therefore, a low-key park only focusing on preserving the area and not on revenue generation might not be realistic. Ecotourism might be the only sensible response to alternative land-uses' pressure and might represent the only politically viable approach.

The joint partnership's political leverage and ecotourism approach might have stalled the process of taking over essential conservation areas for developmental purposes. Indeed, competing interests for alternative land-uses, smuggling, and other illicit activities threaten the MSR and adjacent Ponta do Ouro Marine Reserve (PPMR). In his political economy paper, Symons (2018) highlights the key role of the partnership

22 in lobbying against the Techobanine project. Initiatives like proposing the Maputo National Park and working on the World Heritage Site proclamation increase both reserves' profile; however, the wider area is still at risk.

The Environmental Protection Area (Decree 103/2019, EPA), promulgated in December 2019, raises hopes that the context might become conducive rather than destructive to conservation and biodiversity. The EPA is supposed to counteract the disorganized territorial development, personal interests, and growing human settlements that destroy some parts of the larger Maputaland biodiversity hotspot at an accelerated pace. As an interviewee put it, "we only have a few seconds left to act". There is a positive political intent to improve conservation in the area. However, the implementation of the EPA might prove difficult given all the interests in the region. The MSR has much to gain from getting invested in supporting it.

Adaptive management bears fruits. Being open to learning by doing and trying new solutions in an uncertain landscape is crucial. The ANAC/PPF's partnership produces partially successful results; however, more knowledge-sharing efforts would potentiate them. PPF should find a way to transfer knowledge. At the same time, ANAC should continue to strengthen the partner's cultural sensitivity and understanding of the local context.

Indeed, supporting conservation effectively in a protected area where people still live requires a thorough knowledge of the country's context and culture. Investing in community governance and allocating sufficient time to establish deep connections with the communities represent a basis for successful projects and a good relationship between the parties.

PPF and ANAC invested a lot of effort and resources to support the MSR. Various initiatives are fruitful, especially the rewilding and anti-poaching, thus increasing financial revenues. The MSR approach (illustrated in Appendix 3) looks comprehensive and logical; however, if politically feasible, the attention to give to each pillar should shift a bit to ensure the reserve's primary goal: conservation.

5.3 Findings on financial sustainability

The target of attracting 70 000 tourist entries a year in eight-year looks extremely challenging. Given the pandemic and the war raging in the North, large fluxes of tourists in the following years seem uncertain. However, most interviewees believe that financial sustainability represents an important objective. Other interviewees question whether it should be the reserve's role to become sustainable or if other means to achieve sustainability might be better suited to a biodiversity hotspot.

In this light, PPF/ANAC should develop a cross-financing strategy through revenues from the PPMR, especially if the government proclaims the Maputo National Park. The Maputo-based Mozambican tourists will continue to massively drive to the PPMR while possibly not visiting the MSR. PPF and ANAC are

23 examining ways to tax activities within the marine reserve. As done in other marine parks in the country, the reserve authorities could charge a visitor's tax to every visitor of the marine reserve beach. Furthermore, they could institute a fixed annual tax for the residents. Other possibilities such as a road tax (at the toll before the reserve) might be feasible. Cross-financing would diminish the pressure of having the MSR financially sustainable.

Ensuring concessions' contribution to the MSR revenues while displaying a small ecological footprint depends on a well-thought concessions’ set-up. Lessons learned from the previous concessions show that the Milibangalala concession doesn’t contribute to the MSR revenues substantially while having a high footprint. Mozaico do Indico still owns the concession in Dobela while having shown its inability in securing a good deal for the reserve. Regarding the Anvil Bay concession, the set-up might support the involved communities, however, returns to the park are low. Furthermore, the online survey showed that Anvil Bay's luxury accommodation does not seem to cater to the Mozambicans' needs nor the foreign residents in Mozambique. The lodge might cater to extremely affluent people not captured by this survey. These perceptions should inform the development of the upcoming concessions. Will a six-star lodge in Dobela bring more income to the reserve than a two to three-star accommodation or camping? Only if the reserve charges high concession fees or high bed taxes. Ethical questions emerge too: should the government reserve the three bays for extremely high-paying foreign customers (Membene being only a half bay)? Should it exclude the Mozambican population from enjoying them?

According to the tourist preferences survey, the reserve's current visitors appreciate the reserve's wilderness and are return customers. They do not need the “big five” on-site, prefer more wildlife, and fear losing the impression of remoteness and peace that the MSR brings. The reserve should consider securing these mostly high-level income customers that enable some income with a limited ecological footprint. An annual card with some advantages might represent a revenue stream.

Hopefully, the efforts to merge the MSR and PPMR into a National Park and the World Heritage Site application will materialize. Upgrading the MSR status would strengthen its position given real-estate and other land-use management appetites in the region and improve coordination between competing entities for licensing fees.

Thorough thinking on the right balance between financial sustainability and conservation should take place: how to ensure that conservation and the MSR's integrity are insured while contributing to the MSR revenues and to local economic development. However, what "the right balance is" remains subjective and depends on the interested person's perspective, worldviews and political space. Interviewees had divergent views on the "right" balance. However, the approach to look at the MSR as a tourism asset rather than a conservation asset predominated.

24 5.4 Findings on governance and management

As confirmed by Peace Parks and the MSR Administration, the overall objective is to "improve and preserve conservation and biodiversity in the park". However, looking at the unsatisfactory concession in Milibangalala and the fact that Mozaico do Indico still retains the concession for Dobela, it seems that conservation comes at a second level. The absence of a protected area tax in Ponta do Ouro might also point to the preeminence of touristic consumption versus environmental protection.

The conservation approach focusing on tourism and sustainability might come at the expense of biodiversity. If tourism is not well managed, the plan to have 500 beds in the protected area (ANAC, 2018) might jeopardize conservation. Some interviewees appealed for a paradigm change to put conservation again at the top of the priorities. However, where to place conservation versus tourism is a strategic governmental vision. The government identified the MSR in 2004 as a priority area for tourism and investment (IFC, 2012). The MSR has to evolve within this framework. This approach seems less conducive to sound conservation. However, it might be better than no conservation at all, which might be the only other alternative. Stronza (2018) advocates for comparing the ecotourism approach with the other available alternatives. In this case, ecotourism might be the best option.

The PPF and ANAC partnership is solid and builds on a long-lasting commitment and political backing. According to some interviewees, PPF and ANAC do not have an efficient co-management agreement which undermines faster processes and results. However, PPF has substantial political leverage due to the particular history of the PPF foundation and its board composition, including high-ranking Mozambican officials. This trump card might compensate the weaker agreement and come in handy given all the region's interests.

Furthermore, its capacity to attract funds and provide high-level expertise is precious. The capacity to be more dynamic and fill in more bureaucratic donors' funding gaps cannot be underestimated.

More investment in touristic infrastructure will necessitate a costlier operational structure, a bigger team, and more know-how. It will increase the risk of income fluctuations due to external circumstances like the current pandemic or safety issues in the area. A less commercial approach might make sense in the MSR (rather than the foreseen private sector-oriented revamping of the strategic business plan). Trying to keep lean operational costs could be very useful.

Finally, PPF and ANAC should devise ways to capitalize on their respective strengths, especially with their valuable relationship. Tandems of experts (one PPF, one ANAC, or UEM) could perform joint field missions to increase knowledge transfer and ensure cultural sensitivity.

25 At a more operational level, the administrator's role is critical and might have primarily contributed to the last years' successes. Adaptive management and a willingness to learn have improved the conservation approach in the MSR. Monitoring and evaluation deficit represents a significant weakness of the partnership. Plans for setting up a comprehensive M&E framework are underway. A robust M&E framework might increase crowdfunding and donor funding willingness. Finally, there is still room for improvement in dealing with the communities and finding a balance between tourism development and the protection of biodiversity and conservation.

5.5 Findings on the relationships with communities

Working with communities represents the Achille's heel of the ANAC/PPF partnership in the MSR, even with a multi-million investment in community projects. Since 2018, FNDS and MSR tackle this challenge with the participatory and promising SAPA process. Investing in the communities and community governance on the ground will strengthen the foundation of the park.

Need to trust, empower and build relationships

Historically, the governmental authorities took control of the resources and the land away from local communities in the MSR: systems of livelihoods changed, and traditional land managers were disenfranchised (Brouwer, 2001; Robbins, 2018). Lately, MSR staff have disregarded community members' fundamental rights (ANAC, 2020, Interviews 10 and 11), limited their access to resources, and indirectly pushed communities out of the reserve boundaries. Trust needs to be built, and reconciliation achieved.

Furthermore, the reserve should treat the communities as partners rather than beneficiaries. More investment in understanding the divergent interests in communities and building relationships will be vital in entering a virtuous circle. The SAPA process seems to address through a participatory process most of the issues mentioned by the communities. However, this work will only start with four communities. The community leader I interviewed had never heard of it. A way to replicate some of the work of SAPA on a larger scale might be urgently needed.

To improve the relationship with communities, the partners should address short project horizons and the need to produce results. Building relationships and changing paradigms take time. Targeted talks with flexible donors might lead to increased project durations and lowered expectations.

Additionally, the "voluntary displacement" of people inside the reserve does not seem very successful. The MSR should try to understand the underlying issues. Currently, in a Special Reserve, the residents are legally allowed to remain. While many people already left, some communities think of organizing a lawyer to go to court, according to one interviewee (Interview 10). If this information is correct, understanding the underlying motivations to go to court would be crucial to avoid escalation.

26 Finally, the PPF/ANAC/ FNDS efforts in environmental awareness-raising, especially in the communities, seem crucial to building links between future generations and land conservation. The planned environmental center in the MSR might have many positive spillover effects regarding the reserve and the communities' relations.

Need to increase revenue streams

Another compelling finding under this section is the need to move away from the fallacy of agriculture. Agriculture does not represent an adequate revenue-generating stream. ANAC should move from it: ANAC has limited know-how, land productivity is low, and the approach presupposes efficient community governance and interest from the communities.

Low revenues to the communities (20% of the MSR revenues) and the difficulty to access those funds also trigger negative emotions, as mentioned by some interviewees. Each of the 16 communities received in 2019 the equivalent of 2163 USD, and some could not access those funds (FNDS trimestral assessment April-June 2020). ANAC and FNDS try to support the communities in accessing those funds. Increased revenues from the MSR will be beneficial in the future.

