Post on 04-May-2023
2
This document is the third ten-year management plan for Chumbe Island Coral Park in Zanzibar, Tanzania.
The two previous management plans covered the periods of 1995 to 2005, and 2006 to 2016 respectively.
2027 Goal
The Chumbe Island Coral Reef Sanctuary and Closed Forest Reserve
are effectively and sustainably managed in order to maximize their
contribution to biodiversity conservation, serve as a model for effective
ecotourism and MPA management, and provide a platform to promote
wider environmental awareness for sustainable development and
ecological stewardship in Zanzibar.
Produced with support from: Sustainable Solutions International Consulting (SSIC)
3
Published by: Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP)
Citation: CHICOP (2017) 3rd Ten Year Management Plan for Chumbe Island Coral Park.
Photos & images: Citations provided throughout document where required. All images permissible for
use through creative commons or associated licensing, and/or direct owner
consent.
Cover photo: © CHICOP
Design & layout: Sustainable Solutions International Consulting
Available from: CHICOP, Zanzibar, Tanzania.
E: ask@chumbeisland.com
T: +255 (0) 242 231 040
3rd Ten Year Management Plan 2017 – 2027
Chumbe Island Coral Park
4
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 6
Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Tables .................................................................................................................................................... 12
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 13
2. THE CHUMBE ISLAND MPA - OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 14
3. GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 21
3.1. The Marine Sanctuary Agreement ............................................................................................. 21
3.2. The Closed Forest Reserve Agreement ...................................................................................... 22
3.3. Key Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................ 23
3.4. Operational Management.......................................................................................................... 31
4. PHYSICAL FEATURES .......................................................................................................................... 34
5. SITES OF CULTURAL & HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE ............................................................................ 42
6. CONSERVATION: Biodiversity Management & Trends over Time .................................................... 45
6.1 The Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (CRS) ............................................................................................. 45
6.1.3. Plant Diversity in the Coral Reef Sanctuary ........................................................................ 78
6.2 The Chumbe Closed Forest Reserve (CFR) .................................................................................. 80
6.2.2. Plant Diversity ..................................................................................................................... 81
7. EDUCATION: Programmes & Lessons Learned ................................................................................ 97
7.1. School children ........................................................................................................................... 98
7.2. Teachers (both in-service and trainee’s) ................................................................................. 107
7.3. Target & Non-Target Community Environmental Education ................................................... 108
7.4. Peer Educator Programmes conducted off-island ................................................................... 109
7.5. Universities and Academic Institution Programmes ................................................................ 110
7.6. Governmental Agencies ........................................................................................................... 111
7.7. Local NGOs ............................................................................................................................... 111
7.8. Tourists / visitors to the Chumbe eco-lodge ............................................................................ 112
5
8. SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM: Service Provision & Sustainable Financing ..................................... 113
8.1. Tourism Infrastructure & Technology ...................................................................................... 115
8.2. Guest Activities ........................................................................................................................ 122
8.3. Guest Services .......................................................................................................................... 124
8.4. Chumbe Tourist Visitors ........................................................................................................... 126
8.5. Marketing ................................................................................................................................. 131
8.6. Sustainable Financing for MPA ................................................................................................ 139
9. CHUMBE AWARDS & RECOGNITION TO DATE ................................................................................ 143
10. MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017 – 2027: METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 145
11. STRATEGIC GOALS & OBJECTIVES: 2017 – 2027 ........................................................................... 146
11.1. Conservation .......................................................................................................................... 148
11.2. Education ............................................................................................................................... 155
11.3. Ecotourism ............................................................................................................................. 160
12. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.................................................................................................. 180
13. MONITORING, EVALUATION & LEARNING .................................................................................... 186
13.1. MEL for Conservation............................................................................................................. 186
13.2. MEL for Education .................................................................................................................. 190
13.3. MEL for Ecotourism ................................................................................................................ 191
APPENDIX ONE: Standard Operating Procedures ............................................................................... 193
APPENDIX TWO: Rangers Report Template ........................................................................................ 202
APPENDIX THREE: Coral Genera Diversity in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary ........................................ 203
APPENDIX FOUR: Reef Fish Species in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary .................................................. 205
APPENDIX FIVE: Preliminary Macroalgae inventory ........................................................................... 222
APPENDIX SIX: Vascular Plants in the Chumbe Forest Reserve ......................................................... 223
APPENDIX SEVEN: Bird diversity in the Chumbe Forest Reserve ........................................................ 225
APPENDIX EIGHT: Butterfly diversity in the Chumbe Forest Reserve ................................................. 229
APPENDIX NINE: Snorkeling Code of Conduct .................................................................................... 230
APPENDIX TEN: Chumbe Awards (1998-2017) ................................................................................... 231
References .......................................................................................................................................... 236
6
Acronyms and Abbreviations
4Cs Conservation, Community, Culture and Commerce
APSO Agency for Personnel Service Overseas
AWAC Acoustic and Wave Current
BMMSY Biomass (fisheries total community) Maximum Multispecies Sustainable Yield
BRELA Business Registrations and Licensing Agency
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CFH Closed Forest Habitat
CFR Closed Forest Reserve
CHICOP Chumbe Island Coral Park
CO₂ Carbon Dioxide
COLE Commission for Lands and Environment
CORDIO Coastal Oceans Research and Development - Indian Ocean
COT Crown of Thorns
CPCe Coral Point Count with Excel
CR Critically Endangered
CRS Chumbe Reef Sanctuary
DC District Commissioner
DCCFF Department of Commercial Crops Fruits and Forestry
DoE Department of Environment
EACC East African Coastal Current
EE Environmental Education
ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation
ESD Education for Sustainable Development
FA Fishers Association
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FB Facebook
FIMs Floating Information Modules
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel
GER Global Ecosystem Reserve
GPS Global Positioning System
HAT Hotel Association of Tanzania
HMS Pegasus An Aircraft/Seaplane carrier bought by the Royal Navy in 1917
ICRAN International Coral Reef Action Network
IMS Institute of Marine Science
IO Indian Ocean
ISP Independent Study Project
ITCZ Intertropical Convergence Zone
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
JTTI Jambiani Tourism Training Institute
LHCC Live Hard Coral Cover
LT&C Linking Tourism & Conservation
LTR The Long Run
7
MANREC Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Conservation
MBCA Menai Bay Conservation Area
MCU Marine Conservation Unit
MEAB Marine Education Awareness and Biodiversity
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MPA Marine Protected Area
MSA Marine Sanctuary Agreement
MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield
MU Marahubi University
NE North East
NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
NGO Non- Government Organization
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NTA No-Take-Area
NTZ No-Take Zone
PLD Planktionic Larval Duration
PSE Patrol, Surveillance and Enforcement
PUWS Porites Ulcerative White Spot
ReCoMap Regional Programme for the Sustainable Management of the Coastal Zones of the countries of the Indian Ocean
SADC-REEP Southern African Development Community - Regional Environmental Education Programme
SE Standard Error
SEO Search Engine Optimization
SES Senior Expert Services
SIT School for International Training
SOPs Standard Operating Procedures
SSIC Sustainable Solutions International Consultant
SST Sea Surface Temperature
SUZA State University of Zanzibar
TAU Taxonomic Unit
TIES The International Ecotourism Society
TOC Theory of Change
ToP Technology of Participation
TRA Tanzania Revenue Authority
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
USPs Unique Selling Points
VAT Value Added Tax
VSO Volunteer Services Overseas
WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Center
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WDPA World Database on Protected Areas
WIO Western Indian Ocean
WWF World Wide Fund
8
ZANEMA Zanzibar Employers Association
ZATI Zanzibar Association of Tourism Investors
ZAWA Zanzibar Water Authority
ZIPA Zanzibar Investment Promotion Authority
ZPC Zanzibar Ports Corporation
ZSSF Zanzibar Social Security Funds
ZU Zanzibar University
Figures
Figure 1: Map showing the location of Chumbe Island off the East coast of Africa................................................................. 14
Figure 2: A 'Google-eye" view of Chumbe, showing the boundaries of the MPA .................................................................... 17
Figure 3: Simplified Theory of Change for CHICOP .................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 4: Yearly incidents of invertebrate harvesters encroaching the intertidal area along the northern CRS border (Source: CHICOP ranger report data). .................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 5: Organochart of CHICOP ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 6: Average monthly rainfall in Unguja (Source: Zanzibar Meteorological Station, Haji, 2010) ..................................... 35
Figure 7: (Above right). Spatial distribution of rainfall and rainfall stations in Unguja (Source: Haji, 2010) ............................ 35
Figure 8: (Below). Average monthly minimum (min) and maximum (max) temperature (°C) in Unguja (Source: Zanzibar Meteorological Station, Haji, 2010) ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9: Left: Maximum current speeds at Chumbe Reef as recorded by the Acoustic and Wave Current (AWAC) profiler in 2008. Depth profiles are from bottom (10m) to the surface (1m). Note that highest values of maximum current speeds are observable between 4 and 7m from the sediment-water interface. Right: Monthly current charts for CRS for the year 2008 (Source: Mzuka et al. 2010) ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 10: The range of sea surface temperatures experienced on Chumbe through the year, inclusive of 1998 and 2006 – 2016 (Source: Muhando, unpublished data) ........................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 11: Bleaching monitoring results 2016, CRS (< 3 meters depth), random swim using 50 x 50 cm photo quadrats by snorkeling, CPCe analyses (41 frames) .................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 12: Bleached white corals in the shallow north of the CRS during the peak of the coral bleaching event, April 2016 © Ulli Kloiber ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 13: The effect of mortal bleaching. Left: A healthy coral colony photographed in September 2011. Center: The coral bleached in April 2016 and showed some algae overgrowth by June 2016. Right: Coral colony did not recover (mortally bleached), image November 2016. .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 14: Comparison of the sea surface temperatures in the two highest bleaching incident years (1998 and 2016). (Source: Muhando, unpublished data) .................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 15: The Chumbe logo, designed by Alison McMullin in 1998, features the Chumbe lighthouse as a landmark of the area .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
9
Figure 16: Map showing the key habitats and boundaries of Chumbe.................................................................................... 46
Figure 17: (above) Location of the demarcation buoys ........................................................................................................... 47
Figure 18: Total attempted fishing incidences in the CRS over time (Source: Rangers Reports, 1993-2016). ......................... 49
Figure 19: Types of vessels attempting incursions into the CRS (Source: Rangers Reports, 1993-2016)................................. 50
Figure 20: Number of fishing vessels rescued by the Chumbe Rangers (Source: Rangers Reports, 1993-2016). .................... 51
Figure 21: Live Hard Coral Cover (LHCC) % over time (Source: Data provided by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Kenyan Marine Program Office. T.R. McClanahan Principal Investigator) ........................................................................................... 53
Figure 22: Control site ‘Tele Reef’ in relation to Chumbe Island ............................................................................................. 54
Figure 23: Comparison of mean number of live hard coral colonies between Chumbe CRS and fished control site. Mean colonies are high, and relatively consistent over time in the CRS (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 - 2015) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 24: Disease occurrence on corals in the Chumbe CRS (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 25: Bleaching incidences (indicated by boxes) have occurred in parallel with increases in sea surface temperature (Sources: Muhando, unpublished data) ................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 26: Trend in colonies affected by bleaching, with color bleaching more prevalent than mortal bleaching (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015) ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 27: Mean biomass (kg/ha) of Serranidae (Groupers) observed in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006 – 2015 (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015) ................................................................................................ 58
Figure 28: Population density (ind/500m2) of Balistidae (Triggerfish) observed in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006 - 2015 (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015) ................................................................................. 59
Figure 29: Mean biomass (kg/ha) of Balistidae (Triggerfish) observed in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006 – 2015 (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015) ................................................................................................ 60
Figure 30: Above Left: Mean (± SE) species richness (a1-3), abundance (b1-3), species diversity (c1-3), and biomass (d1-3) of fish excavators, scrapers and grazers in five reefs around Zanzibar Island. Horizontal bars above graphs indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among reefs. Above Right: Size class distribution of (a) fish excavators, (b) scrapers, and (c) grazers in five reefs around Zanzibar Island (Source: Lokrantz et al. 2010) ............................................................................................. 61
Figure 31: Above Left: Abundance (ind/500m2) and distribution of Scaridae in the North, Middle and South of the CRS in 2006/7. Above Right: Comparative abundance (ind/500m2) and distribution of Scaridae in the North, Middle and South of the CRS in 2015/16 (Source: results from CHICOP long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015) ..................................... 62
Figure 32: Fish abundance (n) in fifteen study sites (Chumbe third from the left). Thick lines indicate median and boxes represent interquartile range. Error bars indicate largest/ smallest calue or maximum 1.5 times the interquartile range. Circles are outliers (Source: Wikstroem, 2013) ........................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 33: Mean biomass (kg/ha) of all finfish monitored in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006/07 – 2015/16 (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2016) ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 34: Linking ecological thresholds to fisheries management. ........................................................................................ 65
10
Figure 35: Graphic representation of the increased fecundity of larger commercial fish compared to juvenile counterparts (source: Bortone & Williams, US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 1986). .............................................................. 66
Figure 36: Graphic showing common distances travelled by different species (Source: Gombos et al. 2013, adapted from Maypa 2012). ........................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 37: Number of COTs removed from the CRS per year (2004 – 2015) ........................................................................... 71
Figure 38: Comparative urchin number (per m2) between the CRS and control site that is fished; and level indicating the target density. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 39: Mean (± SE) density and species composition of sea urchins (n= 20) and sea urchin predator abundance (black circles) (n=10) in five reefs outside Zanzibar Island (Source: Lokrantz et al. 2010) ................................................................. 73
Figure 40: Above left: Humpback whale sighting outside the CRS (July, 2013) © Ulli Kloiber. Above right: Dr. Braulik deploying an acoustic recorder in CRS (August, 2016) © Ulli Kloiber. ..................................................................................... 76