Alternative revenue streams to the communities might be more adapted. Investment in primary and secondary tourism-related activities might be more opportune, and the FNDS and MSR currently promote various initiatives. Furthermore, game ranching and community-based management areas seemed to find much resonance with the interviewees. If well set up and if communities are interested, these community areas could bring much-needed revenues to some communities. The devil remains in the details: which communities will be selected, how, which kind of partnership will they form, how many people will benefit? What is clear is that it is an exciting initiative.

Need to mitigate the Human-Elephant conflict

Human-Elephant conflict is at the heart of most communities’ dissatisfaction. Most interviewees mentioned fencing solutions (around the MSR, around communal farmed plots, along the Futi corridor) and participatory monitoring and elephant surveillance. The MSR and FNDS, through the SAPA, developed a comprehensive action plan in 2020 agreed with communities (ANAC, 2020). However, most seem Band- Aid measures possibly because of funding and spatial issues. The plan foresees to remove stressors like translocating 30 animals within two years (ANAC, 2020). Translocating animals in other zones might only displace conflict. Unfortunately, these solutions are not tackling the root causes of the conflict. If not handled differently, the conflict might be there to stay.

In terms of HEC conflict, Schaffer et al. (2019), in their comprehensive review of current HEC management strategies, conclude that most consist of short-term solutions and ignore the fight for resources. The authors

27 developed a conceptual model focused" on resource competition and the resulting conflict for water, food, and space between humans and elephants." This systemic reflection should be the starting point for any HEC mitigation strategy: understanding what drives the conflict from all perspectives and what actions are feasible. The plan to create water holes to avoid conflict (Interview 14) is a step towards this systemic reflection.

While not mentioned in resolution 58/2009 approving the National Human-Wildlife Strategy (Mozambique gov, 2009), the MSR should think about the possibility of compensation or insurance mechanism. According to one interviewee, the introduction of agriculture instead of hunting activities by PPF/ANAC might have exacerbated the HEC and communities' vulnerability to elephant presence. The "Wild Seve" program, for example, in India, tracks damages by smartphones and allows relatively low-cost monitoring actions on the ground (Karanth and Vanamamalai, 2020). The partners could fund compensation by diverting some investment from the financial sustainability component.

Information systems to separate between the perception and the conflict's reality might also be helpful. Indeed, sometimes discrepancies between people's assumed and actual behavior are widely due to varying perceptions of risk, disproportionate responses, and social influences (Dickman, 2010), as also mentioned by some interviewees. Innovative experiences could also be adapted to the country context.

As one interviewee put it, it seems that PPF and the MSR learned a lot in the last years in terms of community involvement. Indeed, it seems that the MSR is on a positive path in this regard.

5.6 Findings on Ecological sustainability

The activation of the Futi corridor, the reintroduction of predators, and avoiding increased human pressure in the buffer areas represent the main elements to ensure the MSR's carrying capacity and improve the area's ecological connectivity. The planned reintroduction of medium-sized predators such as cheetahs might be compatible with human activities in and around the reserve. However, the reintroduction of lions does not seem consistent with reality in the short and medium-term, explaining the MSR plans to build "big five" proof fences. The community-managed areas' approach as a "pressure reducing valve" to maintain the carrying capacity might represent the best approach to take if communities buy in.

Unfortunately, ecological connectivity through the Futi corridor does not exist currently. The MSR has no leverage on this issue and cannot do much apart from building onerous fences to enable future connectivity between the MSR and Tembe Park. However, Buffalo Tuberculosis adds another complexity layer. Furthermore, if human development in buffer zones continues without control, the Futi corridor might become obsolete.

28 While aerial surveys show animal growth trends, investment should be made in more systematic vegetation assessment to understand the impact of browsers and grazers on endemic species. Thoroughly monitored Thresholds of Concern should ensure the protection of endemic plant species in the MSR.

5.7 Relating the findings to other studies

As mentioned in the introduction, Krueger (2005), through a metaanalysis, concludes that the crucial elements for sustainable ecotourism cases consist of a) the involvement of local communities, b) effective planning and management and the existence of a solid strategic management plan, c) revenues and d) flagship species. The MSR fulfills various criteria, such as local communities' involvement, effective planning, and management. It is working on the revenue side and on increased flagship species, such as reintroducing cheetahs. However, involving local communities is not enough. In the MSR case and possibly in many more protected areas, communities need to become rightful and well-understood stakeholders of the process. Furthermore, flagship species don't always seem necessary for successful ecotourism ventures.

The online survey indicated that lions and the big five were not a priority for the visitors when compared to the landscapes, the sense of place, and deserted beaches. Hausman et al. (2016) had a similar result when surveying high-value conservation areas with few charismatic species: more experienced tourists are less interested in charismatic species. The authors add that less experienced tourists could be attracted by "biodiversity-related activities and accessibility, as well as a sense of place and solitude experiences". This result might be relevant for the MSR, which could design the planned environmental awareness center into an effective learning center for future generations.

5.8 Limitations of the study

The circle of people knowing very well the MSR is limited. These professionals meet in various events and might build a narrative of what conservation in the MSR should be without taking a more distanced approach to the park. This study might mirror this bias.

I carried out the online survey amid the COVID pandemic with much fewer visitors. While the survey gathered information regarding the foreign residents and affluent Mozambicans, the survey did not capture South Africans' opinions that make up a significant portion of the visitors during regular times. The survey also did not include non-visitors’ preferences. More research is needed in the MSR to understand whether the middle-class citizen in Maputo represents a potential customer or not.

6. Conclusion and recommendations

The context in which the MSR evolves is extraordinarily complex. The Techobanine port represents the highest threat to the integrity of the MSR and PPMR. However, the Environmental Protection Area

29 generates much hope in an area where real-estate, smuggling, and other financial interests prevail. It might also curb human population growth, ensure adequate zoning and sound territorial development. PPF/ANAC should put much effort into making the EPA a success. Collaboration to ensure better zoning and protection in sensitive areas around the MSR and the PPMR and political leverage will be much needed.

Within this context, the ecotourism-focused model put forward by PPF/ANAC supports definitely conservation if the alternative is development; it might be the only viable model. The lobbying by PPF and some government branches against the Techobanine port (Symons, 2018) might have already supported conservation immensely.

If a realistic option could be an undeveloped park with very low visitors and donor funding to conserve biodiversity, the response is blurry. It is unclear whether the current approach will promote biodiversity and the endemic plants or jeopardize them by too much tourism and overgrazing.

For ecotourism to work for conservation in the MSR, baselines and a solid monitoring and evaluation framework based on result chains (Margoluis, 2013) coupled with adaptive management should ensure conservation and biodiversity preservation as the primary objective.

However, monitoring and evaluation practices are not sufficient to grapple with complex and changing social-ecological systems (Knight et al, 2019). Systems thinking applied for conservation helps address highly complex problems. Knight et al. (2019) develop four principles to address intractable conservation issues in complex and dynamic social-ecological systems: a) Attend to the whole with humility, b) Engage constructively with the values, cultures, politics, and histories of stakeholders, c) Learn through evaluative, systemic inquiry; and d) Exercise wisdom in judgment and action. It seems that the PPF/ANAC partnership is already applying some of this approach. This approach is especially relevant when working with the communities and addressing HEC.

Finally, low hanging fruits that might need some political clout could inspire future visitors. The Dobela concession should be thoroughly thought about to make it an inspiring example of how conservation and tourism can co-exist, avoiding the previous concessions' pitfalls. The environmental center should also be carefully designed to work as an attraction for families, generate revenues through workshops and courses, and mostly inspire future generations.

In a nutshell, the partnership is fruitful, but there is room for improvement. As much as possible, the MSR should strive to put ecotourism at the service of conservation and the future generations.

30 References

ANAC. 2014. Community Action Plan for the Maputo Special Reserve and Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve

ANAC. 2018. MSR Strategic Business Plan. [draft, non-published]

ANAC. 2020. Avaliação Social para as áreas de conservação- Plano de Accao [Report]

ANAC.2020. Management Plan of the Maputo National Park [draft, non-published]

Brouwer R. 2001. From Farmland to Wilderness. The Redefinition of Resources and their Access in the Machangulo Peninsula, Mozambique. In: Africa’s Integration into the World Economy / Wohlmut, Karl, Hans-Heinrich Bass & Elke Grawert et al. p. 603–630. [accessed 2020 Jun 19]. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/121178.

Decreto 40/2011. Alteração de limites. Retrieved from https://biofund.org.mz/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ReservaEspecialMaputo-Decreto-40-2011- AlteraLimites.pdf

Diploma Legislativo 1960. Criação da Reserva Especial. June 1960. Retrieved from https://biofund.org.mz/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ReservaMarromeu-Bufalos-DiplomaLegislativo- 1995De1960-CriacaoReservaEspecialProtecaoBufalos.pdf

Diploma Legislativo 2903. Alteração de denominação. Retrieved from https://biofund.org.mz/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/1543566267-ReservaEspecialMaputo-DiplomaLegislativo-2903de1969- AlteraDenominacao.pdf

Dickman AJ. 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation. 13(5):458–466. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x.

DNAC. 2009. Plano de Gestão da Reserva Especial de Maputo. 2010-2014. Retrieved from https://biofund.org.mz/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Plano-de-Gest--o-da-REM-2010-a-2014.pdf

Hausmann A, Slotow R, Fraser I, Minin ED. 2017. Ecotourism marketing alternative to charismatic megafauna can also support biodiversity conservation. Animal Conservation. 20(1):91–100. doi:10.1111/acv.12292.

31 IFC. 2012. Facilitating Tourism Investment in the Maputo Elephant Reserve [Report] Retrieved from https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/63e52392-4682-4a61-bf56- 53f02299b0c5/MER_CaseStudy.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=juUZD7S.

Karanth KK, Vanamamalai A. 2020. Wild Seve: A Novel Conservation Intervention to Monitor and Address Human-Wildlife Conflict. Front Ecol Evol. 8. doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.00198. [accessed 2021 Mar 3]. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.00198/full.

Knight, A.T., Cook, C.N., Redford, K.H. et al. (2019). Improving conservation practice with principles and tools from systems thinking and evaluation. Sustain Sci 14, 1531–1548. https://doi- org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/10.1007/s11625-019-00676-x

Krüger O. 2005. The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversity & Conservation; Dordrecht. 14(3):579–600. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-3917-4.

Margoluis R, Stem C, Swaminathan V, Brown M, Johnson A, Placci G, Salafsky N, Tilders I. 2013. Results Chains: a Tool for Conservation Action Design, Management, and Evaluation. Ecology and Society. 18(3):22. doi:10.5751/ES-05610-180322.

McKeown, Kathleen. (2015). Tracking Wildlife Conservation in Southern Africa: Histories of Protected Areas in Gorongosa and Maputaland. [PhD Thesis] Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/175690.

Pekor A, Miller JRB, Flyman MV, Kasiki S, Kesch MK, Miller SM, Uiseb K, van der Merve V, Lindsey PA. 2019. Fencing Africa’s protected areas: Costs, benefits, and management issues. Biological Conservation. 229:67–75. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.030.

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences. 4(2):155– 169.

Robbins, Paul. 2020. Political ecology: a critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell

Shaffer LJ, Khadka KK, Van Den Hoek J, Naithani KJ. 2019. Human-Elephant Conflict: A Review of Current Management Strategies and Future Directions. Front Ecol Evol. 6. doi:10.3389/fevo.2018.00235. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2018.00235/full.

32 Speed+.2018. Collaborative Management Models for Conservation Areas in Mozambique.[Report] Retrieved from https://biofund.org.mz/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Co-Management-Models-for- Conservation-Areas-In-Mozambique-2018-05-30.pdf

Smith RJ, Easton J, Nhancale BA, Armstrong AJ, Culverwell J, Dlamini SD, Goodman PS, Loffler L, Matthews WS, Monadjem A, et al. 2008. Designing a transfrontier conservation landscape for the Maputaland centre of endemism using biodiversity, economic and threat data. Biological Conservation. 141(8):2127–2138. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.010.

Soto et al. 2000. Perceptions of the Forestry and Wildlife Policy by the local communities living in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1723–1738, 2001. Retrieved from https://doi-org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/10.1023/A:1012005620906

Stronza AL, Hunt CA, Fitzgerald LA. 2019. Ecotourism for Conservation? Annu Rev Environ Resour. 44(1):229–253. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033046.

Swart, Sandra. 2016. Writing animals into African history. Critical African Studies. 8. 95-108. 10.1080/21681392.2016.1230360.

Symons K. 2018. The tangled politics of conservation and resource extraction in Mozambique’s green economy. Journal of Political Ecology. 25(1):488–507. doi:10.2458/v25i1.22762.

Tello, J. L. L.1972. Reconhecimento ecológico da Reserva dos Elefantes do Maputo. Instituto de Investigação Veterinária de Moçambique.

Van Aarde, R., 2013. Elephants A Way Forward. Conservation Ecology Research Unit (CERU), University of Pretoria, 2013. Available at: .

33 Appendix 1- Detailed results of the semi-structured interviews

The tables below capture the main elements and quotes brought forward in the semi-structured interviews after coding in the qualitative analysis software Nvivo 12 the transcribed interviews and analyzing them.

Financial sustainability

Lessons learned with the current concessions

Subtopics Main elements brought forward I4 Weakness of the - Requisite to form a partnership with a government institution with a limited 25-year I6 set-up concession period deterred investors I7 - WB/Government’s investment funds under the Anchor project could have been used I3 better otherwise. Weak - Government’s weak negotiating capacity led to allocating 3000 hectares in a prime I2 negotiation and area for Milibangalala. Today the negotiating capacity is higher. I6 renegotiation - Concession fees are very low but could be renegotiated - Renegotiation ongoing, especially regarding the concession agreement's I7 environmental aspects in Milibangalala. However, renegotiating financial aspects could jeopardy the government’s credibility. Environmental - MSR currently better prepared to assess concession partners’ environmental track I2, considerations records I6 - Environmental impact assessments in conservation areas need to cover all crucial aspects. However, ANAC and MSR’s core operations consists in conservation and not environment. Small revenues - Weak negotiated contracts shrunk revenue generation for the MSR and communities I1, for the reserve - An interviewee mentioned that Milibangalala’s concession brings about 25% of the XX and communities revenues it should. - MSR does not profit from any bed tax Too high level of - Ambitions were much higher than the reality on the ground allowed (difficult level I7 ambitions of access, lack of infrastructure). - The interviewee mentioned: “If I could go back 15 years back, I would do two-year concessions with tented camps …the revenues of the reserve would have grown a lot”, “we thought we could bring all these people and until today there are not here”. Non tendered - Interviewees have different opinions on the future of Dobela. Five-star concession, I1 future lower impact concessions like camping or just preserving at least one bay being an I12 concessions important turtle breeding ground I7 (Dobela) - The government needs to strip away the concession from INATUR to avoid the same mistake made in Milibangalala but advocating in this sense had not yielded fruits yet

Figure 1 Lessons learned with the current concessions

4 Interviewees

34 The park infrastructures, services and operators

Subtopics Main elements brought forward and quotes I Roads - Roads represent a significant bottleneck, but with improved game viewing, a sedan I1 game drive near Futi gate, and game drive operations, the issue should be overcome I2 - The World Bank planned to upgrade 20 to 30 km of roads inside the park near the Futi gate to allow more tourists and more sedans to circulate, but funding fell through Service - Service operators’ contracts foresee 10-15 years I1 Operators - The MSR is testing game drive operators for guided tours. Tourist operators from I2 Maputo might become interested in developing packages. - The reserve is in a tender stage to secure an operator for Membene on the coastline I9 (70 beds) and Xingute in the middle of the park (50 beds). - The MSR foresees six 4*4 camps in 2021, depending on the pandemic dynamics. Restaurant - A restaurant is planned in Xingute (30 minutes from entrance), with upgraded roads I2 option to allow for sedans to pass. Number of day visitors might rise considerably.

Figure 2 Challenges with current infrastructure and future plans

Revenue generation strategy

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Increase of - PPF believes that with the strategy put in place, the reserve should be self-sustainable I1 tourist numbers in about eight years. I2 - Interviewees are rather doubtful about financial sustainability objectives and high number of visitors. Even with better infrastructure, operational costs are very high I5 and gate fees revenues very low. I7 - Telling quotes of interviewees that know well the park: o ”It will be very difficult to make it commercially viable”… “I don’t see how I8 enough entries would cover all the costs; I don't see it happening”. I12 o “It is difficult to calculate tourist flows since many factors influence mobility, for example, COVID: reaching the 70 000 might or might not be I16 possible”. o “However more investment in the park is needed, up to now it amounts to 16 million USD, but more is needed” o “Given the fact that many things need to happen in the park, I don’t see that happen maybe before 10 to 15 years, but even that is not sure”, o “With the pandemic that hit, this vision is possibly somehow optimistic"; “The mass of tourists going to Ponta do Ouro are not interested in conservation... This tourist will not go to the MSR to spend the day but drive to the beach and party”. “Maybe half of the objective foreseen (70 000 entries a year) would be already very good” - The whole MSR infrastructure needs to be developed to attract tourists. One interviewee suggest that the number (70 000) might be viable if the reserve develops a decent fee schedule for a few hours visit. Product - Various interviewees believe that a mixed portfolio of accommodation to cater to I1 diversification different clients is the best option. Even if catering only for the luxury segment, at I6 least accommodation exists now in the park; with the camping and chalets constructions, lower segments are also targeted and catered for. Game drives and I8 game drive operators are also operational now. I15

35 Private sector - The strategic business plan will be revised drastically to attract the private sector I1 attraction Need for - The reserve needs to communicate more about itself I15 visibility

Figure 3 Perceptions about achieving financial sustainability

Additional revenue generation

Subtopics Main elements brought forward I Gate fees - Fees are too high right now for short two hours tours. Half-day fees might be I3 judicious. A willingness to pay (WTP) study might help to finetune the fee schedule, which is flexible from park to park. Road fees - A 1 Metical fee at the toll gate just before the reserve could support revenue I7 generation. Situation of residents would need consideration. Revenue - Attention to revenue generation in the PPMR is needed: potential is huge. I1 generation in the - Legislation is currently unsuitable: sportfishing license revenues go to the fishery I3 PPMR ministry, taxes to operate boats go to INAMAR. No interinstitutional agreement since more than ten years and conflict around jurisdiction and control. Various I7 current taxes and licenses represent foregone revenue for the MSR/PPMR. I12 - A tax for the marine reserve entrance, like in Inhaca, might work; the residents could pay an annual tax, and the visitors could pay on arrival. - Biofund, in partnership with PPF and Blue Finance, is trying to improve the tourism and revenues on the marine side - One of the tasks of the Environmental Protection Area consists of thinking about the issue. External funding - Financial sustainability should at least cover MSR’s operational costs. The rest could I2 be financed by external sources. I8 - This area needs to be conserved because it is a hotspot of biodiversity; it cannot be treated commercially like Kruger Park. If tourism can help cover costs, good but it will never be sufficient.

Figure 4 Possible additional revenue streams

Typology of tourists

Subtopics Main elements brought forward I Evolution of the - MSR attracted South Africans and some expatriates in the past. With the road I2 tourist type construction, Mozambican started to visit too The Mozambican - The majority of Maputo visitors who go to Ponta do Ouro look for beach and party I8 - Most of the Maputo citizens are urban, not interested in nature and might not like I12 and even be afraid of elephants, forest. Nature based tourism culture is very low. - The tourist in Ponta doesn’t spend money in the local economy and would not stop I15 to see the animals at the MSR. - The niche for the MSR might be the Maputo middle class if some conditions like accommodation and restaurants and easier access are created

36 The foreign - No need for much comfort and nature loving I5 resident The South - Looking for wilderness and adventure and 4*4 trails I5 African Visiting during peak months between November and January - I8 I15 Super elite - Very wealthy, looking for exclusivity like going to Anvil Bay I5 tourist Figure 5 Typology of tourists depending on origin

Community support

Community governance

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Variable - A community's governance can function well when the community has a clear leader I5 governance and a more or less democratic structure with participation. I7 efficiency, - When there are conflicts within a community, any support action becomes an issue. leadership - Communities’ leaders can be powerful; one might have studied, and another not, and I8 influence, and thus exert more influence on their communities. I10 mismanagement - Those leaders might represent their interests and not those of the community. Some might mismanage or divert funds. Even the communities involved in the Chemucane I13 Anvil Bay investment used erroneously funds. The opinion of the leadership can also be tainted by their good or bad experience within the reserve and thus influence the community's thinking on different topic. Weak - These structures represent the communities but are not remunerated enough and thus I6 community are not permanent. They meet and deliberate when there are revenues or a visit and management do not think creatively about community support activities. committees Need for - There is a growing need to work more with communities. The objective should be I5 community that communities embrace conservation, which implies their empowerment. I7 empowerment - The communities need to be involved, empowered and feel that they have shared ownership of the area instead of a top-down approach. Influence of - “The country's historical legacy is a legacy of unrooting of communities from natural I6 historical legacy resources…return these resources to the communities will take generations “. The and land rights fact that land pertains to the government undermined the relationship between people and nature.