Figure 41: IKONOS-based estimation of seagrass biomass around Chumbe Island and field mapped seagrass areas (Nov. 2006). Arrows indicate areas that are covered by seagrass and correctly identified in the field-based study, but mis-classified as non-seagrass substrate by the satellite imagery. ................................................................................................. 79
Figure 42: Comparison images of the mangrove pool area (bottom right) from 1995 to 2015 © CHICOP Archive ................ 81
Figure 43: Fruits of Uvariodendron kirkii growing directly on the trunk of the tree © Ulli Kloiber ......................................... 82
Figure 44: Casuarina equisetifolia growth – image comparison from 1995 – 2015 © Koehler ............................................... 83
Figure 45: Ader’s duiker sighting incidences within the CFR from 2005-2014 ......................................................................... 86
Figure 46: Footage from the camera traps all show ‘Mr. Purple’ – the oldest recorded Ader’s duiker – in 2001, 2005, 2014 and 2015 © CHICOP Archive .................................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 47: Tracking the oldest recorded Mangrove Fisher in the world .................................................................................. 91
Figure 48: Butterfly ID cards produced (CHICOP, 2016) using CHIOP archive images complemented with internet images. . 96
Figure 49: Total number of participants (students, teachers, government officials, community members, etc.) that have participated in EE trips to Chumbe Island, accumulative from 1996 until 2015/2016. ........................................................... 99
Figure 50: Break-down of students (school children, University students, College students and NGO students) that have participated in EE trips to Chumbe Island, from 2000 until 2015/2016 (excluding trial phase 1996-2000 data). ................... 99
Figure 51: The floating Information Module (FIM) on Chumbe ............................................................................................. 100
Figure 52: (left) The Chumbe EE programme for schools logo (2003-2016), and (right) the logo upgraded in 2017 (by artist Emma Akmakdjian) ................................................................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 53: A school student plants trees as part of the Chumbe Challenge Award © CHICOP archive ................................. 103
Figure 54: Beach clean-up initiative with local students during International Coastal Clean-up Day © CHICOP archive ...... 104
Figure 55: (left) Extensive teacher training provided by CHICOP during Phase 10 to improve the quality and impact of environmental projects submitted to the Chumbe Challenge Award competition. (right) Winners of the 7th Chumbe Challenge Award 2015. Images © Ulli Kloiber. ...................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 56: Assessments (pre and post visit to Chumbe) show increases in knowledge achieved with the school students. 106
11
Figure 57: (left) A Peer Educator field trip to investigate beach erosion in Jambiani, East Coast of Zanzibar © Chumbe archive. (right) A Peer Educator field trip to learn about renewable energies © Ulli Kloiber. .............................................. 109
Figure 58: Above left: Environmental radio program sponsored and conducted by CHICOP in 2012. Above right: Live radio program organized by CHICOP during the International Day of Forests in 2015. Guest speakers included students from a local secondary school and government officials from the Department of Forest and Non-Renewable Natural Resources of Zanzibar. Images © Chumbe archive. .................................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 59: Future Zanzibari tour guides from the Kawa Training Center learn about the intertidal habitats as part of their EE excursion to Chumbe Island. Image © KTC ............................................................................................................................ 112
Figure 60: (left) Evening presentation held by visiting researchers for staff and eco-lodge guests on Chumbe Island in 2014. (right) Example of an information board displaying marine monitoring programs that are conducted in the CRS. Images © Ulli Kloiber. ............................................................................................................................................................................ 112
Figure 61: (top) Rainwater is funneled through specialized filters for cleaning. (middle) Water is hand-pumped to cisterns in the back of each bungalow before gravity-feeding through a solar water heater. (bottom) Guest showers have press-action hand-sets to conserve water ................................................................................................................................................. 117
Figure 62: The Wetland greywater filtration schematic for the education center (source: Boehm, 2016). .......................... 118
Figure 63: Over the years the Malindi fisher boat crews have decorated their vessels with Chumbe motif’s and conservation messages. Main picture © Louise Heal, inset © Lorna Arabia .............................................................................................. 124
Figure 64: Average annual occupancy rate on Chumbe: 1998 - 2016.................................................................................... 126
Figure 65: Monthly occupancy rates over ten years, from 2006 – 2016. .............................................................................. 127
Figure 66: Number of individuals booking day trips compared to number of individuals booking overnight stays on Chumbe in 2016. .................................................................................................................................................................................. 128
Figure 67: Number of individuals booking overnights set against their duration of stay on the island (1 night to 16 nights), for 2016. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 129
Figure 68: Responses to guest questionnaire conducted on how guests learned about Chumbe. Source: Chumbe data. ... 133
Figure 69: Nationalities of visitors to Chumbe ....................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 70: Trip Advisor rankings for Chumbe ......................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 71: Booking.com rankings ........................................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 72: Ratings of various tourism service elements by booking.com customers ............................................................ 138
Figure 73: Total gross revenue generated through ecotourism on Chumbe, 2010 – 2015. .................................................. 139
Figure 74: Proportional annual expenditure on (i) tourism, (ii) education and (iii) conservation. 2015. (CHICOP data) ....... 141
Figure 75: (left) Receiving the British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Global Award in UK, 1999 © CHICOP; (right) Attending the UN Global Laureate ceremony in Australia, 2000 © CHICOP .......................................................................................... 143
Figure 76: Basic concept model to achieve overall 2027 goal. .............................................................................................. 147
12
Tables
Table 1: (right) The GPS coordinates of the demarcation buoys (Kloiber, 2015) ..................................................................... 47
Table 2: Benthic substrate composition (mean % cover ± SE) in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (Source: Data provided by the
Wildlife Conservation Society, Kenyan Marine Program Office. T.R. McClanahan Principal Investigator) .............................. 51
Table 3: Mean ± SE percentage coverage of benthic coral categories based on ten 50m transects at investigated reefs, show
Chumbe is ~ 17 (±) percentage points higher benthic coral cover than the next highest coverage recording in Zanzibar
(Source: Eylem, 2015) .............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 4: Ecosystems thresholds related to fish biomass (Source: Fujita & Karr, 2012) ........................................................... 64
Table 5: Size range of COTs found in the CRS (2004 – 2015) ................................................................................................... 71
Table 6: Population estimates of Aders duiker have declined considerably since the early 1980’s ........................................ 85
Table 7: Bat species found in the CFR ...................................................................................................................................... 87
Table 8: Summary of ornithological research conducted on the island: 1993 - 2015 .............................................................. 89
Table 9: Revised status and assessed trends of breeding species, and provisional status of species not recorded on Chumbe
before as by Koehler, 2014. ..................................................................................................................................................... 92
Table 10: Summary of studies into Birgus latro conducted on the island; the techniques and population estimates resulting
from the work. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 11: Sources and hit rates of visitors to the Chumbe website (Source: Google Analytics) ............................................ 134
Table 12: Routes through which people access the Chumbe website ................................................................................... 135
Table 13: List of permits, licenses and fees payable by CHICOP. All prices listed at 2017 rates. ........................................... 142
13
1. INTRODUCTION
A Management Plan is a tool to enable effective planning, development and management of a
Marine Protected Area (MPA). It is designed to provide guidance to the MPA management team,
through the identification of goals, objectives, targets and indicators over a set period of time.
As Pomeroy et al. (2004) write, “Marine protected areas can only be effectively managed if the
managers have a firm, detailed grasp of their overall goals for the MPA, and what exactly is needed
to reach those goals. Management planning offers a practical, step-by-step approach to identify the
goals, identify the exact steps and resources needed to achieve those goals, put the process in
motion, and continually evaluate how well the process is working.” (S4,p.1)
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which the United Republic of Tanzania is a
signatory, states that management planning at an individual MPA level is important for “..generating
clear short and long term management objectives and associated programmes.” (UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-
PA/1/2, 30 May 2003).
This ten-year management plan for Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP) is the third to be developed
since the MPAs inception. The first management plan was produced in 19951 and outlined plans for
the first decade of full operations (1995 to 2005). The second management plan was produced in
20062 and covered the period of 2006 to 2016.
This third management plan covers the period of 2017 to 2027, and is building upon the
achievements and experiences of more than two decades of MPA operations. The plan aims to
address both persistent and emerging challenges encountered in previous years, and consolidate the
successes of the initiative.
The plan reflects upon the status of the MPA and the trends observed over time - from a biophysical
perspective, community engagement perspective and financial business perspective – and utilizes
these assessments to identify the key needs, areas to address, priorities and target activities for the
coming ten years.
The Chumbe MPA is relatively unique in the region. Entering its’ third decadal management planning
phase is testament to the foundational sustainability achieved by this MPA to date. This plan aims to
complement and consolidate the accomplishments attained, and optimize this strong foundation to
enable the ‘Chumbe Team’ to continue to deliver exemplary work in the fields of marine
conservation, environmental education and ecotourism.
1 The first plan was developed with support from consultants Castle & Mileto 2 The second plan was developed with support from Environment & Development (E&D) consulting (now known as Sustainable Solutions International Consulting) and the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN).
14
2. THE CHUMBE ISLAND MPA - OVERVIEW
Chumbe Island is located in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO), in the channel between Zanzibars’
Unguja island and mainland Tanzania (see figure 1). It is part of the Zanzibar archipelago, a politically
semi-autonomous region within the United Republic of Tanzania.
Figure 1: Map showing the location of Chumbe Island off the East coast of Africa
Historically the island was uninhabited, and in 1904 (during a period when Zanzibar was under
British Protectorate status) a lighthouse was built on the island as a navigation aid. Along with this a
lighthouse keepers house and associated mosque was built for the lighthouse keeper (see section 5
for more details). This led to the island being occupied by successive lighthouse keepers until the
1960’s when Zanzibar gained independence followed by a revolution, after which management of
navigation systems fell into disrepair, and the island was abandoned for decades.
15
Following this, military training operations on the nearby Unguja Island, active from the 1960’s to
early 1990’s, meant that fishermen and other resource users tended to avoid the area. This resulted
in the coral-rag forest on the island remaining largely undisturbed, and the coral reef adjacent to the
island remaining healthy and highly biodiverse, whilst at the same time neighboring islands and
coastal regions started to suffer the impacts of over-exploitation and destructive extraction practices
prevalent at the time.
In the early 1990’s a German aid worker, Sibylle Riedmiller, came across the island whilst searching
for an appropriate location to establish an environmental education initiative to support raising
awareness about marine conservation and sustainable management, primarily targeted towards
school children. Chumbe was selected as an appropriate site due to the healthy, biodiverse coral
reef, and dense coral-rag forest on the island. At the time, Zanzibar did not have any marine
protected areas (MPAs) and little precedent existed for the establishment of such an initiative.
Therefore Ms. Riedmiller created Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP) Ltd, a not-for-profit company
set up for the sole purpose of establishing and sustainably managing the Chumbe Island MPA.
In the Articles and Memorandum of Association of CHICOP Ltd, the company’s aim is:
“To manage, for conservation purposes, the Chumbe Island Reef Sanctuary and the
Chumbe Island Closed Forest Reserve. This includes educational and commercial
activities related to the non-consumptive use of the above mentioned natural
resources and the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the
attainment of the above object.” (Company Articles of Association, S:3)
To achieve this, the Chumbe MPA is operationalized through three key pillars:
Conservation
Education
Ecotourism
The concept of the initiative was to establish an MPA whereby revenue generated from high-end
ecotourism provided all of the funding required for conservation management and environmental
education initiatives. This concept has been successfully realized since the late 1990’s, when
Chumbe became the first financially self-sustainable MPA in the world.
To date (at the time of writing, 2017) the Chumbe MPA is still one of only two MPAs in the world
that is entirely self-financing3, and is the only MPA to have been self-financing for nearly two
decades.
3 The other entirely self-financing MPA is the National Park of Brijuni in Croatia
16
EDUCATION
CONSERVATION
ECOTOURISM
The Chumbe eco-lodge ©
Hal Thompson
Under the water in the coral
reef sanctuary © CHICOP
School children on Chumbe
© CHICOP
17
2.1 Conservation
The Chumbe MPA has two core protected zones:
I) The Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (CRS)
The reef sanctuary is situated off the west
coast of the island and is host to seagrass
beds, fringing coral reef (coral gardens)
and slope reef colonies. Covering an area
of 55.06 ha, the CRS is home to a vibrant
diversity of marine life, including reef fish,
a wide array of invertebrates, turtles,
dolphins and other sea creatures (outlined
in detail in section 6).
The CRS is 100% no-take zone (NTZ),
meaning that no fishing, extractive or
damaging practices are permitted within
the entire area. Scuba diving is permissible
only for research and filming purposes, to
avoid novice or inexperienced divers
damaging the reef, whilst snorkeling is
permitted for the tourists and school
children visiting the MPA.
II) The Closed Forest Reserve (CFR)
Covering an area of 16.64 ha, this dense coral-rag forest exists on fossilized coral substrate with no
groundwater lens. It has three key sub-habitats: (a) scrub, (b) tropical dry forest, and (c) a mangrove
pool. The CFR is fully protected, with no extractive practices permitted. Trails for visitors and school
children are available in the southern area of the forest, leaving the north inaccessible.
The CFR is host to a small population of critically endangered Aders duiker antelopes (Cephalophus
adersi), nearly 80 species of birds, and an array of insects, reptiles and crustaceans, including the
largest land-living crab in the world (Birgus latro). See section 6 for more detailed information.
Monitoring, managing, and ensuring there is full compliance with the protected status of these areas
has been the core responsibility of the Chumbe Ranger team since the MPAs inception. To that end,
extensive outreach and communication initiatives have been undertaken for more than twenty years
(and are on-going) with proximal communities to the MPA as well as wider society (see section 7);
routine and regular biophysical monitoring has been conducted on key habitats; and patrol,
surveillance and enforcement (PSE) systems have been operational 7 days/week since preliminary
gazettement in 1992 (see section 6).
Figure 2: A 'Google-eye" view of Chumbe, showing the
boundaries of the MPA
18
2.2 Education
Providing environmental education services to the people of Zanzibar and beyond has been a
primary objective of the Chumbe MPA since its inception. This is implemented through several key
streams of work (see section 7 for more information):
The Environmental Education (EE) Schools Programme - Operational since 1996, the
programme became formally endorsed by the Ministry of Education in 2000. Since this time
(to date) the programme has involved more than 6.5 thousand school students. Activities
conducted under this programme include: full-day excursion trips to Chumbe Island (where
the students learn about marine and forest ecology, sustainable coastal management and
ecotourism - including snorkel-based in-water teaching); classroom-based pre- and post-
visit teaching activities in schools; running an annual ‘Chumbe Challenge Award’ competition
with schools; and engaging in wider schools-based activities (such as guest lecturing and
supporting wider field-based activities).
Teacher Training Support – This initiative supports both in-practice teachers, and trainee
teachers, and provides resources and methodologies for educating around issues of
sustainability. Since the year 2000 more than 1,200 teachers and trainee teachers have
participated in this initiative.
Fisher & Community-based Outreach, Communication & Education – This has been, and
continues to be, a critical element of work for the Chumbe MPA. Outreach based
educational initiatives and awareness raising with target audiences of fishers and resource
users began in the early years of the projects development, and continues to this day. This
work has been complemented over the years by recruiting Chumbe personnel and support
staff from the proximal communities and from stakeholders directly involved with resource
use activities (see more in section 7.4).
Wider Stakeholder Outreach & Awareness Raising – Wider awareness raising, outreach and
education initiatives have been undertaken over the years targeting a wide spectrum of
stakeholders, including government personnel and civil servants, professionals working in
the tourism industry in Zanzibar and Tanzania, and tourist visitors coming to Chumbe, as well
as the general public.