Figure 6 Relevant aspect of community governance

Issues with donor community support projects

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Fallacy of - Various interviewees concur that agriculture should not be at the center of I5 agricultural community activities. It doesn’t work. It is not ANAC’s expertise and should not be I6 support at the top of the priorities. - Furthermore, as soon as the support stops, the initiatives collapse. I7 I10

37 - “There is a difference between the propaganda of working with the communities on agriculture and the reality; something else needs to be done” Community - Not enough attention is given to community governance during support projects I5 governance design, leading to community members sometimes sabotaging processes. support - In the MSR, an excellent consultant worked on community governance but without knowing the language or the country well. Being abroad, he also could not give continuity. Models need to be adapted to the local reality. Short project - Working with the community and community governance is a lengthy process, I5 duration and demanding investments in time and building relationships. However, the short I6 need to report project durations and donor pressure to deliver results to their constituencies do not results allow a slow pace. I14 - "It is not just about producing 100 tons of beans, but it is about developing the relationship first". - "But us implementers, donors, we don't have the patience of generations, we only have our patience and a cycle of three or five years, and this doesn't work". Cultural aspects - People are hunters and not smallholders in the MSR area: the requested behavioral I5 change constitutes a laborious cultural process. I8 - Culturally, in the South, community projects seem to work worse than in other areas in the country. I10 - Each community has its specific cultural aspects, some communities being more influenced by South Africa and possibly more aggressive than others. High - Communities possess high expectations in terms of results and necessitate dire I5 expectations support. However, it should not be the work of the park to lead with schools, I12 from the hospitals. The reserve should deal with flora and fauna, and not perform the communities government's duties. - Participation, contribution, and community involvement are crucial instead of a top- down approach promising results that creates false expectations. Lack of - The management of the support projects is very centralized. There is no sharing of I10 transparency of information about budget, objectives. donor funding Paternalism - NGOs and donors often victimize communities; however, communities can also be I12 manipulative and tailor their discourse to specific audiences. They also tend not to mention well-done work. Water supply - One of the best results of the community programs was communities water supply I6 projects worked well

Figure 7 Issues with community support projects

Poor relationships with the park

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Objectivity of the - Some interviewees mentioned the need to carefully interpret the SAPA results. I5 respondents and Respondents might influence other people to respond in a certain way if they are - I7 SAPA approach poachers, for example, or linked to car trafficking. - Sometimes respondents are leaders or outspoken youth that might not always I12 represent the opinion of all. - People might answer what they think should be said and not what they feel.

38 - A person, even a trained specialist, needs to be prepared to assess a situation objectively. Furthermore, interviewers were trained for one or two days only. Higher - The increased antipoaching capacity in the MSR exacerbates the bad relationships I2 inspection between the communities and the park. I6 capacity against - There are fewer opportunities to extract natural resources; even if it was already I7 poaching and illegal in the past, there was no inspection and intervention capacity. I8 natural resource extraction Influence of - The reserve is deemed responsible by the communities for increased HWC I2 HWC (park HWC contributes to impoverishing communities. - I15 deemed - More elements on HWC under 3.2.4. responsible) Non respect of - “The approach of the reserve staff is aggressive…staff enter in houses and inspect I10 Human Rights everything without respect and official documentation…they might beat people” I11 - MSR inspection staff sometimes do not respect Human Rights I14 - SAPA sheds light on this to support behavior change of the MSR inspection staff Low success of - The low success does influence the relationship with the reserve. Even if plentiful, I7 community these projects do not involve many people, and therefore, the respondents might not I8 support projects be aware of those. spearheaded by - These projects did not improve livelihoods, and seed distribution done by the the reserve reserve/PPF did replace what the government did routinely, so this effort represented only "business as usual" and nothing additional. - More elements under 3.2.2. Weak - The respondents' expectations might also taint the respondents' opinion, and negative I4 communication: opinions about the MSR might be due to ineffective communication from the MSR. I5 - The issue with communities is oftentimes communication. Changing - People partially lost their livelihoods with natural resource access restrictions. With I8 revenue source hunting, a person could triplicate the revenue from agriculture, and now hunting is (Agri instead of prohibited. hunting)

Figure 8 Reasons for bad relationship with the park

Human-wildlife conflict

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Elephants in the - “The elephants are in the landscape, and it is the biggest challenge ...and it is I1 landscape probably going to be a challenge in the long-run”. I6 - Most elephants that cause problems are not from within the reserve but are residents outside. Increasing - Elephants have increased lately, and there are 400 or 500 elephants in the zone. I2 numbers - Those numbers existed though in the seventies; human-elephant conflict existed at I7 the time as mentioned in the Ecological Mapping done in 1973. Competition for - Ecologically speaking, the reserve's natural limits should have been the Rio Maputo, I6 resources and but given its socioeconomic importance for irrigation and cattle, the riverine area natural park remained outside the park boundaries. boundaries - The fundamental question is water.

39 Fences - The MSR’s challenges in terms of the electrical fences consist of fallen electrical I1 poles, theft of the solar panel batteries, theft of the fence itself. I2 - Solar battery theft is also linked to community governance since it might be due to a community that did not agree on guaranteeing its safety. I5 - A new electrical design on the easter barrier fence turned it much more effective, and I15 indeed electrical fences can be highly effective.

Elephant- - The elephant is an extremely intelligent animal and learns quickly to bridge fences I2 intelligence or circumvent other strategies to protect water or food resources. A measure works I6 for a few years, and then the elephants find a way to lead with the issue. I15 - The control process needs to be constant and adaptive; strategies need to be varied. - The park is currently learning this lesson. Perceptions - The conflict's perceptions are frequently more acute than the conflict's actual I3 versus occurrence. The conflict entails a strong psychological side. Often, the elephant I4 occurrence destroys only small parts of the field (I3, I4). Credible information collection mechanisms help understand the real dimension of the problem (I4). I7 Socio-Political - Human-wildlife conflict can jeopardize the political support for conservation, so this I3 dimension issue needs to be addressed. It is a politically charged topic in the country. I4 I6

Figure 9 Human Wildlife Conflict drivers and challenges

Displacement

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Attachment to - Sociologically, the relocation of people from their native land is not easy I6 the place and - People are ambivalent in terms of wanting to stay and wanting to leave I7 cultural roots - Some might be afraid to leave. I14 Voluntary - The displacement is not necessarily totally voluntary; indirectly, the authorities I5 displacement pressure the people to move. I6 - The people might prefer to stay where they are and would, in principle, want the wildlife removed. However, with an increase in animals, less safety, substantial I7 inspection capacity, and increased difficulty having a sufficient livelihood inside, various people want to leave. - The reserve will also become most probably a national park; this argument is used to motivate people to leave. No protection - The MSR does not protect people inside the reserve through fences or barriers that I6 inside could lessen ecological connectivity - Their domestic animals get in conflict with wildlife. Ambivalence - Some interviewees mentioned that the relocation seemed to work, more than 50% of I5 with the package the people inside the reserve moved, and that it has been quite successful. I7 proposed - An interviewee mentioned that PPF gave 5 or 6000 USD per family to move. However, another interviewee mentioned that the government provided only 20 000 I9 Meticais (about 285 USD) and some construction material. I10 - The package is not sufficient to build an adequate house outside; there is no equivalence between the house the person had inside the reserve and the package offered. - Outside there are also elephants: it seems to be the same to stay in or move outside.

40 - Communities are trying to get organized to get a lawyer to resist the displacement. Continued access - Access to sacred sites is guarantee and not even questionable. I2 to sacred sites

Figure 10 Reasons why displacement is difficult

Current financial benefits

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I 20percent- - The whole revenue of the reserve is subject to 20% for the communities, including I1 Sharing of MSR research fees, filming fees, etc. However, the MSR revenues are low, and thus the I2 revenues 20% do not yet generate a difference to the communities. - The revenue allocation is complex: revenues generated by the parks first go to the I6 national treasury, which takes a cut of 20%. 80% (of the 80%) are sent back to the I8 reserve, and ANAC allocates the 20% (of the 80%) to send to the communities’ accounts. I13 - Transparency, lack of IDs, and formal documentation represent impediments for I15 well-functioning community accounts (to which the 20% should be transferred) and the use of the 20% themselves. Community tax - In some areas in the country, there are community taxes in addition to the 20% I6 - In the MSR, for example, a bed tax flows to the community in Chemucane but not I14 in Milibangalala.

Figure 11 Issues with the 20% revenues to the communities

Opportunities for community support

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Employment and revenue promotion Community- - The MSR identified land for community-managed areas (along but outside of Futi I2 managed areas, corridor) to generate revenues through game farming or ecotourism. I3 including game - The communities are still ambivalent, but it would be an excellent opportunity to ranching have more revenues than the 20%. If those areas are declared community-managed, I6 the communities will have a base to negotiate with the private sector. I14 - Without predators, there will soon be an excess of herbivores with communities around deficient in proteins. Channeling excess fauna to game ranching areas could improve the reserve's ecosystem's functionality while providing for jobs and revenues in the communities. - In terms of game farming, there are huge grasslands not being adequately used around the Futi corridor, and a huge market in South Africa. However, an innumerable number of permits are needed for game farming. - Game farming could work somehow, but game farming would only support a small number of jobs, not the entire population. - Community-based management is not necessarily a silver-bullet but represents the fact that something needs to happen to address issues like HWC. We will see what new problems might emerge; it is an adaptive management process. Primary and - Tourism value chains should be better exploited for the benefit of the communities; I3 Secondary granted funds in examples like Chemucane or the Kubane lodges don't necessarily I7 bring enough return to the community.

41 tourism - People should be trained in hospitality skills, as tourist guides, in handicraft. I12 opportunities - Activities for tourists should be developed like turtle nesting and visiting facilities - People could sell locally grown produce in Ponta do Ouro. - Bazaruto made the error to build hotels without training people; all the jobs went to Zimbabweans, which should be avoided here. Community - Hunting for own consumption is not illegal but needs to respect the law. A I14 hunter and community hunter could be trained, as already foreseen in the law. sustainable harvesting Support for other - Grants should be provided to train for other jobs in the region that provide revenues I7 types of jobs in (nurses etc.). I8 the area HWC Mitigation Participatory - SAPA's approach is participatory. The plan now is that the communities will be in I12 HWC mitigation charge of putting the fences, barriers, and denounce abuse, motivating and I14 empowering the community. - The Ecojobs program will provide remuneration for some activities, and water points will be put outside of conflict areas. A minimum salary will be provided for 30 days of work and two for 60 days of work. - A similar approach has been put in place in the PPMR with turtle monitoring and is a success so far. Compensation - In Mozambique, compensation is not foreseen in the law nor the HWC strategy, and I10 therefore officials do not discuss it with the communities. I11 - An interviewee mentioned that giving compensation creates negative incentives; an insurance system might be the way I14 - Even in the event of a person's death, compensation does not exist; elephants eat the I15 agricultural production, and communities are not compensated. Augment - The reserve prepared brochures for coexistence with elephants, but it is complex. I2 tolerance for - “This is a wildlife corridor for elephants coming from Kruger, and we need to I7 elephants understand that people are afraid”. - Investing in tourist guides might increase the elephant's acceptance as a revenue source. Establish - Currently, support teams arrive generally too late when the animals' damages have I15 brigades against already occurred. It could make sense to have brigades posted near HWC hotspots. HWC Community - Community farms (including many plots) could be protected by fences; it makes no I10 machambas sense for programs to provide seedlings if elephants come and stampede it all.

Empowering communities Environmental - The MSR plans to build a research camp and training center to host more students, I1 awareness rising research, and work on environmental awareness. Many community members outside I2 the park do not know the park and have therefore a negative perception about it: - “Environmental awareness rising is key in bringing communities closer to I8 conservation, the approach to the communities needs to change radically, making I12 them part of the process with initiatives that the reserve just introduced like the Junior Rangers, bring community schools to visit the park, etc. It is a component that I14 needs a lot of investment”. I15

42 - “It is an essential area of work highlighting the value of ecosystem protection and explaining why biomes need to be protected and hunting prohibited and how this supports the communities' livelihoods in the medium to long term”. - In the MSR, there are already 11 environmental groups. In 2020, five girls' clubs were established, and grants support the high school studies of girls in Bela Vista. This is not much compared with 9000 people in the area, but it is a start (a total of 30 grants out of which 18 were granted). - Even if environmentally aware, some people's livelihoods depend on resource extraction, which is a conundrum. At least, they know then that they harm the environment. - The efforts on environmental awareness raising also need to be mainstreamed in schools and addressed at university. There is a dire need for conservation champions of which the best ambassadors should be found in the communities. Capacity - FNDS will support community governance through a service provider in four I14 building communities first to establish a community governance model, clarify the rights and community duties of the communities, capacitate them in knowledge sharing, joint decision governance making, and accountability.

Figure 12 Opportunities for communities

Ecological support

Rewilding and antipoaching

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Rewilding, - “The wildlife is at carrying capacity in certain species like elephant, reedbuck and I1 carrying now even close to that with some of the relocated species like wildebeest and zebra, I2 capacity, and and impala”. biodiversity - The MSR will reintroduce cheetahs in 2021 and add some leopard and hyena, which I9 exist already in the MSR, to improve the genetic mix and the minimum numbers for I15 viability for those populations. - It will not reintroduce lions because of human-wildlife conflict. I16 - “The rewilding work has been a success”. - Rewilding restores a better ecosystem balance since those animals were there in the past. Some vegetation studies identified pastures that were underutilized. - This translocation sparked debate, mainly because the MSR is located in a biodiversity hotspot of endemic species. Careful vegetation studies will be essential. Translocations - To deal with the carrying capacity, animals can be translocated, predators introduced, I1 or the meat used for the local population's benefit; this needs to be thought about. I2 Antipoaching - Poaching is a reality, and to preempt this, with the reintroduction of animals and the I1 efforts and road linking Maputo to South Africa, PPF and ANAC invested in antipoaching I2 poaching measures (a helicopter, more staff, more patrols. occurrence - The poaching occurrence, though, was not higher but somewhat decreased. However, I9 the objective is not to catch more poachers but rather to make people aware of the rules. - “The reserve hired community members as inspectors, and this was successful.”

Figure 13 Perspectives on rewilding and antipoaching

43 TFCA and connectivity, predators' introduction and fencing

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Activation of the - Opening up the corridor between South Africa and Mozambique is a long-term vision I1 corridor because: a) Elephant Tembe Park has lions and MSR has communities living within I2 the protected areas and because b) land-management on the Mozambican side is very I3 disorganized. I6 - The human population has augmented in the area in recent years. I7 - Furthermore, if the corridor opens, the whole reserve fencing should be lion proof which would take a long time. I15 - It does not make sense from an ecological perspective to take away lions from I16 Tembe. - The focus is on improving the tourism product in the short-term, allowing for tourists passing through the corridor and having a joint fenced area at the South of the Futi corridor. - “For now, the politicians can agree on the fact that there is a TFCA, but the corridor is only a corridor of friendship and collaboration but not an ecological corridor” Fences and - The MSR represents the only protected area in Mozambique completely fenced, I2 predators bringing challenges to ecological connectivity and managing the carrying capacity. I6 - The introduction of predators allows managing the carrying capacity and preserving biodiversity. If not managed, the reserve might have to cull animals. Culling is, I7 though, not an option for the park, and creating community-managed areas for excess I8 herbivores might be the best option. - Given that elephants manage to come from Kruger, predators will come too; there is a challenge to prepare for the reintroduction or natural arrival of large predators. - Hyenas, leopards, and jackals have already been sighted in the MSR. - Finally, if the HWC and the reserve continue to be well managed as today and fencing complete, public acceptance of predators might rise. Extension of the - The reserve is looking at extending the corridor with adjacent land through I1 corridor community partnerships I2

Figure 14 The TFCA and connectivity

Other issues: Biodiversity preservation, climate change, and World Heritage Site

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I MSR as part of - The biggest challenge is to maintain a balance between the need to attract funding I1 the Maputaland and the protection of the reserve’s ecological integrity; conservation is the primary I2 biodiversity objective of the reserve. hotspot - PPF and Mozbio seem to give more attention to the tourism and community part. I8 I16 World Heritage - The reserve with several partners is preparing to apply for a World Heritage Site I1, Site listing which would bring much higher environmental protection to the region and I9, boost tourism. I12 - iSimangaliso saw its tourism grow 500% in five years after becoming a World Heritage Site. This process might take a few years. Climate change - MSR will address climate change after fundamental building blocks are put in place I2 first. I15

44 - The opening of the ecological corridor might help mitigate the effects of climate I16 change like species migration. However, migration would occur in both directions from the MSR to Tembe and the other way around.

Figure 15 Reflections on biodiversity, climate change and the World Heritage Site application

Governance and management approach

Strategic management

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Conservation - In the Chissano area, conservation areas were called conservation areas for touristic I8 approach purposes, and thus conservation stayed behind in terms of priorities. I12 - The Bazaruto example shows that accommodation development was more related to “Las Vegas development” than conservation, and the local people did not benefit I16 either because of a lack of skills. - Areas of conservation for touristic goals do not work. - There is the need for a paradigm change even if some donors do not like to hear it and even if some push for financial sustainability. - “Milibangalala’s construction has no justification” - If we want conservation, we have to pay for it, tourism might only contribute for a small part, conservation costs are enormous. If not, development might destroy the park. - If tourism is not managed well, it might have a massive impact on conservation, which is the reserve's primary goal; it is an extremely delicate balancing act. Co-management - The 2018 agreement started being negotiated as a co-management agreement, but I1 and the 2018 then the partners signed a financial and technical assistance agreement that brought I2 agreement with the reserve years back; procedures take longer. The new agreement did not change ANAC much at the operational level I3 - The government is worried about delegating too much authority. I5 - With all the investment made in the MSR, PPF needs to be more than a technical advisor, be integrated into the management and the organization needs to be listened I7 to. - Without the governmental bureaucracy, many more results could be reached. - In the park, PPF and MSR appear just as MSR, which is important for the image of the collaboration. PPF might lose some visibility. National park - The creation of the national park might improve the park's management efficiency. I2 The National Park will elevate the conservation category of the MSR and the PPMR. - I6 SPV and more - A better management model would avoid red tape and be more efficient at an I1 private sector operational level to deal with concessions, operators. Ideas of developing an SPV I3 orientation exist. However, there is no legal framework in the country to allow for this.

Figure 16 Strategic aspects of the partnership

45 Operational management

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Dedicated and - Various interviewees mentioned their respect for the MSR/PPMR warden. He is I3 strong warden outstanding and dedicated. I4 - "The reserve is very lucky to have him", I5 - "In my opinion, he is the best warden of all the protected areas in Mozambique". - However, there is always a risk that a warden is replaced with no previous notice. I7 I8 Adaptive - The reserve and PPF learned a lot in the last twelve years about infrastructure I2 management development, rewilding, and human resources. I6 - There was a significant quantitative and qualitative improvement, bringing about an entirely new dynamic. - The reserve and PPF have an adaptive management approach trying to implement solutions when problems emerge. Management - There is an evolution in the priorities. While the focus was more on rewilding and I1 plan priorities on the communities, now the focus is more on tourism development. I2 - Working with communities remains a significant focus. - The realities in the MSR and PPMR are entirely different, and thus two different approaches are taken. Monitoring and - The reserve uses the METT, but this tool is very general. I1 evaluation - The MSR uses monitoring tools such as vegetation assessments and aerial surveys. I2 - However, the monitoring is not systematized, and PPF/MSR plan to develop a broader and more detailed M&E framework, including sectoral and project level I3 management plans. I8 - The COVID pandemic has slowed progress since an M&E expert team could not start its work. - While it was easy to monitor antipoaching work or animal counts through aerial surveys, the operations grew fast and became more complex. - There is also the need to have outcome-level results and understand the impacts of projects on the communities.