University / College Education Support – This initiative is supported through both the
provision of field excursions to Chumbe for university and college students, and associated
classroom-based teaching at the academic institutions. Additionally Chumbe provides
tertiary level students with opportunities to conduct field work and research on the island
(see section 7.5).
19
2.3 Ecotourism
All of the conservation and education activities are funded 100% from revenue generated by
sustainable ecotourism. Therefore, while the objectives of CHICOP are non-commercial (not-for-
profit), the tourism operations still follow best-practice commercial principles to ensure optimal
revenue generation. This revenue is then re-invested to support all MPA operations, conservation
and education activities.
The island has a seven (7) bungalow ecolodge, and can host a maximum of 18 overnight guests. In
addition to this, daytrips to the island can be arranged as long as the maximum number of tourism
(combined overnights and daytrippers) does not exceed 18 people. The target tourism market is
high-end, with day trips costing a rack rate of $90 USD/ person ($70 for residents), and overnights
costing between $260 (low season) ($200 for residents), and $280 (high season) per person per night
(all inclusive), ($220 for residents).4
Each guest bungalow has been built using eco-architecture and technology to ensure there is zero-
impact on the environment from tourism operations. This includes: rainwater collection systems
through specially designed roofs, filters and storage systems; water heating (for showers) through
solar water-heating panels; greywater filtration systems; composting toilets to manage human
waste; and electricity provision through solar photovoltaics.
In addition to this: general waste is minimized at source (i.e. re-useable containers, non-use of
disposables), organic waste is composted, and night light is provided by solar powered torches (to
avoid light pollution and protect the feeding and breeding patterns of nocturnal animals). Also a
range of auxiliary services are utilized in collaboration with local communities to maximize benefit
streaming to local stakeholders, and promote environmentally sensitive practices on the island (i.e.
the development and purchase of organic, biodegradable soaps; souvenirs made from recycled
materials [glass bottles, flip flop shoes etc.]; purchase of fish and marine products directly through
local traders working with community fishers; purchase of agricultural products locally; and
provision of boat and car transportation through partnerships with local operators).
The staff team that manage the lodge operations on-site are predominantly from local communities,
and have all received on-the-job training to provide service standards consummate with high-end
operations.
Since the lodge first opened in 1998 the occupancy rate has steadily risen, from an average of 34%
occupancy in the first five years of operation (1999 – 2003) to an average of 66% occupancy in the
most recent five years of operation (2012 – 2016). At the time of writing Chumbe has a five-star
rating on Trip Advisor, has the highest rating (‘Superb’) on Booking.com, is ranked the second most
romantic hotel in Tanzania and has ranked the highest in service for Tanzania over recent years.
Chumbe MPA has won numerous awards for its achievements in conservation, education and
sustainable ecotourism over the years (see section 9).
4 These rates are relevant at the time of writing – 2017 – and are inclusive of all boat transfer (at scheduled times), all meals and soft drinks, all activities, guiding, equipment and taxes. Only alcoholic drinks and boat transfers outside of scheduled times are additional costs.
20
2.4 Simplified Theory of Change
As figure 3 shows, the simplified Theory of Change (TOC) for the Chumbe initiative recognizes
sustainable ecotourism as the bedrock of the program, through which 100% of financing is provided
for conservation and education activities. This work leads to effective management and
enhancement of biodiversity, promotion of ecosystem integrity and associated food security, and
wider environmental stewardship towards the environment of Zanzibar cross-sectorally.
Figure 3: Simplified Theory of Change for CHICOP
This TOC leads to Chumbe’s overall operational vision, whereby:
“The Chumbe Island Coral Reef Sanctuary and Closed Forest Reserve are effectively
and sustainably managed in order to maximize their contribution to biodiversity
conservation, serve as a model for effective ecotourism and MPA management, and
provide a platform to promote wider environmental awareness for sustainable
development and ecological stewardship in Zanzibar.”
21
3. GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK Negotiations for the establishment of Chumbe Island Coral Park, that included the gazettement of
the MPA, began in 1991. On the 6th October 1992 the reef to the west of Chumbe was declared
closed by the Department of Fisheries, and on the 10th September 1993 an area of 2.44 ha of land on
the island was leased to Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd (CHICOP) for development purposes, under a
land lease agreement with the Commission for Lands and Environment (COLE) for a period of 33
years.
3.1. The Marine Sanctuary Agreement On 3rd January 1994, a Marine Sanctuary Agreement (MSA) was signed between the Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources (now known as the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries)
and CHICOP. This agreement declared the reef to the west of the island to be the Chumbe Reef
Sanctuary (CRS) by virtue of section 6 (1) (e) of the 1988 Fisheries Act, Legal notice no. 99 of the 24th
December, 1994. This made Chumbe Island the first declared MPA in the country (IUCN, 2001), and
gave CHICOP responsibility for preserving, controlling and managing the Reef Sanctuary for an initial
period of ten years. The agreement included the establishment of a Chumbe Advisory Committee,
which would meet twice a year and would be comprised of a combination of Chumbe staff,
government and community representatives (see section 3.4.2 for more information).
Following conclusion of the initial ten year arrangement, the agreement was reviewed and extended
between the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Conservation - MANREC
(as it was named at the time), and CHICOP on 3rd January 2004 for a further period of ten years.
Under article 8 of this agreement, reference is made to the Chumbe Management Plan (already
being implemented at that time) requiring it to be “..adhered to [in order to] ensure that the
company is managing, controlling and preserving the CRS in a manner befitting a Marine Sanctuary.”
Team meetings for management planning © Aaron Critchley
22
On 1st January 2014, following conclusion of the second ten year term, the MSA was again reviewed
and extended between the now titled Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Livestock and
Fisheries and CHICOP for a further period of ten years (until 2024), with the following amendments:
1. The Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries declared the CRS and its marine environment as a
Chumbe Reef Sanctuary by virtue of the section 9 (1) (e) and (2) under the Fisheries Act. No.
7 of 2010 (updated from gazettement under section 6 (1e) of the 1988 Fisheries Act).
2. The membership of the Advisory Committee was extended to include representatives from
the State University of Zanzibar (SUZA) and the Ministry of Tourism.
3. The frequency of Advisory Committee meetings was adjusted from two times per year to
only one time per year.
Article 1 of the marine sanctuary agreement (MSA) 2014 declares the CRS as: "All the area of 300m
from the western high water mark on the shoreline of Chumbe Island embracing the area between 6
degrees 16 minutes 17 seconds South / 39 degrees 10 minutes 35 seconds East and 6 degrees 17
minutes 0 seconds South / 39 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds East." This area is defined as a No-
Take-Area (NTA) where “No fishing or any extractive use shall be permitted in the area so declared”
(Article 2, MSA 2014).
3.2. The Closed Forest Reserve Agreement On 22nd July 1994 an agreement was signed between the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and
Natural Resources and CHICOP which declared the land area of Chumbe Island (excluding the area
leased for development to CHICOP) as a Closed Forest Habitat (CFH) in accordance with the
provisions of Wood Cutting Decree Ch. 121, and entrusted management, including efficient control,
conservation management and culturing of the natural resources, to CHICOP for a period of 33 years
(up to 2028). This closed forest habitat is now referred to as the Closed Forest Reserve (CFR).
In 1995 Chumbe Island was also registered as a Class II protected area by the World Conservation
Monitoring Center (WCMC) World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and later categorized as
Class II protected status under IUCN. This categorization is defined as: A national park / protected
area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation… designated to (a) protect the
ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude
exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a
foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which
must be environmentally and culturally compatible (Dudley, 2008).
23
3.3. Key Stakeholders CHICOP engages with a wide range of stakeholders across many different areas of the project. These
stakeholders generally fall into the following categories:
Government Agencies
Fishers and Local Communities
Schools, Universities and Academic Institutions
Non-Governmental Organizations
Tourism Industry
3.3.1. Government Agencies
CHICOP works alongside, and in collaboration with, numerous departments and agencies within the
Government of Zanzibar. These include:
The Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Livestock and Fisheries5. This is the Ministry
with which CHICOP has the CRS and CFR agreements. Within this Ministry, CHICOP closely
works with: (a) the Department of Fisheries Development6, and (b) the Department of
Forestry and Non-Renewable Natural Resources. These departments support the
management of the CRS / CFR (respectively), through collaborative technical engagement,
support to tackle any infringements / incidents (see more on this in section 6) and
participation in the Chumbe Advisory Committee (see section 3.4).
The Ministry of Education and Vocational Training7. CHICOP works in collaboration with this
Ministry in relation to the Chumbe Environmental Education (EE) programme for schools, as
well as various other environmental education initiatives.
The Ministry of Lands, Water, Energy and Environment, within which CHICOP closely works
with: (a) the Department of Environment, whilst primarily responsible for the provision of
environmental tools and the coordination of international and regional environmental and
climate change contracts, this department is also part of the Chumbe EE stakeholder group
supporting the education programmes, as well as participant in the Chumbe Advisory
Committee; (b) Zanzibar Water Authority (ZAWA), that supports water quality testing.
The Ministry of Trade, Industry & Marketing Zanzibar, within which CHICOP works with the
Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (BRELA)8, through which CHICOP is registered,
legally recognized and licensed to operate.
The Ministry of Lands, Water, Energy and Environment, within which CHICOP works with the
Department of Lands with regards to the Land lease agreement for infrastructural
development.
5 http://www.kilimoznz.go.tz/ 6 http://mlfzanzibar.go.tz/index.php?mlf=dptfisheries 7 http://www.moez.go.tz/ 8 http://www.brela.go.tz
24
The Zanzibar Commission for Tourism (under the Minister of Information, Culture, Tourism
and Sports), through which CHICOP is licensed to operate as a tourism enterprise. This
commission also issues the management certificate for an authorized Project Manager of
CHICOP.
The Zanzibar Police Commission through Mazizini Police Post. through which security
support to the island is provided (when available).
The Ministry of Finance and Planning, within which CHICOP works with the Zanzibar
Investment Promotion Authority (ZIPA) to which investment reports are submitted (see
below), and the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) and Zanzibar Revenue Board (ZRB)
through which taxes and associated fees are submitted.
The Zanzibar Port Corporation (ZPC), with which CHICOP collaborates in the management of
the lighthouse on the island, as well as other seafaring issues as they may arise
The District Commissioner for the Western District, as a local representative, this
commissioner is Chairman for the Chumbe Advisory Committee meetings.
Official reporting requirements to the Government of Zanzibar include:
A Quarterly Progress Report outlining the projects’ status, staff development activities,
challenges, achievements, marketing, conservation and education activities conducted, as
well as a financial analysis for the previous quarter. This report is submitted to the Zanzibar
Investment Promotion Authority (ZIPA), and copied to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
and Environment; the Department of Fisheries Development; the Department of Forestry
and Non-Renewable Natural Resources; the Ministry of Water Construction, Energy and
Lands; the Commission of Tourism; the Department of Lands; the Department of
Environment; the Zanzibar Port Corporation; the Ministry of Education; the District
Commissioner for the Western District and the Attaché for Economic Affairs, Embassy of the
Federal Republic of Germany.
A Quarterly Monitoring Report providing the monitoring data from patrol, surveillance and
enforcement (PSE) activities conducted in the MPA. This report is submitted to the
Department of Fisheries Development.
An audited annual financial report is submitted to the Zanzibar Revenue Board.
An annual corporate tax report is submitted to the Tanzania Revenue Board.
25
3.3.2. Fishers and Local Communities
Zanzibar has a population of approximately 1.4 million people (Zanzibar Basic Demographic and
Socio-Economic Report, 2014). Of this population, CHICOP defines local community stakeholders
under two categories: target communities and non-target communities.
The target communities are those most proximally located to Chumbe Island. These are six villages
under four wards / shehia’s. These are all located in Zanzibar Urban/West District, which is one of 30
primary administrative regions in Tanzania, and has an overall population of approximately 594,000
people.
The six target communities associated with Chumbe are as follows:
I) MAZIZNI (Shehia: Kiembe Samaki)
This community is diverse, as it is host to fishing camps with migrant fishers from other regions
staying seasonally. According to a study conducted in 2012 (Kayagambe et al.) the common fishing
grounds used by these fishers include Tele, Fumba, the east (unprotected) side of Chumbe, and
fishing grounds close to Tanzania mainland. The most common fishing vessels used are Dhows (by
60% of fishers), with 93% of all vessels powered by sails (Thorkildsen, 2006). The two most common
gear types used by these fishers are handline’s and fishing traps (madema) (Kayagambe et al., 2012).
Overall nearly 80% of households have declared that they hold diverse (more than one) occupation
amongst household members, with approximately 54% of fishers stating they have a second
occupation (Thorkildsen, 2006).
Fishers off the S. Zanzibar coast © Shaun D Metcalfe
26
Mazizini was one of the first villages that participated in Chumbe’s environmental peer educator
program. Hence, 80% of the fishermen surveyed (Kayagambe et al., 2012) stated that environmental
issues are discussed at the village level. The village also has a Fishers Association (FA) (formed in the
mid 2000’s) that has received grants from the Department of Fisheries in the form of vessels,
engines and gears, as well as a community fund for cases of emergency. These have been under the
ownership of the FA committee in the form of ‘Cooperatives’, through which 50% of the net revenue
is allocated to the fishing crew and 50% to the cooperative to cover the use of the gear. However,
today activities of the FA Cooperative are limited.
Through the Kayagambe et al. study conducted in 2012, it was found that 30% of fishers surveyed
had experienced boat problems close to Chumbe and had been assisted by the Chumbe rangers,
who provided fuel, food, accommodation for recovery and transport back to Zanzibar (see more on
Chumbe rescues in section 6).
II) CHUKWANI (Shehia: Chukwani)
Chukwani is one of the larger communities, and is the community geographically closest to Chumbe
Island. Fishers most commonly use Ngalawa vessels (53%) with the most common gear type being
fishing lines (80%) (Thorkildsen, 2006).
CHICOP has a landing site situated within this village, to manage supplies on and off the island, and
thus has a long-standing relationship with many of the community members. Considerable Chumbe
staff have been recruited over the years from this community.
Chukwani has the highest total income for households out of all the Chumbe’s target communities,
with 80% of fishers stating they have a second occupation (Thorkildsen, 2006). This village has also
demonstrated considerable care for their local environment, and have been highly defensive of
protecting their home reef and coastal area over the years, with conflicts occasionally flaring with
outside fishers using destructive gear types9.
III) BUYU (Shehia: Chukwani)
Buyu community is part of the Chukwani Shehia and borders Chukwani area. It is the smallest of the
target communities of Chumbe, with only ~ 90 households (Lokrantz et.al., 2010). Many fishers in
this community have secondary or tertiary incomes through diverse occupations, including
agriculture, seaweed farming and animal keeping.
A study conducted by Kayagambe et al. (2012) found that the average number of dependents per
household was eight people, indicating Buyu is a relatively poor community. Common fishing
grounds used by fishers include Tele, Kwale, Pungume and the areas surrounding Chumbe; with the
most common fishing gear used being fishing traps (madema).
9 This has included one notorious conflict incident in the late 1990’s where Chukwani fishers tackled outsider destructive fishers that resulted in two hospitalizations and two arrests.
27
IV) NYAMANZI (Shehia: Kombeni)
Fishing is a key activity in this community, though 87% of fishers have second occupation
(Thorkildsen, 2006). Other economic activities include agriculture and animal keeping, and the
average number of dependents per household ranges from 2 to 12 (Kayagambe et. al., 2012). The
most common fishing vessel used is Ngalawa (>90%) (Thorkildsen, 2006), with handlines, madema
fish traps and nets being the most common fishing gears used (Kayagambe et. al., 2012). The
common fishing grounds utilized are Bawe, Ukambe, Nyanje Mwamba, with 80% of fishers stating
the unprotected areas surrounding Chumbe are also a regular fishing location (Thorkildsen, 2006).
This community is also relatively small, with approximately 220 households (Lokrantz et.al., 2010),
and is perhaps one of the most environmentally conscious from Chumbe’s target communities, with
an operating environmental group (established by the villagers themselves), as well as a registered
fishers association that has received grants from the Department of Fisheries to support a range of
sustainability initiatives. The environmental group has led regular discussions about environmental
issues and conservation within the village area, and leads environmental activities in the community,
to ensure people follow the environmental guidelines that have been established. The fisher
association committee also monitors fishing activities to ensure no juvenile fish are landed, in order
to address recruitment overfishing.
Since the establishment of Chumbe and the associated environmental committees, one study found
that ~ 93% of fishers from this community stated they had improved marketable catch (Kayagambe
et. al., 2012). Nymanzi fishers were also found to be highly aware of the living status of coral reefs,
and their importance for sustainable fisheries.
Community members from Nyamanzi have regularly participated in educational visits to Chumbe,
and have stated that they have used the lessons learned from these trips to incorporate
conservation and sustainable management into community life. In Kayagambe’s study it was also
revealed that 20% of fishers interviewed had received rescue services from the Chumbe rangers
(2012).
V) KOMBENI (Shehia: Kombeni)
Kombeni is one of the seventeen villages in the Menai Bay Conservation Area, situated within a coral
rag area which is characterized by poor soil conditions. The total population of Kombeni is 3,060
with 649 households (National Population Census, 2002).
The main economic activity for men living in Kombeni and the other villages surrounding Menai Bay
is fishing, followed by agriculture, livestock keeping, carpentry and petty trade (Torell et.al., 2006).
From the beginning of the Chumbe project, the Sheha of Kombeni has been a part of the Advisory
Committee, as a representative of communities from the neighboring Menai Bay Conservation Area.
However, Kombeni was considered a representative, non-target community, until 2013, when the
needs for environmental education services were identified, and particular efforts were focused to
supporting this community.
29
VI) DIMANI (Shehia: Dimani)
This community has also shown strong levels of environmental awareness and consciousness over
the years. Here, fishing is the main economic activity for male members of the community, with
many practicing small-scale agriculture as a secondary occupation. Female members of the
community are engaged in food-based shell collection and seaweed farming. (Kayagambe et. al.,
2012). Common fishing grounds used by this community include Pungume, Visiwa Tele, Ukambe,
Nyemembe and the areas surrounding Chumbe. Common fishing hears used are handlines, madema
fish traps and nets (big mesh size and gill nets).
The village has a special committee that monitors fishing activities and ensures no under-sized fish
are landed. Additionally, an environmental group has been established that deals with
environmental issues in the village. This group also leads educational projects, clean-ups and
prepares environmental guidelines for the community. Thus environmental awareness amongst
these community members is high, and many have participated regularly in Chumbe related
excursions and activities. According to one study, ~ 7% of fishers have also stated they received
rescue and support services from the Chumbe rangers (Kayagambe et. al., 2012).
3.3.3. Invertebrate harvesters
In Zanzibar invertebrate subsistence harvesting is a common activity in the intertidal area and almost
exclusively involves women who harvest gastropods, octopus and bivalves for both food security as
well as cash income. Over the last decades, however, there has been a reduction in available
commodity likely due to over-extraction. This has led to increased harvesting effort causing damage
to intertidal zones and seagrass beds around Zanzibar, which has in turn exacerbated a decline in
animal abundance and seagrass cover (Nordlund et al., 2010).
By the mid-2000’s traditional gleaning grounds were over-exploited and depleted to the extent that
harvesters began to seek new areas to glean. This led some groups of gleaners to start arriving on
the east, unprotected side of Chumbe. Since this time, invertebrate harvesting has regularly
occurred during spring low tides (each full and new moon), with 1-2 boats arriving daily, each
carrying between 10-15 people. Activities of the harvesters have been monitored by the rangers,
and in the early years of their arrival infringements into the edges of the protected northern area of
the CRS occurred regularly and required ranger intervention to ensure harvesters stayed gleaning in
the open access area. Over time infringement incidences started to decrease, but were still occurring
each year (as shown in Figure 4). When infringements briefly increased again in 2015, prioritized
education trips for harvesters from neighboring communities were conducted which led to a better
environmental understanding of the MPA’s no-take rules. This resulted in zero reported incidents in
2016 (Kloiber pers.comm., 2016).
Women collecting
bivalves in the unprotected seagrass
beds on the north-eastern side of Chumbe Island ©
Ulli Kloiber
30
Figure 4: Yearly incidents of invertebrate harvesters encroaching the intertidal area along the northern CRS border
(Source: CHICOP ranger report data).
3.3.4. Schools, Universities and Academic Institutions
Chumbe has engaged nearly 7,000 local Zanzibari school children in educational activities over the
years, through the Chumbe Environmental Education (EE) programme. In addition to this, CHICOP
has collaborated with a wide range of Universities and Academic institutions in excursion based
educational activities and research. See section 7 for a thorough overview of Chumbe’s engagement
with these stakeholders.
3.3.5. Other key stakeholders
Other key stakeholders related to Chumbe operations include non-governmental organizations. For
full information on NGO engagement, see section 7.
In addition to this, tourism operators, agents and associations are also key stakeholders in Chumbe’s
work. Beyond the direct agent and operator relations critical to promoting Chumbe to a wide visitor
audience (see more on this in section 8), CHICOP has membership to a range of sustainable tourism
related associations and groups. This includes The International Ecotourism Society (TIES),
Responsible Travel and the Zanzibar Association of Tourism Investors (ZATI)10. The Director of
CHICOP is also on the Board of the Hotel Association of Tanzania (HAT)11.
In addition to this, Chumbe is a flagship site for the relatively new group ‘Linking Tourism &
Conservation’ (LT&C) - an innovative shared network, designed to develop tools and incentives for
replication of best practices and examples of sustainable tourism that supports the establishment
and management of national parks and other types of protected areas12.
10 http://www.zati.or.tz 11 http://hat-tz.org 12 http://www.ltandc.org
31
Chumbe was also a founding member of The Long Run (LTR) initiative, established in 2008. LTR aims
to bring together the top leading organizations and businesses involved in proactively conserving
land and sea areas, supporting local communities, and showing the effective integration of business
and conservation. The group seeks to support, connect and inspire nature-based businesses to excel
in following the highest standards of sustainability encompassing Conservation, Community, Culture
and Commerce (the 4Cs) and collectively influencing others to take up best practices for a
sustainable future worldwide. Membership of LTR involves extensive evaluation of any initiative
based on this 4C approach, and Chumbe became the first certified ‘Global Ecosystem Reserve’ (GER)
property recognized under this program13. To date CHICOP remains strongly associated with this
initiative as a ‘Long Run Destination’.
3.4. Operational Management Chumbe is managed through a head office located in Mazizini area of Unguja (mainland Zanzibar). All
administrative and operational management is led through this office. On-island, a small
administrative office is also operational. Communication between island and office historically relied
on VHF radio communication, but today is mostly conducted through cell phone and internet
communications (with the island now having its own wifi connection).
3.4.1. Staffing
In the management team14 CHICOP is overseen by an off-site Director (also founder of the Project),
as well as an Alternate Director who also acts as key advisor to the project. Within Zanzibar, the
team are led by an overall Project Manager with associated departmental managers in conservation
and education, island operations, and office administration.
CHICOP has a total of 42 staff. Of these, 16 are based in the Chumbe Head Office in Unguja, with the
remaining 26 based on the island. Island staff work in rotation, on one week or five day shifts
(depending on positions), staying overnight on the island during their work. Accommodation and all
meals are provided for the staff on the island. In the Head Office, accommodation is provided for the
Project Manager, Conservation and Education Manager, as well as volunteers or researchers to the
project. Lunch is provided week days to all office staff.
All staff are formally and legally contracted through the Department of Labour under the Ministry of
Empowerment, Adults, Youth, Women and Children. CHICOP contributes Zanzibar Social Security
Funds (ZSSF) for each staff member, and provides medical insurance coverage.
Figure 5 shows the organochart of the organization.
13 http://www.thelongrun.org 14 Relevant at the time of writing, 2017.
3.4.2. Advisory Committee
The advisory committee for Chumbe meets once per year, to review progress and achievements on
the island, and provide guidance and input for annual planning. The committee is comprised of
representatives from Chumbe’s key stakeholder groups as outlined below:15
I. District Commissioner (DC) of Western District - Chairperson II. Chief Fisheries Officer of Western District
III. Fisheries Development Department representative from the Marine Conservation Unit (MCU)
IV. Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS), University of Dar es Salaam V. State University of Zanzibar (SUZA)
VI. Department of Forestry and Non Renewable Natural Resources VII. Department of Environment (DoE)
VIII. Local leader (Sheha) of Kombeni Village IX. Local leader (Sheha) of Chukwani Village X. Local leader (Sheha) of Dimani Village
XI. Project Manager of CHICOP XII. Conservation & Education Manager of CHICOP
XIII. Assistant Conservation & Education Manager of CHICOP XIV. Head Ranger of CHICOP XV. Environmental Educator of CHICOP
3.4.3. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) & Policies
Operations on Chumbe adhere to a range of SOPs and associated internal policies. These include:
A Staffing policy – that outlines working expectations and associated benefits
A Sustainability policy – that outlines sustainability practices to observe on the island and in
the office (including general procurement policies, waste management, health & safety etc.)
A Sustainable Seafood Purchasing Policy - ensures only sustainably caught seafood is bought
for the island.
Emergency policies – these include (a) a ‘response for rangers’ policy related to accident and
emergencies on the island, and (b) a ‘Fire Plan’ policy for the island.
(see Appendix One)
Safety equipment (fire extinguishers, medical kits etc.) are provided on both the island and in the
office.
CHICOP operates three vehicles in the Head Office, and three boats on the island.
Supplies and materials being sent to / from the island are transported via the CHICOP landing site in
Chukwani village.
15 In addition to these representatives, the Advisory Committee also seeks input from the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Tourism, though these groups have not joined the committee to date.
34
4. PHYSICAL FEATURES
4.1 Site Description
Chumbe Island is roughly oval in outline with its long axis running roughly north-south. It is
approximately 1.1km long and 300m wide at its widest point, and covers a total terrestrial area of
16.64 ha, and marine area of 55.06 ha. The highest point is approximately 5 meters above the high
tide level.
4.2 Climate
The climate of Chumbe Island is much the same as for Unguja as a whole which can be categorized
as tropical lowland with moderately high temperature and high relative humidity. The weather is
determined by the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), which is the low pressure
belt by which the monsoons from the northern and southern hemisphere meet (Tierney and Russell,
2007).
The northeast monsoon (Kaskazi) is characterized by lower wind speeds, cooler water temperatures,
calmer seas and a reduced velocity (1-2 knots) of East African Coastal Current. The southeast
monsoon (Kusi) brings high winds, warm water temperatures and rough seas with velocity of East
African Coastal Current increasing to speed of 4 knots.
Chumbe coastal forest reaching the edge of the beach © Eleanor Carter
35
The average annual rainfall on Unguja
is about 1,600 mm, spread throughout
the year (see figure 6). However, a
large spatial variation in precipitation
occurs, ranging from 1,100 mm in the
eastern parts of the island to over
2,000 mm over the higher elevations
in the west (figure 7) The rainfall
pattern is bimodal, with the respective
main rainfall seasons from March to
June (Masika) and October to December
(Vuli). The shorter vuli season is more
significant in the western part of the
island where it contributes a third of the
annual precipitation (Mustelin et al.,
2010).
It is suspected that the rainfall on
Chumbe Island is slightly less than the
Unguja figure, given the rainshadow
effect of the islands’ location. However,
rainfall data is currently not collected on
the island, and the future collection of
rainwater data is anticipated to be a
component in the improved monitoring
operations for the island in the coming
years.
In Unguja, the mean annual maximum
and minimum temperatures are around
30.1⁰C and 22⁰C respectively. December,
January and February are the hottest
months and June, July and August are
the coolest (Figure 8).
Figure 6: Average monthly rainfall in Unguja (Source: Zanzibar
Meteorological Station, Haji, 2010)
Figure 7: (Above right). Spatial distribution of rainfall and rainfall stations in Unguja (Source: Haji, 2010)
Figure 8: (Below). Average monthly minimum (min) and maximum (max) temperature (°C) in Unguja (Source:
Zanzibar Meteorological Station, Haji, 2010)
36
Climate Stressors
Although the climatic data itself is too scarce to enable the conclusion that climate change is taking
place in Unguja, the Tanzanian Meteorological Agency, Zanzibar Section, has recorded extreme
temperatures and extreme rainfall events that they link to possible climatic changes. In February
2007, the meteorological station at Zanzibar International Airport recorded 39.4oC, which is the
highest temperature ever to be recorded for the past 68 years in Zanzibar. In April 2005, a station
recorded 474 mm of rainfall just within 24 hours, which is the highest recorded rainfall for the past
50 years. In March 2007, the highest sea-level rise was measured in Zanzibar Town where large parts
of the town were covered by seawater (Mustelin et al, 2010). Another suspected impact of climate
change is on sea surface temperature, discussed further in section 4.4.
4.3 Currents and Tides
The most important current in the Zanzibar channel is the East African Coastal Current (EACC). Apart
from the EACC, which contributes a net northward flow, winds and tides are the main forces that
drive the circulation in the channel.
Tides around Unguja are semi-diurnal with spring tidal range of 3.2 m and neap tidal range of 0.9 m,
thus classified as a mesotidal coast (Wannas et al., 2002). The tidal circulation inside the Zanzibar
Channel is very complex with flood streams entering and ebb streams exiting the channel at both the
north and south channel entrances (Mayorga, 2007).