Figure 17 Operational aspects of the partnership

Strengths of the partnership

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Anchor role for - PPF has an anchor role in mobilizing funding from other donors, bringing in I2 funds additional funding and sound technical expertise I7 I13 Good - The relationship with ANAC is very good I2 partnership with - It is one of the most ancient ones and one of the most successful partnerships in the I12 ANAC country. I13 High political - Having Mandela as a patron and on its Board, the former Mozambican president and I12 leverage various directors of ANAC, confers the institution credibility and high-political I13 leverage; this helps to overcome obstacles along the way

46 High-level - Various interviewees underlined PPF's high-level conservation knowledge and PPF's I2 expertise provision of high-level experts. I7 provided - PPF displays strengths, especially in park management, infrastructures, wildlife crime, and fencing. I8 I9 Commitment - PPF is very committed to the reserve, the PPF always closed gaps in the World Bank I2 and less financing. I7 bureaucratical - "PPF was always there, and the reserve never closed". than other - PPF is also more dynamic and less bureaucratic than the World Bank in terms of donors procedures, enabling quick processes and dynamism.

Figure 18 Perceptions on the main strengths

Weaknesses of the partnership

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I High level of - PPF mainly works with consultants living abroad but, to manage a conservation area, I4 centralization people need to be on the ground on a day-to-day basis. I5 and not entirely - In various interviewees’ opinion, PPF does not understand Mozambican reality well grasping the even if the institution is technically and financially sound. I7 Mozambican - However, an interviewee mentioned that there is a perception of PPF being too South I8 reality African, which is only a perception. The person added that no conservation areas operate in Mozambique without foreigners and that conservation needs highly qualified and experienced people Mozambique does not have. Too result- - PPF, like many other organizations, needs to show results fast. I5 oriented for the - Working in Mozambique, with communities, with agriculture requires time and I8 local reality realistic expectations about what is feasible. - It is advisable not to try to do too many things simultaneously. Strong tourism - PPF has a very commercial approach to conservation, but the reserve should also be I8 orientation conserved for its biodiversity first and foremost I16 Not strong at - PPF's headquarters' strategy did not consider a community component. The approach I2 working with was mostly designed from the headquarters, even if they have some strong local I5 communities people on the ground. - “Today, the situation with the communities is much better, but it was not the strength I8 of PPF; community development is difficult, but PPF and the reserve learned a lot in the past years, and both grew in this regard”. Weak absorption - ANAC is not absorbing the know-how, growing and learning how to adapt models I12 capacity at the for the Mozambican reality so that if PPF and other donors are gone, park national level management could proceed efficiently. Hesitant to take - PPF was reluctant to take on more responsibilities in the past and happy with its I3 on more technical-financial role, but recently they changed approach like in Zinave, and it responsibility5 makes a difference.

5 Hesitant to take over the process is not necessarily a weakness, depends on the perspective. Was coded under weaknesses since the interviewee perceived it like this.

47

Figure 19 Perceptions on the main weaknesses

The broader context, opportunities, and challenges in the future

Opportunities

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Environmental - Various interviewees mentioned the recent Environmental Protection Area (EPA) I2 protection area covering the MSR and the PPMR, and various interviewees were very excited about I6 it. I7 - “It is an extensive area below a single entity ANAC, and so all the licenses be it I12 mining, fishing will have to be approved by the EPA which will have a management I13 plan including territorial planning”. I15 - “The plan (Plano de Desenvolvimento Integrado) still needs to be developed with a zoning plan. It will be a participative process with some hick-ups because of different interests, but at least there is a political and legislative intention to improve territorial management in the area”. - The EPA is a conservation area "light" and so the two reserves should be able to dialogue well with the EPA. - The EPA will also help manage the coastal dunes management and “hopefully there will be more inspection from Ponta do Ouro to Inhaca”. - “The main issue will be its operationalization: it is a large area, but it is a first step”. - It will help the coordination between conservation and development. - Furthermore, the whole region being a center of endemism, the EPA will be able to protect more than the two reserves since there is a lot of pressure on the coast with mass tourism since the road was built. - It is questionable if the country is ready for this approach but maybe with a powerful political drive. Creation of the - The park's creation could help resolve the issues about taxes and licenses not going I12 National Park to MSR and PPMR.

Investment in - There is a need to have conservation champions and an increased Mozambican I4 future leadership capacity in conservation. I12 - Biofund has now a Conservation Leadership program and a program for interns that is already operational.

Figure 20 Reflections about opportunities in the future

Challenges

Subtopics Main elements brought forward or quotes I Techobanine - Various interviewees believe that Techobanine port is the leading risk. I1 The risk remains but in a lesser form than three to four years ago. - I2 - It is a "ghost or a fungus that disappears and appears again” and represents the most significant risk in this area. I3 - One interviewee mentioned that, at least during the Guebuza presidency, the I7 approach was that the sector that would be the strongest should have priority to resolve the development problem in that area. I8

48 - For Techobanine not to move forward, investment in conservation and tourism is I9 needed as an alternative. I13 - Two influential factions are for and against that idea. I15 Disorganized - In the last two to three years, there is a real rush to develop the area of Ponta do Ouro. I4 territorial - The zoning plan is direly needed; the coastal dunes are being devastated, which was I6 development and not happening five years ago. “These are the last seconds to act”. interests - Since the bridge and the road, all the Maputo middle class wants a second home or a I12 business in this region. The "real-estate appetite needs to be controlled [..] the EPA

might help, but there are many interests”. - For example, near Ponta Mamoli, people construct houses with no respect for norms, but there are strong political interests and corruption schemes. Safety, - The region has always been a smuggling point for stolen cars and crime increased in I3 smuggling, and the region, and in Ponta do Ouro with the asphalted road. I7 other illicit - Tourists require safety: transborder collaboration on safety could reduce this risk. activities I12 Business - COVID did impact tourism, and the conflict situation in the north might too. I3 environment and General recommendations emitted in 2003 and linked to the business environment - I7 tourism stressors and tourism are also not yet resolved I12 Coordination - Coordination might become a challenge because now there are EPA, the reserves, I14 and how to deal tourism activities in Ponta do Ouro, and in the MSR. with the - Clarify the role of the communities in all of this will also be a challenge. communities Human - An environment that alleviates poverty and promotes skill development in a region I7 development with increased demographic growth is needed. I13

I15 Climate change - Implications in the area will be high, and therefore the best way to respond to this I12 challenge is to let nature heal itself and avoid stressors.

Financial - Finding a balance between financial sustainability and conservation to maintain the I12 sustainability integrity of the reserve and balance with conservation

Figure 21 Reflections about challenges in the future

49 Appendix 2- Satisfaction survey results

1. Introduction 86 people responded to the survey, and 55 of those filled in the questionnaires, including demographic data. The survey link was published on the Maputo Special Reserve Facebook site (7352 followers in mid- December). Most participants responded until mid-January 2021. The gate personnel also requested visitants’ emails, but not systematically. Only a few respondents participated through this approach. A selection bias might have occurred because only people who enjoy visiting the park and are followers of the MSR Facebook page might have responded to the survey. To limit the selection bias, I published the link to the survey in "Moz Info", a Facebook page of information about Mozambique (42 500 members) as well as other smaller Facebook pages such as "Bird Mozambique" (1272 members) and "Escape the City: Maputo" (820 members). 2. Socio-economic and spatial characteristics of the respondents Most of the respondents were between 36 and 59 years old (73%, n=40), and 67% of the respondents were male. In terms of origin, 58 % are foreign residents in Mozambique (n=32), 27% are Mozambicans (n=15), 9% South African (n=5), and other (non-SADC) account for 5% (n=3). The Facebook pages used were mostly Mozambique centred, and the survey launched during the COVID pandemic. These two elements might explain why few foreign tourists (5 South Africans and 3 non-SADC foreigners) filled the survey. 56% have their home closer than 100 km, which is probably Maputo. Most respondents (60%, n=47) are affluent. Here are two aggregated summary tables with the demographic data.

67% heard about the reserve through friends and family, 19% through social media, and 13% through a work event. Only one responded (a foreign resident in Mozambique) heard about the reserve through ads. Out of 66 respondents, about three quarters (74%) had already gone to Kruger Park, and around 50 % had gone to other parks in Mozambique (53%) and other parks in South Africa (52%) and Eswatini (48%). 3. Motivations and frequency of visiting the park Most respondents checked more than one answer in terms of the motivations for visiting the park (n=66). The top three answers were to see animals (49), to see landscapes and vegetation (42), and to spend time at the beach (36).

50 To see animals

To see landscapes and vegetaGon

To spend Gme at the beach

To get out of the city

To show animals to the kids To cross over to the Machangulo peninsula (for example Santa Maria) To learn about MSR

Other

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Figure 9 Motivations for visiting the Maputo Special Reserve

4. Experience in the Maputo Special reserve: fauna, flora, services, and prices Fauna and flora The majority of respondents are either extremely satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the animal sightings (Figure 2). In terms of flora, respondents are overwhelmingly satisfied with the general landscape and beaches (Figure 3).

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Elephants Giraffes Zebras, wildebeests, Other mammals Birds Rep=les impalas Extremely sa=sfied Somewhat sa=sfied Neither sa=sfied nor dissa=sfied Dissa=sfied Extremely dissa=sfied Figure 10 Level of satisfaction with animal sightings

51 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Beaches Lagoons Forest General landscape

Extremely sa=sfied Somewhat sa=sfied Neither sa=sfied nor dissa=sfied Somewhat dissa=sfied Extremely dissa=sfied Not Applicable

Figure 11 Satisfaction with vegetation and landscapes

Services In terms of services, the questions covered the satisfaction with the a) MSR staff support, b) accommodation value for the camping, c) accommodation for the luxury option, d) accommodation options in general as well as e) activities, and f) Gift shop at the entrance.