In the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, Muzuka et al. (2010) showed that the maximum current speeds in
2008 were in the order of 0.38-0.94 m/s. Current patterns depicted by current roses (Figure 9)
confirmed that the currents in the Chumbe reef area were also dominantly northwards almost
throughout the year, except in December to February where it is impeded by the southward flowing
currents due to the influence of the NE trade winds.
Currents around Chumbe Island © Markus Meissl
37
Figure 9: Left: Maximum current speeds at Chumbe Reef as recorded by the Acoustic and Wave Current (AWAC) profiler
in 2008. Depth profiles are from bottom (10m) to the surface (1m). Note that highest values of maximum current speeds
are observable between 4 and 7m from the sediment-water interface. Right: Monthly current charts for CRS for the year
2008 (Source: Mzuka et al. 2010)
4.4 Sea Surface Temperature
Sea surface temperatures (SST) around Chumbe have been recorded daily since 1997, in
collaboration with the Institute of Marine Science (IMS). As figure 10 shows, the range of
temperatures throughout each year has remained relatively consistent, with the exception of peak
high temperatures in the months April and May in 1998, with anomalous low temperatures in the
corresponding months in 1999; as well as peak high temperatures in 2016.
The high temperatures experienced in 1998 were global and unprecedented, caused by a severe El
Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event superimposed on the Indian Ocean's 11-year oscillation
(Goreau et al., 2000; Strong et al., 1997). Across the Indian Ocean, bleaching was correlated with
high coral mortality in this period, with Goreau et al. (2000) reporting mortality ranges were
between 70 and 99% of all corals throughout the region. The genera Acropora, Seriatopora,
Stylophora, Millepora, and Pocillopora were particularly hard hit over many regions.
38
Figure 10: The range of sea surface temperatures experienced on Chumbe through the year, inclusive of 1998 and 2006 –
2016 (Source: Muhando, unpublished data)
In this period, Chumbe also suffered coral bleaching and mortality, but at much lower levels than
many neighboring reefs, with approximately 30% mortality, predominantly occurring on Acropora
species. It is thought that Chumbe managed to survive this bleaching event relatively unscathed due
to the resilience conferred to the reef through few other stressors being present (i.e. no fishing or
destructive activities take place).
Globally high temperatures and associated bleaching events were recorded in the North Pacific in
summer 2014, and affected the Caribbean and Pacific in 2015. By 2016 the East coast of Africa was
once more hit, with high temperatures and bleaching events co-occurring on the Great Barrier Reef
in Australia. This 2016 event has been classified as the third global coral bleaching event.
During this period the Chumbe SST was over 30°C from the end of March until beginning of April
2016, leading to the second, severe coral mass bleaching event in the CRS with about 80% bleaching
across the entire reef sanctuary (though not all mortal). Live hard coral cover decreased by 32-34%
overall with almost 50% hard coral mortality in the shallow reef parts by September 2016. Proactive
mitigation measures were undertaken in June and July 2016 to remove fast growing brown algae
Turbinaria sp (with 17 volunteers involved and a total of 80 kg of wet weight algae removed). This
was to mitigate the opportunistic encroachment of the algae onto non-mortal bleached coral and
fresh bleached coral (as this algae has been known to overpower areas and occupy niche’s of coral
colonies, making re-establishment of new colonies and recovery of existing colonies more
challenging). These removal efforts were halted by August as no more invasive growth was
observed.
As part of its bleaching management planning, CHICOP helped establish a simplified web-form to
assist non-specialists in basic reporting of coral bleaching observations in the WIO and also
submitted bleaching observations and data from the CRS to CORDIO throughout 2016 (see Figure
11).
39
Figure 11: Bleaching monitoring results 2016, CRS (< 3 meters depth), random swim using 50 x 50 cm photo quadrats by
snorkeling, CPCe analyses (41 frames)
Figure 12: Bleached white corals in the shallow north of the CRS during the peak of the coral bleaching event, April 2016
© Ulli Kloiber
Figure 13: The effect of mortal bleaching. Left: A healthy coral colony photographed in September 2011. Center: The
coral bleached in April 2016 and showed some algae overgrowth by June 2016. Right: Coral colony did not recover
(mortally bleached), image November 2016.
40
Figure 14: Comparison of the sea surface temperatures in the two highest bleaching incident years (1998 and 2016).
(Source: Muhando, unpublished data)
See section 6 for further discussion on the impact of SST and bleaching on Chumbe reef habitat and
biodiversity.
4.5 Geology
Unguja’s substrate is comprised of limestone origin (mostly fossil coral rock) and was probably part
of a Pleistocene inshore coral reef system which is now separated from Tanzania mainland by
channels of relatively shallow depths (30-50m). The fossil coral limestone cliffs, some of which form
entire islands such as Chumbe Island, are frequently undercut by wave action during high tide, and
the upper surfaces bear jagged edges and fissures resulting from weathering. These cliffs, including
the ones found in Chumbe, reveal fossil coral colonies and giant clams which would have been living
in these waters over 10,000 years ago (Richmond, 2011).
However, at the time of writing, sea level history of Chumbe Island is being investigated through a
starting project about diagenesis of coral archives in collaboration with GeoMar institute in
Kiel/Germany. This research is anticipated to provide more detailed analysis on the geological
history of chumbe, and follow up of this research is included in the anticipated management actions
in section XXX.
4.6 Hydrogeology
There is no groundwater on Chumbe Island, and no permanent freshwater pools exist. After heavy
rain, water collects in rock depressions. The porous rocky substrate and small size of the island make
the formation of a permanent freshwater lens highly unlikely.
Fossilized clam in the Chumbe coral-rag substrate © Evelyn Mervine
41
4.7 Soil
Forest soil is confined to depressions in the coral rag and is rarely more than 0.1m deep, with
maximum depths recorded as 10cm (Bayliss and Stubblefield, 1993). There is only a single horizon
made up of silty clay with a moderate level of humus, classified as Lithic Leptosol (using the FAO
1998 classifications). In comparison to some mainland coastal forests, Chumbe soil is relatively rich
in mineral nutrients with only nitrates (nitrogen) absent in the parent rock (Bayliss & Stubblefield,
1993).
Around the development area of Chumbe there are also two sandy beach areas, comprised of
common sand components of silicon dioxide in the form of quartz.
One of the two sandy beach areas near the bungalow, with the lighthouse behind © Hal Thompson
42
5. SITES OF CULTURAL & HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE
5.1. Lighthouse
A lighthouse was built on Chumbe in 1904, during the period when Zanzibar was a British
protectorate and the Sultan of Zanzibar ruled locally. The lighthouse tower, made of coral rock,
stands as a five-stage tower, and is approximately 34m (112 feet) high. According to the Rowlett
lighthouse directory, housed within the University of North Carolina, USA, it is easily the best known
lighthouse in Tanzania. Even the logo of the Chumbe MPA incorporates the lighthouse, which is a
landmark sighting for travelers crossing the channel from the mainland African continent to the
archipelago of Zanzibar.
In March 1926, the light was converted to acetylene gas operation that reacted to environmental
light changes and triggered the gas light in dusk and during storms. The system included an original
500mm (fourth order) Fresnel lens, emitting a beam of light every 11 seconds. A news account at the
time of the conversion reported, “His Highness the Sultan opened the new AGA light on Saturday,
13th March, 1926. His Highness went there by H.H.S. Cupid... Tea was served in the saloon en
voyage. In a speech addressed to His Highness, Captain Charlewood said that Chumbe was the first
lighthouse to be converted to the AGA system, the principal advantages of which were economy of
consumption and the dispensation with skilled keepers. The Government now had seven years’
experience with AGA lights, having installed one in a new lighthouse in Pungume in March 1919. The
success with which Pungume had been run or rather had run itself, as it only had to be visited once in
three months and the supply of dissolved acetylene renewed only every six months, had led the
Government to decide to adopt the same type of light in all the lighthouses of Zanzibar.”
In its early days the Chumbe Lighthouse played a key role in a major naval episode.
In August 1914, at the beginning of WWI in East Africa, the Koenigsberg, a German
heavily armed cruiser, took shelter in the Rufiji River delta, where the captain
received word that a British cruiser, the HMS Pegasus, was anchored in Zanzibar
harbour undergoing repairs, thus vulnerable to attack. The Koenigsberg set forth
for Zanzibar and anchored overnight behind Chumbe in readiness for the
confrontation, and early in the morning of September 20, she approached the port
and attacked the British vessel. It was reported that the Indian lighthouse keepers
stationed on Chumbe at the time had seen the German vessel anchoring behind
the island before the attack, but had failed to sound an alarm to the British signal
station in Zanzibar out of fear for their lives. The outgunned Pegasus sank after
only 45 minutes of fighting with the loss of 38 lives, their graves can be still visited
on the small Grave Island off Stonetown.
Figure 15: The Chumbe logo, designed by Alison
McMullin in 1998, features the Chumbe
lighthouse as a landmark of the area
The Pegasus was one of 11 Pelorus-class
protected cruisers ordered for the Royal Navy in
1893, with building completed in 1897
43
The lighthouse falls under the jurisdiction of the Zanzibar Ports Corporation (ZPC) which ensures that
it continues to function as an important and essential signal of shallow water to maritime users. In
1992 CHICOP signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ZPC and the lighthouse was
subsequently opened to public access. In 2002 the tower was rehabilitated (painted and minor
repairs done) using Norwegian funds. In 2004 the island celebrated the lighthouses centenary with
various stakeholder groups and lighthouse historians locally and internationally. In 2013, ZPC
replaced the gas-powered system with a solar-powered light through fixing photovoltaic panels to
the external balustrade.
However, in 2014 a visiting Australian structural engineer highlighted several defects impacting the
structural integrity of the signal light support, which had started to show clear signs of deterioration.
CHICOP immediately brought those concerns to ZPC’s attention and during a one-month
rehabilitation period in March 2016, through ZPC, the lighthouse regained full structural integrity
and continues to be an historical monument of great cultural interest to all visiting guests, especially
local school children that climb the lighthouse as part of the EE excursion to Chumbe Island.
5.2. Lighthouse Keepers House
The lighthouse keeper's house was also constructed by the British in 1904, to provide a residence for
the lighthouse keeper and his family. The building fell into disrepair when the island was abandoned
in the mid-1960’s following the Zanzibar revolution.
After the establishment of CHICOP, architectural plans were drawn up to convert the remains of the
lighthouse keepers house into the Education and Visitors Center, and were developed in such a way
as to retain the main infrastructure and maintain the remaining original construction as a historic
monument. During preliminary cleaning and restoration, original mosaics were found to exist as
bands all around the center, and these have been restored to their original design by the Chumbe
team.
The crumbled wall on the south-west wing of the building remains as it was found in the early
1990’s. During construction of the Education Center the last remaining lighthouse keeper who lived
in the house up until abandonment visited the island to share his memories of the island with the
team.
Additionally, there remain small remnants of the submarine telegraph cable in the Chumbe forest
that used to provide a connection between Zanzibar, through Chumbe and onto Aden and India. The
center managing the telegraph system in Zanzibar is located in what is now the Serena Hotel, where
they have various artifacts remaining on display. Laid in 1879 by the British ‘Eastern Telegraph
Company’ the metal casings of the cable are all that remain today of this most advanced
international communication system of its age.
44
5.3. Mosque
A small mosque is also on the island, dating from around 1906. This mosque was built by the
Zanzibar Indian Community for the first lighthouse keeper (who was of Indian descent) with the
material being provided by the British. While most mosques in Zanzibar are of Arabic design, the
Chumbe mosque follows a more Indian architectural style and thus has some unique features.
The mosque on the island is still in permanent use by the Islamic staff who take responsibility for the
general upkeep of the building. Non-Islamic visitors are requested not to enter the mosque unless
invited.
Top right: The abandoned lighthouse keepers house
(© Jan Huelsemann), Middle right: The crumbled
exterior wall (© Eleanor Carter), Bottom right:
Starting to convert into the Education Center (©
Eleanor Carter), Left: The completed Education
Center (© Hal Thompson)
Below: The mosque on the island (© CHICOP),
Right: The original mosaics restored in the
Education Center (© Manolo Yllera)
45
6. CONSERVATION: Biodiversity Management & Trends over Time
As mentioned in section 2, conservation is one of the three core pillars of the Chumbe Island MPA.
The aim of CHICOP ltd, as stated in the organizations’ articles of association, makes specific mention
of managing the Chumbe MPA “for conservation purposes”, and implementing effective biodiversity
and habitat management in order to contribute to the ecological integrity of the region and support
subsequent food security.
Conservation efforts are viewed through the lens of the two core protected areas within the MPA:
The Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (CRS), and
The Closed Forest Reserve (CFR)
This section outlines the key achievements to date in CHICOPs conservation activities, the challenges
encountered, and opportunities to consider moving forward over the coming ten years (2017 –
2027).
6.1 The Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (CRS)
The Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (CRS) covers a total area of 55.06 ha. Of this, the proportional
distribution of key biomes is as follows:
Mixed Reef and Seagrass (3.85ha),
Reef slope (8.97ha),
Intertidal pavement (16.36ha),
Seagrass beds & crevices (3.98 ha),
Deep Slope (7.2ha),
Deep Water (14.7ha).
The map in figure 16 shows the key habitats and their locations within the boundaries of the CRS.
6.1.1. Patrol, Surveillance & Enforcement (PSE) of the Coral Reef Sanctuary
The boundaries of the CRS are clearly marked by four state-of-the-art buoys (Sealite, SLB700) that
are equipped with solar powered lights (Figure 17). The GPS coordinates for the buoy locations on-
site are presented in Table 1.
47
The presence of these demarcation buoys has been of utmost importance in supporting MPA patrol,
surveillance and enforcement (PSE) activities and promoting effective management of the MPA.
They delineate the boundaries of the CRS, which is 100% not-take area (NTA), and so inform fishers
and other resource extractors of where is prohibited to enter for fishing or any extractive purposes.
They also provide useful visual aids that are included in the messaging of the MPAs outreach and
communication efforts with local communities and associated stakeholders. At different periods in
Chumbe’s history, buoys were also provided for mooring for fishers in distress (outside of the
boundaries of the MPA).
The buoys are regularly maintained each quarter (through removal of encrustations that weigh the
buoys or threaten rope/shackle integrity), and over the coming ten years it will be critical to
continue this effective maintenance of the existing buoys, as well as consider future placement of
buoys to optimize ‘line of sight’ considerations for fishers and mooring robustness.
PSE is undertaken through a permanent (24/7) presence of patrol rangers on the island, and on
occasions when fishers or extractors do attempt to undertake activities within the CRS, rangers will
go to meet those involved on-site (by foot or by boat as relevant) and explain about the area being
an MPA (i.e. what is an MPA, why is it important etc.) and require them to cease actions.
Buoy location GPS coordinates
Demarc North S6 16.440 E39 10.416
Demarc North Central S6 16.822 E39 10.365
Demarc South Central S6 16.988 E39 10.428
Demarc South S6 17.197 E39 10.611
Figure 17: (above) Location of the demarcation buoys
Table 1: (right) The GPS coordinates of the demarcation
buoys (Kloiber, 2015)
Rangers with the
demarcation
buoys © CHICOP
48
Observation techniques include:
Observing from the lighthouse deck (which provides a 360 view of the island and full view
of the CRS)
In-water observations when the boat is travelling within CRS (in association with supply
travels and snorkel activities),
Walking observations at low tide around the island (2 rangers, one walking north, one south)
The ranger ensure that one boat remains in the water and always afloat (moving it out as tide
lowers) to enable an immediate reactive response to any infractions observed.
Since the inception of the project in 1992, complementary outreach and communication activities
have been implemented by the MPA rangers in a range of ways (outlined further in section 7) to
ensure all stakeholders are aware of the MPA regulations and restrictions, and to promote buy-in
and support for the MPA work to achieve optimal compliance.
The modus operandi utilized by the rangers for approaching fishers is one of cordial, friendly, non-
confrontational and educative engagement. This approach has been highly effective over the years
for engaging fishers and promoting support for, and compliance with, the MPA. Unlike many other
MPAs and marine national parks internationally, the Chumbe rangers are never armed, never
aggressive, and embrace only positive education enforcement techniques.
In the early years of the project this was challenging work for the rangers, as there was resistance
from fishers, particularly in 1994, when fishing attempts were at their highest, coinciding with
political unrest experienced in Zanzibar that year. Additionally, following incidences of island-based
attacks on other islands in Zanzibar in 2005, security of the island was enhanced by stationing two
police officers permanently on the island. These officers’ primary purpose is to enhance security for
the lodge guests, but they can concurrently provide arrest services on-site should they be required.
To date there have been two documented arrests of fishers attempting poaching in the CRS, but no
follow up court cases were required, and the matters were settled out of court with support
provided by the Department of Fisheries Development.
Since 1993 daily ranger reports have been kept, documenting all activities taking place within the
CRS. These reports initially focused on documenting any incidences of attempted fishing that
occurred. Overtime they have evolved however, and today document and define incidences of
attempted fishing/ extraction, incidences of attempted anchoring, vessels simply passing by the
area, vessels requiring assistance, as well as operational use of the CRS by researchers and tourists.
Copies of all the ranger reports are quarterly sent to the Director of the Department of Fisheries
Development in Zanzibar.
For the record, the rangers will also document the gear type that is being used (i.e. trap, line, spear
gun, net or gleaning), the location of the incidence (north, middle, south reef area), time of day, and
number of persons involved (see an example of the ranger logbook in Appendix Two).
49
As figure 18 shows, incidences of attempted fishing / extraction in the CRS have decreased
considerably over time, from a high of 171 incidences in 1994, to a low of only 6 incidences in 2016.
This is anticipated to be due to: (a) the outreach efforts successfully reaching all the various
stakeholders concerned, (b) the MPA regulations becoming familiar over time, and – importantly –
(c) fishers and other stakeholders recognizing and experiencing first-hand the benefits being
conferred by the MPAs protected status (discussed further in section 7).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
# at
tem
pte
d f
ish
ing
inci
de
nce
s
YEAR
Figure 18: Total attempted fishing incidences in the CRS over time (Source: Rangers Reports, 1993-2016).
Note: some data gaps exist for years 1999-2004, therefore these incidences may be higher than represented in this table.
However, data is complete from 2005 to date, showing a continuing decrease in fishing incidences.
Data from the ranger’s reports also show that the type of vessels attempting incursions in the CRS
have been predominantly boats and ngalawa’s, with dhows and canoes also more prevalent than
other vessel types (see figure 19). Though a more nuanced look at the data reveals vessels
attempting incursion have changed over time, with boats being by far the most dominant vessel
form in 1995, to smaller ngalawas being more prevalent ten years later, in 2005, and more mixed
vessel incursion attempts visible, with dhows becoming prominent, by 2015 (see figure 19).
50
Overall: 1995 - 2015
(B)oat
(D)how
(Y)acht
(W)akojani
(N)galawa
(C)anoe
(S)norkel
(O)ther
Figure 19: Types of vessels attempting incursions into the CRS (Source: Rangers Reports, 1993-2016)
However, as stated previously, vessel incursion today is at its lowest observed over the last 20
years, with only six incidences occurring in 2016, suggesting the outreach and communication
efforts have been successful in raising appropriate awareness of MPA regulations, and the PSE
approaches implemented have successfully reduced incursions attempts over time.
In addition to documenting observations and incursion attempts, the ranger’s reports also document
any assistance / rescue services provided by the rangers to fishers in distress. Rangers will always go
to the assistance of any vessel in distress, and have, over the last 20 years, rescued 167 vessels in
distress, with an average of 4 fishers per vessel (therefore aiding nearly 700 fishers in distress over
the years) (see figure 20).
This high level of effective patrolling, surveillance and enforcement (PSE) of the Chumbe Coral Reef
Sanctuary (CRS) has been critical for ensuring the full protection of the area as ‘no-take’, and
ensuring the preservation of Chumbe’s marine habitat and biodiversity.
2005
(B)oat
(D)how
(Y)acht
(W)akojani
(N)galawa
(C)anoe
(S)norkel
(O)ther
2005
(B)oat
(D)how
(Y)acht
(W)akojani
(N)galawa
(C)anoe
(S)norkel
(O)ther
1995
(B)oat
(D)how
(Y)acht
(W)akojani
(N)galawa
(C)anoe
(S)norkel
(O)ther
2015
(B)oat
(D)how
(Y)acht
(W)akojani
(N)galawa
(C)anoe
(S)norkel
(O)ther
51
0
5
10
15
20
25
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
# VESSELS RESCUED
Figure 20: Number of fishing vessels rescued by the Chumbe Rangers (Source: Rangers Reports, 1993-2016).
Thanks to the diligence of the rangers PSE efforts, and the resultant reduction of any damaging
activities occurring in the marine sanctuary, the benthic substrate composition of the reef area has
remained healthy and relatively consistent, with increases in hard coral cover and soft coral
observed over time, and decreases in algal turf and macroalgae (see Table 2).
It is noteworthy that this stability and rejuvenation of the reef area has occurred over a period when
neighboring, unprotected reefs, have experienced varying levels of significant decline in reef health
(see Table 3), indicating the effective management of the CRS is maintaining and enhancing
biodiversity conservation in line with the overall goal of the Chumbe MPA.
Substrate 1996 2015
Hard coral 62.74 ± 11.13 74.23 ± 3.15
Algal turf 12.79 ± 3.27 7.98 ± 1.28
Calcareous algae 0.55 ± 0.48 0.10 ± 0.10
Macroalgae 6.61 ± 6.06 1.63 ± 0.17
Coralline 7.26 ± 0.27 6.25 ± 1.02
Soft coral 0.80 ± 0.48 1.46 ± 1.46
Sand 8.92 ± 2.39 8.36 ± 0.53
Rugosity 1.25 ± 0.02 1.22 ± 0.04
Table 2: Benthic substrate composition (mean % cover ± SE) in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary (Source: Data provided by
the Wildlife Conservation Society, Kenyan Marine Program Office. T.R. McClanahan Principal Investigator)
52
Coral type Chumbe Ukombe Kwale Pange
soft coral 0.41±0.21 1.16±0.29 0.00±0.00 4.18±2.69
branching 64.41±5.24 25.22±6.99 45.42±4.88 0.37±0.37
massive 16.45±3.70 31.95±4.03 5.94±1.66 47.85±6.43
plate 4.04±1.28 10.75±2.98 1.34±0.57 3.88±2.00
encrusting 1.14±0.50 1.83±0.64 0.72±0.37 0.04±0.03
Overall coral 86.05±2.09 69.76±5.20 53.42±3.87 52.15±6.51
Table 3: Mean ± SE percentage coverage of benthic coral categories based on ten 50m transects at investigated reefs,
show Chumbe is ~ 17 (±) percentage points higher benthic coral cover than the next highest coverage recording in
Zanzibar (Source: Eylem, 2015)
Note: estimates of coral cover vary between researchers. This is anticipated to be the result of varied monitoring
methodologies utilized. This is discussed further in section 6.1.2 below).
6.1.2. Animal Diversity in the CRS
Key animals found in the Coral Reef Sanctuary are:
I. Scleractinian corals
II. Reef fish
III. Sponges
IV. Molluscs
V. Echinoderms
VI. Other marine invertebrates
VII. Marine turtles
VIII. Marine mammals
I) SCLERACTINIAN CORALS
Baseline surveys conducted on Chumbe in the early 1990s indicated that the scleractinian coral
community within the CRS was highly diverse when the MPA was first established, hosting at least
90% of East African’s hard coral species, including a new species (Oulophyllia chumbensis) that is
awaiting description (Veron, pers.comm, 1997). Species level identification has remained a
challenging research area but recent studies confirmed at least 59 different genera are present in
the CRS, (see Appendix Three) and in comparison with nearby reefs, the CRS has the highest diversity
of coral species and the highest number of ‘unique’ taxonomic units (TAUs) as well as locally rare
TAUs in the region (Zvuloni et al., 2010).
A range of coral studies have been conducted on the island over time, including the in-house
monitoring of coral reef health conducted from September to March each year since 2006 by the
Head Ranger and team. Through this, considerable data is available. However, explorative
methodologies between visiting researchers and in-house monitoring methodologies have differed,
making comparative trend analysis ‘between’ different research streams difficult. Trend analysis
‘within’ research streams active on the island has been possible however.
53
Researcher-based findings
A study conducted by Eylem (2015) showed Live Hard Coral Cover (LHCC) to be 86.05 ± 2.09 %,
which indicates an exceptionally healthy reef system.
Surveys repeated over a 20-year period by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) estimated LHCC
to be 62.74 ± 11.13 % in 1996, rising to a high of 75.18 ± 7.76 % in 2012, and dipping slightly to 74.23
± 3.15 % by 2015 (see Figure 21).
Figure 21: Live Hard Coral Cover (LHCC) % over time (Source: Data provided by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Kenyan
Marine Program Office. T.R. McClanahan Principal Investigator)
Scleractinian
corals in the
Chumbe Reef
Sanctuary ©
Markus Meissl
54
These differences in estimates of LHCC between Eylem’s study and WCS’s study may be related to
the different methodologies utilized. Eylem followed a 50m line-intercept transect method (English
et al., 1997), by laying transects using Scuba, whilst WCS followed a 10m line-intercept method using
snorkel-surveys only (McClanahan, 2008). This highlights the inherent challenge of using ranging
methodologies for research and the risk of inconsistencies in data acquired.
Studies undertaken by the Institute of Marine Science (IMS) in Zanzibar have shown LHCC has always
been high (Muhando, 2001), especially in the northern section of the CRS which represents the
shallowest reef habitat, dominated by dense Acropora fields. Moving south the reef crest becomes
deeper and larger Porites colonies are more dominant. The severe 1998 El Niňo bleaching event
reduced LHCC in the northern area of the reef (Acropora fields) to 30% (Mohammed et al, 2000),
however, recovery and new growth became prevalent within two years, indicating a high level of
resilience (Eylem, 2015).
In-house monitoring findings
In-house monitoring activities undertaken by the Chumbe Team have been long-term and have used
consistent methodologies to assess a range of reef health factors. Since 2008 this monitoring has
included the use of a ‘control site’ to enable comparative assessment with a non-protected reef
habitat and provide insights into the correlation between reef health and protected status.
The control site is situated on Tele Reef (south of Chumbe). This reef is located inside Menai Bay
Conservation Area but to date no fishing regulations have been enforced, hence, from a practical
point of view it is an unprotected, fished reef.
Figure 22: Control site ‘Tele Reef’ in relation to Chumbe Island
55
Through this monitoring, the mean number of coral colonies present in the CRS has been shown to
be far higher (‘highly significant’, p < 0.001) compared to the fished control site over time. However,
both sites have remained relatively consistent (no ‘significant differences’) within their own
parameters over time (CHICOP, 2016) (see Figure 23).
Figure 23: Comparison of mean number of live hard coral colonies between Chumbe CRS and fished control site. Mean
colonies are high, and relatively consistent over time in the CRS (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data,
2006 - 2015)
The Chumbe monitoring data has also revealed a very low prevalence of coral diseases, the most
common of which has been pigmentation response (average 1.25% of colonies affected over ten
years), followed by Porites Ulcerative White Spot (PUWS) (av. 0.16%), white splotch disease (av.
0.14%) and white syndrome disease (av. 0.03%) (see Figure 24). All other diseases have extremely
low incidences. This indicates the coral colonies are relatively robust and resilient (healthy) to
combat disease threats.
Over the years, Chumbe has suffered from bleaching incidences however. The Chumbe monitoring
has shown these incidences occur in parallel with sea surface temperature. These temperature
increases are recognized by scientists around the world to be a result of climate change (caused by
increases of CO2 in the atmosphere from the release of carbon from fossil fuels). This is a challenge
being faced by reef systems all around the world.
Interestingly however, monitoring has shown that colour bleaching (i.e. non-fatal temporarily loss of
colour during bleaching episodes, followed by recovery) is far more commonly observed on Chumbe
than mortal bleaching (resulting in death of the colony) (see Figure 26).
56
Figure 24: Disease occurrence on corals in the Chumbe CRS
(Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015).
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SS
T (
oC
)
MaxAverage
Figure 25: Bleaching incidences (indicated by boxes) have occurred in parallel with increases in sea surface temperature
(Sources: Muhando, unpublished data)
Figure 26: Trend in colonies affected by bleaching, with color bleaching more prevalent than mortal bleaching (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015)
57
This again would indicate the colonies present in the CRS are relatively robust and resilient to
climate change factors. This resilience is anticipated to be as a result of the removal of other
stressors (fishing pressure, damage to reef from anchoring, destructive fishing practices,
irresponsible tourism, direct land-source pollution etc.) as conferred through the protection of the
area as 100% no take and fully managed (see more on this in Marshall & Schuttenberg, 2006).
It is noteworthy however, that over time the proportional incidence of mortal bleaching is very
slightly increasing, from only 0.3% in 2006/7 to 1% in 2015/16. This suggests the bleaching pressures
on the system are increasing and resilience may be diminishing over time. This requires continued
monitoring and ensuring all best practice approaches are followed with regards to post-bleaching
management, along with fastidious continued implementation of MPA regulations removing other
pressure factors.
With regards to coral spawning, scientific observations of spawning events in Tanzania are scarce.
However, in the Chumbe CRS, several spawning events of scleractinian coral colonies have been
successfully documented and reported (Bronstein & Loya, 2011; Kloiber pers.comm, 2015).