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Check-in and check- MSR staff support at AccommodaGon value AccommodaGon value AccommodaGon AcGviGes GiS shop at entrance out procedures the gate (Camping) (Luxury) opGons

Extremely saGsfied Somewhat saGsfied Neither saGsfied nor dissaGsfied Somewhat dissaGsfied Extremely dissaGsfied Not Applicable

Figure 12 Satisfaction with services

As illustrated in Figure 4, the satisfaction level is very high for check-in and check-out procedures, with 73 % satisfied (30 % extremely satisfied and 43% somewhat satisfied). In terms of the staff support at the gate (pumping tires, showing directions), 26% are extremely satisfied, and 33% somewhat satisfied, 15 are somewhat dissatisfied.

52 While camping seems to satisfy 67 % of the respondents who camped, the luxury accommodation satisfied 34% of those who experienced it. 41% are satisfied with the accommodation options in the park. In terms of activities, 44 % are satisfied. Data disaggregation by nationality (Figure 5) indicates that more Mozambicans are extremely satisfied with the check-in and check-out procedures and the MSR support at the gate. More Mozambicans are satisfied with the camping in general than the foreign residents. Regarding the luxury lodge, which is not rated high as value for money, Mozambicans still indicate a higher level of satisfaction and a much lower level of dissatisfaction. The table does not include the South African respondents since the number of respondents (n=5) does not seem representative.

Figure 13 Service satisfaction disaggregated by nationality

53 Gate and guided tour prices. Regarding the level of satisfaction with price at the entrance, all (n=51) but three respondents indicated that the gate price was just right. In terms of satisfaction with the guided tours' prices, the picture is mixed: 60% (n=5) find it just right, and 40 % find it too expensive. Respondents’ comments on experiences in the park A space to comment allowed to capture additional elements about the respondents' experience in the park. Some park enthusiasts used the comment box to express their love for the park. In terms of concerns, various respondents indicated that further construction should stop, camping promoted, and access for camping in Milibangalala preserved: - “We come to the MSR to do rustic camping in the wilderness. There are many lodges near Maputo but very few other camping options. I hope the reserve will not build up further and encroach on visitors' experience of being in nature." - "More beach space should be reserved for minimally developed and rustic camping. The park should limit further accommodation construction to preserve the vast, beautiful natural space and habitat. " - The camping is the reason for coming to the park, and luxury lodges do not satisfy 95% of the past visitors' needs. Please look at more beach camping options other than Membene. - “While it can be understood that the park wants to promote tourism and bring a luxury/exclusive offer for some guests, it is very sad to deprive overnight “low budget” visitors from the possibility of camping at Milibangalala, a traditional and fantastic camping spot within the reserve". In terms of suggestions, a few respondents mentioned the development of guided and non-guided tracks: - “create special tracks (guided and unguided) for bird lovers." - "It would be nice to have more tracks available to visit different areas in the park. At the moment, it is more or less a road to the beach and a couple of small loops. But it would be good to access some areas in the northern part near mangroves for birds.” A respondent mentioned the need to protect the Xingute lake's shores against four-by-four cars, and one person suggested to foresee a midbudget option for accommodation. Another respondent mentioned that it "would be nice to have a separate small gift shop with quality T-Shirts, Hats, Pins," and "a picnic area at selected areas within the park." In terms of negative experiences, some respondents reported that breaking down with their car in the reserve and the poor quality of the roads represented a source of negative experiences as summarized in these two quotes: - “It feels very wild. If you have a breakdown, there isn’t any help. We experienced this and it was frightening in the heat.” - “The roads are terrible and lacking maintenance. No rescue service if you get stuck. Lack of cellphone coverage. Guards are difficult if you arrive late to the gate due to car/road / elephant trouble along the way. The staff / guards are very little service minded.” One respondent reported noise pollution and partying at the Membene camping that the rangers could not stop, and one respondent mentioned that "Check-in takes longer than it seems necessary. The tire pump at the entrance was out of service on two consecutive occasions we visited." Guided tours In terms of guided tours, nine respondents took one. 8 out of 9 were very satisfied with the guide's level of details, and all of them would recommend the guided tours.

54 5. Preferences of the respondents to increase their visit frequency Most important criteria to increase visit frequency When asked about various criteria that would incentivize the respondents to go back more often, all options given were deemed significant: introduction of the big 5, more variety of accommodation, increased availability of accommodation, the existence of restaurant options, more varied guided tours, and the existence of an environmental education center) The options that got most counts in terms of “extremely important” and “very important” consist in “more variety of accommodation options” (n=36) followed by the “existence of an environmental education center” (n=32) and “increased availability of accommodation options” (n=32). Interestingly, the introduction of the big 5 got the fewer counts (n=26) of all options available.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 IntroducGon of lions, More variety of Increased availability of Existence of restauraGon More varied guided tours Existence of an rhinos (big 5) accommodaGon opGons accommodaGon opGons opGons environmental educaGon center

Extremely important Very important Moderately important Slightly important Not at all important

Figure 14 Most important criteria to increase visit frequency

Looking at the same data disaggregated by nationality (Figure 6), Mozambican nationals put less emphasis than foreign residents on the big five reintroductions. More accommodation variety and availability and restaurant options appear much more important to them than foreign residents. The Mozambican nationals also value much more the existence of guided tours and an environmental education center.

55

Figure 15 What would increase the probability to go back to the MSR- disaggregated by nationality

Additional elements mentioned by respondents that would be important Avoidance of overcrowding like in Kruger Park, avoidance of carnivores’ introduction so that camping remains safe, improvement of the camping reservation process, designation of picnic areas, introduction of leopards and guided tours, reduction of the inaccessible lodge prices, provision of GPS equipment to get located in case of emergency, improvement of roads, cutting back branches to give more clearance to avoid damage to vehicles. COVID effect An additional question sought to understand the effect of COVID on the visitor’s choice to go to the MSR: if the borders would be completely open (as before the COVID pandemic, without tests), would they have preferred to go to Kruger Park or other parks nearby? 22% (n=12) said yes, 33 % (n=18) said maybe and 45% (n=24) said no. Are the respondents return visitors, and would they recommend the Maputo Special Reserve? The respondents are mostly return-visitors and would recommend it to their friends:

56 - 84% (n=47) will definitely come back, 11% (n=6) maybe and 5% (n=3) might or might not. No respondents chose “probably not” or “definitely not”. - Most respondents (45%, n=24) would plan to come back every three months, followed by 30% (n=16) once or twice a year and 23% (n=12) once a month. - 78% (n=43) would recommend MSR to their friends, and 16% (n=9) probably yes. 5 % (n=3) are undecided. Nobody would not recommend it. Main element that would make the respondents come back more often From the 32 people who filled in this question, more camping options were the most often mentioned (n=8) as well as secluded, deserted beaches (n=8), more variety, and density of wildlife (n=8). Here are a few quotes: - “The availability of minimally developed camping and low visitor density beaches after a beautiful remote drive. Carnivores and further accommodation development will lead me to reduce my planned visit frequency.” - “Peace, quiet, rustic facilities, and ability to get far from the city. We did not like last time we were in the "new" campsites, and a family nearby was awake until 2 am playing music." - “Perhaps elevated viewing stations over the plains areas and lagoons and a good visitor center talking about the wildlife in the park and the park's history. Better roads would also be beneficial.” - “Landscape and combination of bush experience with beach relax. To spot in the same place elephants, buffalos, giraffes, whales/dolphins, and sea turtles is unique. Very few, if any, conservation areas in the world can offer this possibility.” Emerging issues - The respondents' preferences seem to fit with the beach-wildlife combination that represents the Maputo Special Reserve's unique features. - Mozambicans prefer to have more accommodation and food provision services. If the park wants to cater to Mozambicans, these elements will have to be taken into consideration. Roads and especially towing support seem to be an issue to address. - The introduction of the big five does not seem to be the most important for the current respondents. The development of new tracks for animal and bird watching might represent an opportunity. - Most respondents plan to come back to the reserve and would recommend it to their friends. The park has a fan base that they should also try not to lose when developing the park. - Anvil Bay's luxury accommodation does not seem to cater to the Mozambicans' needs nor the foreign residents in Mozambique. It might be tailored to extremely affluent people not captured by this survey. This needs to be taken into consideration for the development of the next concessions. Interviewing people who do not come to the park would be necessary to understand why they are currently not coming (lack of information, lack of means, lack of interests) and if the efforts pursued currently by the park will attract more visitors.

57 Appendix 3- Reconstructed Theory of Change

58 Appendix 4 - List of interviewees and meetings

List of interviewees (alphabetical order)

Anthony Alexander Peace Parks Foundation

Ricky and Paul Bell Bell Foundation-Anvil Bay Catarina Chidiamassamba Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel Federica Ferrari Consultant- ex-PPF Alessandro Fusari François Sommer Foundation/ International Foundation for Wildlife Management Miguel Goncalves National Conservation Agency (ANAC)

Mohamed Harun National Conservation Agency (ANAC) Henrique Lucas Malenda Regulo Macia Crimildo Mathusse Chefe da localidade de Salamanga Manuel Mutimucuio Adviser to the Minister of Environment Sean Nazerali Biofund Marcos Pereira Centro Terra Viva Anabel Rodrigues World Wide Fund Dr. Bartolomeu Soto World Bank Leone Tarabusi Ex- Community Manager Peace Parks Foundation Dr. Valerio Macandza Universidade Eduardo Mondlane

Technical meetings

Manuel Mutimucuio Ex- Project Manager - Peace Parks Foundation Rodolfo Cumbane Ecologist- Peace Parks Foundation / REM Raufo Usta Peace Parks Foundation / REM Janito Anvil Bay Madyo Couto and Catarina Chidiamassamba FNDS

59 Appendix 5- Interview protocol

Questions to the implementer of the project Peace Parks and to the government ANAC and funding donors

(All other interviews for conservationists, investors or NGOs, community leaders had similar but less questions.)

Part I Information of the interviewee background

1. Can you tell me how you got started working in conservation?

2. How did you get involved with the MSR?

3. Have you been working in other parks?

Part II Description of the approach in the MSR

4. Could you tell me about the main goal of the MSR (and how are you working to achieve your goal?

5. Could you please describe the approach of ANAC and the MSR in your area of work?6

6. Context: do you think that the historical context (existing communities, land use) and the transfrontier agreement need to be taken into account to understand the park’s model? If yes, how so?

7. Your model is changing as we talk, how so?

8. Did the incorporation of the partial marine reserve influence/affect the way you used to manage the MSR. If yes, how so?