Spawning acropora
colony, in the
northern CRS, image
taken on 3rd Oct 2015
at 21:05 EAT © Martin
Leyendecker
58
II) REEF FISH
Chumbe CRS is host to 474 recorded reef fish species (see full species list in Appendix Four). These
include commercially important food fish species from the families Serranidae (groupers), Lutjanidae
(snappers), Siganidae (rabbitfish), Scaridae (parrotfish), Haemulidae (sweetlips / grunts), and
Balistidae (triggerfish), as well as species from the families Dasyatididae (rays), Carcharhinidae
(sharks), Muraenidae (Morays), Synodontidae (lizard fish), Belonidae (needlefish), Syngnathidae
(pipe fish), Scorpaenidae (lion / scorpion fish), Lethrinidae (emporers), Apogonidae (cardinals),
Chaetodontidae (butterfly fish), Ephippidae (batfish), Mullidae (goatfish), Pomacanthidae (angel
fish), Pomacentridae (damsels / clown fish), Labridae (wrasse), Sphyraenidae (barracuda),
Carangidae (trevally), Gobiidae (goby’s), and Acanthuridae (surgeon / unicorn fish), amongst others.
Serranidae (Groupers)
Nesbitt and Richmond (2016) conducted a census of the six most commonly occurring grouper
species inside the CRS (Plectropomus laevis, Cephalopholis argus, Cephalopholis miniata, Epinephelus
fuscoguttatus, Aethaloperca rogaa and Anyperodon leucogrammicus). They found that larger species
and individuals inhabited the deeper waters of the reef slope, while smaller species (and juveniles)
inhabited the shallower back reef.
The Chumbe monitoring programme has assessed the biomass of this highly commercial food fish
family over the last ten years (2006-2016) in both the Chumbe CRS and the control site of Tele reef
(non-protected fished area). As figure 27 (below) shows, the difference in mean biomass between
the two sites is highly significant, with the Chumbe biomass of Serranidae ranging from a low of 30.7
kg/ha in 2006 to 272.4 kg/ha in 2013, whilst the fished comparison reef ranging between zero
biomass and a high of only 9.2 kg/ha in 2016.
Figure 27: Mean biomass (kg/ha) of Serranidae (Groupers) observed in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006 – 2015 (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015)
59
Therefore, even at its lowest biomass levels recorded over these ten years, the Chumbe reef still has
300% more groupers present compared to neighboring fished areas, highlighting the positive impact
of prohibiting fishing in the CRS.
Balistidae (Triggerfish)
Balistapus undulatus is the most common predator for sea urchins around Zanzibar (McClanahan,
1997, McClanahan, 2000). Due to overfishing in the Zanzibar archipelago, the population of B.
undulatus is declining. A population density of > 5 individuals/500m2 of Balistapus undulatus is
expected to be normally found in reefs where habitat and environmental conditions are appropriate,
however, in many East African marine parks, populations have declined to 1 ind/500m²
(McClanahan, 2000). Studies suggest that to recover the population may take more than 30 years
(McClanahan, 1997, McClanahan, 2000).
In the Chumbe CRS however, the monitoring programme has shown the population density of
Balistidae in the last ten years has remained high, ranging from a ‘low’ of 2.4 ind/500m2 (in 2006) to
a high of 6.7 ind/500m2 (in 2010); with densities remaining at or above the level anticipated for
healthy reef habitat since 2008 (with the exception of a brief dip in numbers in 2012). This is despite
intense fishing for this species that occurs in the fishing grounds at the very border of the CRS
(Kolzenburg, 2012), suggesting the CRS is providing a critical refuge for this important fish family.
Figure 28: Population density (ind/500m2) of Balistidae (Triggerfish) observed in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006 -
2015 (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015)
60
Figure 29: Mean biomass (kg/ha) of Balistidae (Triggerfish) observed in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006 – 2015
(Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015)
Herbivore fish
There is considerable research interest in understanding the functional role of herbivore fish in coral
reef ecosystems. Their position as primary consumers, maintaining the equilibrium between algae
and coral, has been promoted as key factor in promoting coral reef resilience.
Herbivorous functional groups have been categorized based on their feeding preferences and
behavior (Bellwood et al., 2006, Hoey and Bellwood 2011, Graham et al., 2013), and are subdivided
into:
scrapers which facilitate growth and survival of corals and coralline algae by eliminating
algae and sediment by close-cropping
grazers that prevent corals from macroalgae overgrowth and shading by feeding on algae)
excavators that facilitate solid substrate for coral and coralline algae settlement, by
removing dead brittle coral matrix
algal browsers that potentially contribute to the reversal of established degraded states by
feeding directly on macroalgae
The following herbivore fish studies have been conducted in the CRS, and have provided vital
insights in emerging key concepts such as ecological connectivity and coral reef resilience.
Johansson (2006) surveyed Scarus niger, a scraping species and found that there is an exponential
relationship between size and function, characterized by a critical size for functional importance of
17-25 cm total fish length. Thyresson (2006) further confirmed that Chlorurus sordidus, only when
larger than ~15 cm contributed in any way to the functions and there was an exponential increase in
61
terms of functional performance with body size. When comparing the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary with
other reef sites in Unguja, Thyresson found the CRS had the highest total performance due to a high
abundance of large, functionally mature fishes.
Another comparative study (Lokrantz et al. 2010) showed that the CRS displayed a significantly
higher biomass of excavators compared to other fished reefs (Pange, Bawe and Changuu). Among
scrapers and grazers, the results were less clear than for excavators, but in general there were more
species, higher abundance and species diversity, and a larger biomass of scrapers and grazers on
Chumbe compared to other fished reefs in Zanzibar (see Figure 30 below).
Figure 30: Above Left: Mean (± SE) species richness (a1-3), abundance (b1-3), species diversity (c1-3), and biomass (d1-3)
of fish excavators, scrapers and grazers in five reefs around Zanzibar Island. Horizontal bars above graphs indicate
significant differences (p < 0.05) among reefs. Above Right: Size class distribution of (a) fish excavators, (b) scrapers, and
(c) grazers in five reefs around Zanzibar Island (Source: Lokrantz et al., 2010)
The study concluded however, that compared to other areas, the Zanzibar reefs overall exhibited an
extremely low biomass of both scrapers and excavators, including the CRS, because the largest size-
class of fish was absent. Lokrantz et al. (2010) argues that this could be owing to a mismatch in
scales between the size of the protected area and the home range of herbivore fishes; as the CRS
spans about 500 m along the shore, whereas many coral reef fish species move over several
kilometers (Kaunda-Arara & Rose 2004).
62
Eylem (2015) further assessed the impact of reef protection on herbivorous fish distribution in
Unguja and also found a general pattern of lower herbivorous fish densities observed in the least
protected reef (Pange) and the highest densities in the most protected reef (Chumbe). In addition,
her study clearly demonstrated the dispersal of reef-associated fish herbivores beyond individual
reefs into nearby seagrass beds, hence suggesting ecological connectivity across shallow-water
habitats in the back-reef systems around Unguja.
Figure 31: Above Left: Abundance (ind/500m2) and distribution of Scaridae in the North, Middle and South of the CRS in
2006/7. Above Right: Comparative abundance (ind/500m2) and distribution of Scaridae in the North, Middle and South
of the CRS in 2015/16 (Source: results from CHICOP long-term ranger monitoring data, 2006 – 2015)
Total fish abundance, biomass & habitat use
The CRS shows generally a high fish abundance, with omnivores being the most abundant functional
group constituting 34% of the total fish abundance, followed by algal herbivores (27%) and
invertivores (15%) (see Figure 32).
Regarding overall fin fish biomass, the results of the Chumbe reef monitoring over the last ten years
(2006 – 2016) showed an exceptional rise in biomass over time (see Figure 33), reaching a high of
more than 1,500 kg/ha fin fish biomass in 2015.
This is a particularly interesting result when set against the ‘ecosystem thresholds’ identified by
Fujita and Karr (2012)16, building on the work of McClanahan et al. (2011). Fujita and Karrs research
suggests ecosystem thresholds are as shown in Table 4.
16 These thresholds were identified relevant to Indian Ocean regions, Indonesia and Solomon Islands; therefore there may be variation across other regions.
63
Figure 32: Fish abundance (n) in fifteen study sites (Chumbe third from the left). Thick lines indicate median and boxes
represent interquartile range. Error bars indicate largest/ smallest calue or maximum 1.5 times the interquartile range.
Circles are outliers (Source: Wikstroem, 2013)
Figure 33: Mean biomass (kg/ha) of all finfish monitored in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary, 2006/07 – 2015/16 (Source: results from long-term ranger monitoring data, 2016)
Note: Control site Tele reef studies commenced in 2008/09.
64
These results show that the Chumbe CRS can be considered extremely ‘healthy and resilient’.
Conversely the comparison control site also studied through this period (Tele reef) show that fish
biomass has been wavering between a low of only 92 kg/ha to a high of only 443 kg/ha in this period
(also shown in Figure 33). This result strongly supports the hypothesis that the closed and protected
status of the Chumbe CRS is the cause for the highly significantly different (p<0.001) fish biomass
levels observed.
Fish Density Threshold status
> 1130 kg/ha Fish biomass may be close to unfished levels. System likely to be healthy and resilient.
< 850 kg/ha Coral reef system may be near the threshold of a state change to a healthy state that is
being fished down, and perhaps somewhat less resilient.
close to 640 kg/ha Coral reef system may still be producing relatively good yield (80-100% of MSY) but is in
need of strong management to maintain healthy stocks and a healthy coral reef system.
< 500 kg/ha Coral reef system may have crossed a threshold to an unhealthy state that it can recover
from if fishing is restricted.
< 300 kg/ha Coral reef system is likely to have shifted to an unhealthy state from which recovery is
very difficult and fish stocks may be in an overfished condition. Active ecosystem
restoration may also be required, as this threshold may be associated with increased
resilience of the unhealthy state.
Table 4: Ecosystems thresholds related to fish biomass (Source: Fujita & Karr, 2012)
This finding is also reflected in an assessment conducted across the entire West Indian Ocean (WIO)
linking ecosystem thresholds to fisheries management (see Figure 34). Here, McClanahan et al.
(2011) have revealed a high significant difference in fishable biomass in Tanzania, between ‘closed’
sites (such as Chumbe) compared to semi-restricted and fished sites.
Skoglund (2014) also undertook a study evaluating No-Take Areas (NTAs) and multiple use areas
with different management levels in Tanzania and Mozambique. He also found that NTAs (including
Chumbe) generated more fish species, higher biomass and higher individual fish weight compared to
multiple use areas. Furthermore, Skoglund found that private managed reserves like Chumbe were
more efficient in terms of conserving higher number of fish species and generating higher fish
biomass compared to government managed reserves.
65
Figure 34: Linking ecological thresholds to fisheries management.
(A) Estimated fishable biomass thresholds (±SE) among Indian Ocean (IO) reefs. Filled circles are posterior mean estimates, and vertical lines are 95% confidence intervals. Horizontal dotted lines define the boundaries of the hypothesized 0.25–0.5 BMMSY window. (B) Mean (±95% confidence intervals) biomass of reef fishes by country and fisheries management, for the studied regions based on sites. Countries on the x axis are ordered by the log of national population per kilometer of coastline, increasing from left to right (Source: McClanahan, 2011).
Impact on wider fisheries
The enhanced biomass and density of species within an NTA is recognized in fisheries science to
increase the reproductive potential of commercially important fish species by protecting individuals
that are then able to grow to larger individual sizes, making them exponentially more fecund than
their smaller, younger counterparts (as illustrated in Figure 35).
Additionally, NTAs are recognized in fisheries science as to enable a ‘spillover’ effect to occur,
whereby fish from within an NTA travel to neighbouring fished areas and can support the
maintenance and enhancement of overall yields in proximal fisheries. As such, NTAs are a commonly
utilized tool within a suite of wider fishery management mechanisms.
66
Figure 35: Graphic representation of the increased fecundity of larger commercial fish compared to juvenile
counterparts (source: Bortone & Williams, US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 1986).
Studies using tagged fish from with an NTA have shown some individuals travelling distances of
many km’s especially under specific circumstances e.g. spawning (Kaunda-Arara & Rose, 2004).
However, many common commercially important reef fish have movement limited to a few km’s
from an NTA (Holland et al., 1996; Meyer et al., 2000). Figure 36 shows the distances travelled by
various species as a common indicator.
Figure 36: Graphic showing common distances travelled by different species (Source: Gombos et al., 2013, adapted from Maypa 2012).
67
On Chumbe, a study conducted in 2006 showed that there were significant gradients in density and
biomass occurring across reserve boundaries, and that commercially important fish were capable
(and observed through tagging) to be moving out of the CRS to nearby fishing grounds. This study
showed that fish tagged on Chumbe were recaptured in fishing grounds up to 4 km away (Tyler,
2006).
Using data gathered from fish tagging, habitat surveys and interviews with local fishermen, this
study also showed that “There was indirect evidence of spillover (net emigration of adult fish) from
[the] NTA.” and 94% of fishermen interviewed said they believed that fish inside the park do travel
out and are caught (Tyler, 2006: 179)
Klaus (2012) showed that the Chumbe CRS fish community composition differed between coral reef
and seagrass habitats: 72 species were only seen in the coral reef, 14 were only observed in the
seagrass bed and 53 species were counted in both habitats. Most of the species showed a
significantly higher habitat use at daytime and 13 species revealed a significantly higher habitat use
during high tide. Kruse et al (2015) further suggest two distinct fish communities in the CRS, with the
coral reef comprising a higher species richness and heterogeneity than the seagrass bed. Through
their routine migrations mobile fishes can therefore, provide important functional links between
those two habitats and can cause predictable short-term variations in fish communities.
Studies conducted in wider areas across Zanzibar have shown that half of all fish species found
within the Zanzibar seascape (including the Chumbe CRS) use more than one habitat (Berkström,
2010); and overall, half of all piscivores and about one third of fish/invertebrate feeders found on
Zanzibar’s coral reefs use an alternative habitat as juveniles. This shows that habitat connectivity and
multi-habitat usage of fish is a general and important characteristic in the region and further
supports the notion that fish from with the Chumbe CRS are indeed ‘spilling over’ to support
enhanced fisheries yields locally and enhance food security.
In the future, further monitoring and assessment of proximal potential spillover levels will be useful
for enabling greater understanding of Chumbe’s impact on local fisheries, and for supporting
improved articulation of the MPAs interconnectivity with food security in the region.
Larval disperal
While there is substantial knowledge within fisheries science of the movements of adult and juvenile
fishes and how they are affected by MPA’s, there is a large gap in the knowledge of how the
planktionic larval duration (PLD) of fishes is affected by MPAs and the implications of MPAs on larval
recruitment (Hedberg, 2015).