Part III Specific questions on the different pillars of the strategy

Financial sustainability

9. How many visitors per year do you think it is realistic to expect? Can you talk about what you think will motivate visitors?

10. Can you talk about the draft management plan and how its priorities were developed? Where does “understanding the customer” fit when ecotourism is at the heart of your strategy?

6 The person interviewed might be from the areas of tourism promotion, Ecology, Community involvement, Governance or Environmental education within the park

60

11. Because of the COVID pandemic, access to South Africa and Kruger Park as well as Swaziland and its parks are being withheld. Do you think this affects interest and awareness especially from the “Maputo City” market right now?

12. Given the fact that roads within the park need 4*4 which not all tourists have, how are your plans in the future?

13. What do you think about the public private venture in Milibangalala? Do you think it is an efficient model? Why is it taking so long?

14. The management plan calls for ecotourism concessions. How do you plan to deal with the concessions that might have been signed in the past under different rules? Does it mean that some concessions are/will not be built in an ecological sensitive way?

15. Why was the community-based model in Anvil Bay not extended to other areas?

16. What do you think of the business ventures that materialized up to now?

17. What type of tourists are you trying to attract?

Ecological Sustainability

18. MSR reintroduced thousands of animals recently. How do to you plan to repopulate in the near future and guarantee the respect of the carrying capacity without predators?

19. With the repopulation of animals, apparently poaching mainly in the north has increased. What are the causes? What are your views on how to address the issue?

20. Is ecotourism the compromise versus protecting the park more stringently? What are the alternatives for the park if it doesn’t secure its own revenues in a medium term?

21. Ecological corridor of Futi: is there any way for the TFCA to go forward if the bordering park in South Africa has lions and the Mozambican government is reticent to introduce carnivorous animals in the reserve. Is there any change for the south barrier to be lifted one day?

22. How are you taking into account the effects of climate change in the management of the park?

Community involvement

The SAPA study carried out by the World Bank financed project “Mozbio” highlighted a number of issues with the communities:

23. Human-wildlife conflict (HWC): Nearly all communities’ respondents are seeing HWC as the most preoccupying issue. Why do you think people feel this way given MSR’s fencing efforts? What can be done to improve the situation?

24. Bad relationships with the park (73% of respondents) and some feel threatened by arms: why do you think so and what can be done?

61 25. Displacement of the communities (73% of respondents): another topic of concern is community displacement. Can you talk about why this is such a concern, and how it affects people?

26. Lack of support in the implementation of community projects (76% of respondents): with the 2014 community plan, all the efforts put into developing the project, how do you explain this perception and what can be done about it?

27. In general, did you see changes in the attitude of the communities in and around the MSR from 2010 up to now?

28. The 20% contribution from the park gate fees to communities doesn’t seem to have yet a positive incentive on the communities. How would you revise this redistribution mechanism if you could?

29. Do you have other reflections you would want to make about community involvement in the park’s development?

Environmental education

30. Tell me about development of the interpretation center mentioned in the management plan – how is that coming along? Do you have guides? How have you found them, and what strategies help you hire proficient guides?

31. How do you plan to use the park for environmental education in the future?

Governance

32. How did the new agreement between Peace Parks and ANAC signed in 2018 change the role that Peace Parks had before?

33. Do you see it as an improvement? What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement?

34. What do you think at the strengths and weaknesses of Peace Parks?

35. Do you think that the South African approach of fencing areas and promoting the exit of communities works for the MSR? What are the benefits and inconveniences?

36. Do you think that having ANAC (conservation agency) and FNDS (national sustainable development fund) in two separate ministries affects the progress on the ground? If yes, how so? If no, how are problems avoided?

37. How do you assess the current governance set up?

Monitoring and Evaluation

38. How do you plan to measure progress? Do you have key performance indicators?

39. Peace parks works with an adaptive management approach, correct? Where do you see the advantages and the limitations?

62 40. Peace parks just started to develop a Theory of Change, how do you plan to use it going forward?

Part IV Outlook

41. Do you expect any changes regarding the model in the MSR when it will be turned into a National Park?

42. What do you think about the plans regarding the Techobanine port and its implications for the reserve?

43. Do you think that the Chinese boats could have an influence on the state of the marine reserve and its attractiveness for tourism in the future? What about the MSC cruise boats that might be interested in stopping in the reserve?

44. Are there any opportunities and challenges for conservation and biodiversity in the MSR that you see as crucial in the next 5 to ten years?

45. FOR DONORS ONLY: what should Peace Parks and ANAC do differently to increase international donor funding prospects or finance by themselves the financing gap?

46. Do you see different scenarios happening?

47. Is there anything else you would like to add?

48. Is there anyone you would advise me to interview?

Thank you for your time !!

63 Appendix 6- Online Survey protocol

Maputo Special Reserve Survey (On Qualtrics platform)

Start of Block: Introduction

This survey is being conducted to understand the tourists’ preferences in terms of flora and fauna in the Maputo Special Reserve (MSR) as well as other elements that tourists liked and disliked. This survey is part of a study carried out by Myriam Sekkat, a master student at Duke University and her advisor, Prof. Pimm. You will be asked about your experience at the reserve. The survey should take 5 minutes. We are not collecting names and your identity will remain anonymous. You may withdraw at any time, and you may choose not to answer any question. Your contribution would be very valuable to inform the park’s management team and improve tourist experiences. Click to the next screen if you wish to proceed.

End of Block: Introduction

Start of Block: Reasons for visiting and experiences with other park Q1 How did you hear about the Maputo Special Reserve? You can select more than one answer

▢ Friends and/or family

▢ Social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.)

▢ Through a work event

▢ Through ads

64 Q2 Why did you come to the Maputo Special Reserve? You can select more than one answer

▢ To spend time at the beach

▢ To see animals

▢ To see landscapes and vegetation

▢ To show animals to the kids

▢ To get out of the city

▢ To learn about MSR

▢ To cross over to the Machangulo peninsula (for example Santa Maria)

▢ Other

Q3 How often have you visited?

o Once o 2-5 o 6-10 o Over ten times

65 Q4 Have you been to other natural parks? You can select more than one answer

▢ Other parks in Mozambique

▢ Kruger Park

▢ Other parks in South Africa

▢ Other parks in Eswatini

▢ Other parks in the region

▢ Never

Q5 You were a You can select more than one answer

▢ Day visitor

▢ Overnight-visitor- Camping

▢ Overnight-visitor- Luxury lodge

End of Block: Reasons for visiting and experiences with other park

Start of Block: Experience with the Maputo Special Reserve

66 Q6 Level of satisfaction with animal sightings Neither Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely Not satisfied nor satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied Applicable dissatisfied

Elephants o o o o o o

Giraffes o o o o o o

Zebras, wildebeests, impalas o o o o o o

Other mammals o o o o o o

Birds o o o o o o

Reptiles o o o o o o

67 Q7 Level of satisfaction with flora Neither Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely Not satisfied nor satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied Applicable dissatisfied

Beaches o o o o o o

Lagoons o o o o o o

Forest o o o o o o

General landscape o o o o o o

68 Q8 Level of satisfaction with services Neither Extremely Somewhat satisfied Somewhat Extremely Not

satisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied Applicable dissatisfied

Check-in and check-out procedures o o o o o o

MSR staff support at the gate (pumping tires, indicating o o o o o o the route etc.)

Accommodation value for an overnight visitor o o o o o o (Camping)

Accommodation value for an overnight visitor o o o o o o (Luxury)

Accommodation options o o o o o o

Activities o o o o o o

Gift shop at entrance o o o o o o

69 Q9 Level of satisfaction with prices Too expensive Just right Too low Not applicable

Gate entrance price o o o o

Guided visit to Xingute lake o o o o

Guided visit to Membene o o o o

Q10 Please use this space to provide any further information you’d like us to know or comments you have:

______

End of Block: Experience with the Maputo Special Reserve

Start of Block: Environmental education

Q11 Did you take a guided tour?

o Yes o No.

70 Q12 Was the level of details given by the guide satisfactory?

o Yes o No

Q13 Would you recommend it?

o Yes o No

End of Block: Environmental education

Start of Block: Preferences

71 Q14 Would the following influence your decision to return to or recommend MSR? Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all

important important important important important

Introduction of lions, rhinos (big 5) o o o o o

More variety of accommodation options o o o o o

Increased availability of accommodation o o o o o options

Existence of restauration options o o o o o

More varied guided tours o o o o o

Existence of an environmental education o o o o o center

Q15 Would anything else be important to you?

______

72 Q16 For Mozambicans and residents in Mozambique: If the borders would be completely open (as before the COVID pandemic, without tests), would you have preferred to go to Kruger Park or other parks nearby?

o Yes o Maybe o No

Q17 Will you recommend the MSR to your friends?

o Definitely yes o Probably yes o Might or might not o Probably not o Definitely not

Q18 Will you come back?

o Definitely yes o Probably yes o Might or might not o Probably not o Definitely not

73

Q19 How often do you think you would come back?

o Once a month o Once every three months o Once or twice a year o Less

Q20 Please indicate the main element would make you come back more often

______

Q21 Please indicate the main element that would make you come back:

______

End of Block: Preferences

Start of Block: Socio-economic and spatial characteristics of the visitor

Q22 Before ending, let us know a bit more about yourself

74 Q23 How old are you?

o Under 18 o 18 - 25 o 26 - 35 o 36 -59 o >=60

Q24 What gender are you?

o Male o Female o Non-binary

Q25 Where are you from?

o Mozambique o Foreign Residents in Mozambique o South Africa o SADC (other than South-Africa) o Other

75 Q26 Your monthly income is

You can skip the question if you feel uncomfortable responding

o under 1000 US dollars o Between 1000 and 3000 US dollars o Over 3000 US dollars

Q27 What is your educational qualification?

o Primary school o Secondary school o Bachelor o Master o PhD

76 Q28 With whom did you visit the park? You can select more than one answer

▢ Friends

▢ Spouse

▢ Spouse and kids

▢ Friends and family

▢ On your own

Q29 How far is your home from the Maputo Special Reserve?

o <100 km o Between 100 and 500 km o between 501 and 1500 km o Over 1500 km End of Block: Socio-economic and spatial characteristics of the visitor

77