Muzuka et al. (2010) describes the main current flow past Chumbe Island as northbound during
flood tide and to some extent it even keeps flowing north during ebb tide. Based on this, Muzuka
also suggests that the MPA is very likely to be a source of coral larvae for areas further north. The
study conducted by Hedberg (2015), examining larval abundance and distribution across a range of
areas in Zanzibar, found a low abundance of larvae on Chumbe. However – critically – the study was
conducted near Chumbe island, but outside of the protected area, which Hedberg suggests may
68
have affected the results substantially, as the distance from the reef crest was at least 100 m (300 m
from land) and above a depth of more than 20 m. This differed considerably from the general
sampling of the other sites examined across Zanzibar, and might explain the low abundance of
larvae, as bathymetry affecting eddies and small localized flows is very different that far out and as it
is substantially deeper, leaving room for more depth related stratification.
Although fish larvae are much more capable of swimming and retaining their position than coral
larvae (Wolanski and Kingsford 2014), the low abundance of larvae is cause for further studies of
localized flow influence on dispersal from, and retention at, Chumbe Island. As no deep tows were
carried out, this could be one bias for the low abundance result. However, at other sites in Zanzibar
where deep tows were carried out they generally reflected the same results as more shallow tows,
meaning that sites with low general abundances had low abundances across all habitats and sites
with high general abundances had high abundances across all habitats.
Therefore, further studies of larval abundance and dispersal would be valuable to undertake on
Chumbe in the coming years. Additionally, spawning activities for any present species should be
monitored, as the timing of spawning and the bathymetry strongly influences how eggs and/or
larvae disperse by means of water flow.
As the literature on flow dynamics influencing dispersal and retention in reef and seagrass
environments is sparse, due to the fact that fisheries biologists typically study pelagic fishes living
offshore and oceanographers generally work on larger scale oceanic flows (Bakun 2006; Hamner and
Largier 2012), this is a field of research in dire need of exploration.
A blue-spotted Sting-ray in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary ©
Markus Meissl
69
Further, models trying to predict the spatial fate of eggs and larvae indicate that dispersal and
retention is dependent on seasonal cycles of hydrodynamics as well, and relatively short dispersal in
the order of 10’s of kilometers rather than 100’s of kilometers may be expected (Cowen et al. 2003).
The short dispersal distances suggested by Cowen et al. (2003) indicate that even if dispersed rather
than retained, management of protected areas need to consider this, and MPAs such as Chumbe
that are located directly next to important fishing grounds may produce larvae dispersal that has
more immediate impact on surrounding fisheries than isolated or distant MPAs from fishing
grounds.
Further studies into this area will be important in the future and will be highlighted in the associated
‘Research Plan’ being developed in conjunction with this management plan (see more information in
section 11).
III) PORIFERA (SPONGES) Helber et al. (2016) suggests that sponges in Zanzibar are actually competitors to reef-building
corals, due to their strong chemical defenses and their ability as filter-feeders to thrive in more
productive waters, suggesting their adaptiveness could possibly lead to a phase-shift from coral to
sponge dominance.
Unfortunately, the sponge fauna of the Zanzibar Archipelago is poorly studied. Studies have
suggested at least five identified species are present in the CRS intertidal area (Spheciospongia
florida, Tedania anhelans and Carteriospongia foliascens –Sawicki, 2000; and Biemna humilis,
Haliclona fascigera –Kloiber pers.comm, 2016). However, a study by Marshall (2009) found 19
distinct sponge species present, though their taxanomic classification is as yet unclear.
With no formal inventory or monitoring system in place, clarity on sponge diversity in the CRS
remains unclear. This will be an area to address in the coming ten years, and partner universities
have already shown interest to engage in researching and systemizing surveying of this fauna in the
future (discussed further in section 11).
Blue Sponge on the Chumbe Reef © Marshall
70
IV) MOLLUSCS A considerable diversity of molluscs have been observed in the Chumbe CRS, including cephalopods
(squids, cuttlefish and octopus), gastropods (sea slugs, nudibranchs etc.) and bivalves (razor clams,
cockles, and members of the genus Tridacna). A total of 65 different mollusk species have been
documented from casual observations, however, no thorough mollusc inventory has been
undertaken to date.
One of the most prevalent molluscs in Chumbe’s waters is Andara antiquata (cockle) and these
occur in both the CRS and extensively on the eastern side of Chumbe Island (which is not within the
protected area). Throughout the year during spring low tides (each full and new moon) this species is
extensively harvested from the non-protected eastern side of the island. At this time 1-2 boats arrive
daily, with between 10-15 people on board, to work gleaning the inter-tidal of this species in the
non-protected area.
From research undertaken (Jacobsen & Esherick, 2007) seagrass beds appear to have significantly
higher cockle densities compared to other habitats in the intertidal. Interestingly however, no
significant difference in density of this species appears to be observed between the protected and
unprotected side.
V) ECHINODERMS
A wide range of echinoderms have been observed in the Chumbe CRS. This is the common name
given to any member of the phylum Echinodermata, recognizable by their (usually five-point) radial
symmetry, and including animals such as Asteroidea (starfish), sea cucumbers, and urchins.
Asteroidea
Studies conducted in 2001 (Barr & Rasmussen) identified up to 15 different species of starfish in the
CRS (over a two-week study period). However, a full and complete inventory has yet to be
undertaken.
One of the starfish present in varying levels of abundance at times, and of most concern, is
Acanthaster planci (the Crown-of-Thorns). These starfish are hard coral predators, feeding
preferably on polyps of staghorn corals from the genus Acropora which are important and abundant
reef-building corals in the CRS. Over the years there have been several COT outbreaks on the
Chumbe reef that have required management action through the physical removal of the species
from the reef area.
This first took place in 2004, when increased densities of COTs were noticed inside the CRS. A
manual COT removal program was initiated which involved park rangers collecting, counting and
measuring all COTs detected during random swims inside the CRS. A staggering 1,297 COTs were
removed in 2004, with a further 1,597 removed in 2005.
71
Figure 37 shows that after this outbreak in 2004/05, the number of COTs observed and removed has
decreased dramatically, and since September 2015 no COTs have been removed due to very few
sightings.
Figure 37: Number of COTs removed from the CRS per year (2004 – 2015)
Size information of COTs per year since 2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Min (cm) 8 13 16 15 15 20 16 14 8 5 10 8
Max (cm) 45 37 32 34 40 31 33 32 46 36 35 31
Av. Size (cm) 25.0 23.2 24.5 26.4 38.1 25.3 24.8 25.81 28.8 25.5 28.9 26.19
Table 5: Size range of COTs found in the CRS (2004 – 2015)
In 2008, Muhando & Lanshammar looked at coral mortality and recovery after the major El Niño
event in 1998, and compared it to coral mortality and recovery after Crown-of-Thorns (COT)
outbreaks - comparing the Chumbe reef (protected and managed) with control sites of unprotected
/ unmanaged reefs (Bawe and Changuu). Benthic data from the three islands showed that during the
El Niño event in 1998 the % cover of Acropora corals dropped to around 10-15%, after which a slow
coral recovery could be seen on all reefs. However, after the major COT outbreak in 2002/03, the %
cover of Acropora corals dropped dramatically further down to around only 1% on the two
unmanaged reefs, while on Chumbe the Acropora coverage recovered to pre-bleaching levels.
This suggests the COT removal activities have been vital to maintaining the health of the reef,
particularly the Acropora fields, and indicates the success of this programme at tackling the threat of
COTs.
72
In future however, it will be worthwhile exploring and establishing density thresholds for COTs that
can be utilized by management to trigger the COT removal process if and when necessary; as COTs
are a part of the ecosystem, and removal at low densities may not be necessary.
Sea cucumbers
In Zanzibar local people do not recognize sea cucumbers as food items, but since the 1960’s these
animals have become a high valued fishery export (beche-de-mer), putting sea cucumbers
throughout the Zanzibar archipelago under increasingly high fishing pressure (Eriksson et al, 2010).
In the CRS, a study conducted in 2004 identified 28 species of sea cucumbers present within the CRS,
compared to only 8 species present on the western (unprotected) side of the island (Blaine, 2004).
In 2010, Eriksson et al. found that the Chumbe protected reef was the only site in Unguja where the
high value black teatfish sea cucumber species (Holothuria nobilis) occurred (at an abundance of 1.2
ind/ha) as well as the medium value Herrmanns species (Stichopus herrmanni – at 9 ind/ha) and
Thelenota anax (at 2.5 ind/ha).
In addition to this, the study found that the Chumbe CRS had a ten times higher density for the
medium value species Holothuria atra (5 ind/ha) compared to the sampled areas open to fishing.
This endorses and highlights the importance of the MPA as a refuge for commercially over-exploited
species.
Sea urchins Population increases of the long-spined sea urchin Diadema setosum around Zanzibar are believed
to have caused loss of seagrass beds and coral cover, and possibly competitive exclusion of
herbivorous fishes. This has prompted both conservation organizations and local fishermen to call
for management of this species. However, the population dynamics of Diadema setosum are poorly
understood, and the effects of any management initiatives are difficult to predict.
Sea urchin density is considered to be an important indicator for live coral cover, and as part of
CHICOP’s annual Coral Reef Monitoring program, since 2006, the distribution, abundance and
density of the following sea urchin species has been recorded: Diadema setosum, Diadema savignyi,
Echinothrix diadema, Echinometra mathaei. Assessments have been undertaken within the Chumbe
CRS and at the unprotected, fished control site on Tele Reef.
The resultant observed densities of these species has then been assessed against a regional target
density of less than 1 urchin/m2 (as recommended in McClanahan, 2014). Figure 38 shows the results
of these surveys since 2006 (with the blue line indicating the regional target density). As the graph
shows, the Chumbe CRS reached this target in 2008 (14 years after protection) and since then sea
urchin density has further decreased, while density levels on the control fished site also studied (Tele
reef) are still high, likely due to predator exploitation (Lokrantz et al. 2010).
73
Figure 38: Comparative urchin number (per m2) between the CRS and control site that is fished; and level indicating the
target density.
Figure 39: Mean (± SE) density and species composition of sea urchins (n= 20) and sea urchin predator abundance (black
circles) (n=10) in five reefs outside Zanzibar Island (Source: Lokrantz et al., 2010)
74
VI) OTHER MARINE INVERTEBRATES
In addition to the various invertebrate families and species discussed in the previous section, it
should be recognized that a full invertebrate inventory of Chumbe has yet to be conducted. In one
very brief study in 2000 (Sawicki) 89 different invertebrate species were identified in the CRS inter-
tidal alone; suggesting further research could reveal far more about the invertebrate assemblage
present in the area.
Additionally, WCS led studies have suggested that invertebrate studies can also be useful for
assessing the relative effect of different species and trophic interactions between fish and
invertebrates inside reserves, as many fish species interact with invertebrates, partly as a food
source but also in terms of competition for food (McClanahan et al., 2011).
VII) MARINE TURTLES
Out of the five species of marine turtles occurring in Tanzania’s waters, two species – the
endangered Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and critically endangered Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricate) are commonly seen within the CRS. Both species use the CRS as a foraging habitat but do
not nest on Chumbe Island due to the limited and fluctuating beach habitat available.
Although turtle conservation and management efforts are underway in some areas of Tanzania
including Unguja, the conservation status of turtles in Tanzania remains largely unknown.
Information concerning population dynamics is incomplete, while knowledge of nesting populations
and feeding habitats is patchy, and of developmental habitats almost non-existent (Muir, 2005).
VIII) MARINE MAMMALS
Marine mammals (ceataceans) are transitory visitors to the CRS. Out of 19 species reported from
Tanzanian waters (Nationwide Survey of Cetaceans in Tanzania, WCS report 2016), three dolphin
species have been observed with relative frequency within the protected area: the Spinner dolphin
(Stenella longirostris), Indo-pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) and Humpback dolphin
(Sousa plumbea former Sousa chinensis).
Indian Ocean humpback dolphin (Sousa plumbea) In 2014, a major taxonomic change in the genus Sousa resulted in formal recognition of the Indian
Ocean humpback dolphin (S. plumbea) as a distinct species (Jefferson and Rosenbaum, 2014). Prior
to this change, humpback dolphins from South Africa to Australia were classified as the Indo-Pacific
humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) (Jefferson and Karczmarski, 2001).
76
The main diagnostic feature in Sousa plumbea is a distinctive dorsal hump that is present in young
animals and gets progressively larger in older animals, especially males. The dorsal fin is small and
sits on top of the dorsal hump. In Unguja, Indian Ocean humpback dolphins occur in small groups
(sometimes mixed with Indo-pacific bottlenose dolphins), generally less than 10 individuals; they are
very shy and do not approach boats. S. plumbea’s IUCN Redlist status is currently in review but
Braulik et al. (2015) suggests the species qualifies for “endangered” listing, which makes future
monitoring of sightings records by CHICOP highly recommended.
Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Humpback whales visit Tanzania seasonally and are present from roughly June to November with the
peak in numbers in August and September. During this period they are occasionally observed passing
by the outside of the CRS.
Since 2008, CHICOP has been documenting sightings as part of a wider network of volunteer
observers scattered along the entire coastline of Tanzania (Samaki Consultants Ltd. 2010).
Moreover, CHICOP has participated in an acoustic monitoring project conducted by the Tanzania
Program of WCS whereby an underwater acoustic recorder was deployed at the bottom of CHICOP’s
southern demarcation buoy from July to November 2016 (see Figure 40). Since Humpback whales
are highly vocal (they produce social sounds for communication and feeding, while males produce
complex songs) the recorder can detect whales from 5 to 50km away.
The collected data is being analysed at the time of writing, but will hopefully reveal more insights in
whale migration, identification of high-use habitat areas, and allow a comparison of the relative
numbers of whales visiting Zanzibar and their distribution in these waters. The data will also be
examined to look for the presence of Blue Whales, Sperm Whales, and Beaked Whales - all little
known species in the region.
Figure 40: Above left: Humpback whale sighting outside the CRS (July, 2013) © Ulli Kloiber. Above right: Dr. Braulik
deploying an acoustic recorder in CRS (August, 2016) © Ulli Kloiber.
78
6.1.3. Plant Diversity in the Coral Reef Sanctuary
Plant life in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary consists primarily of seagrass and benthic algae.
I) SEAGRASS
A seagrass area over 140,321 m2 surrounds Chumbe Island, often characterized by small and patchy
seagrass beds (Hayford & Perlman, 2006). Of the 13 seagrass species known from the Western
Indian Ocean (WIO) region (Bandeira & Bjoerk, 2001), seven are found inside the CRS: Cymodocea
rotundata, Halodule sp., Thalassia hemprichii, Thalassodendron ciliatum (formerly Cymodocea
ciliata), Halophila ovalis, Syringodium isoetifolium and Cymodocea serrulata.
Mapping the distribution of seagrasses around Chumbe Island is challenging due to the complex
nearshore environment with seagrasses, algae and corals in different densities, patch sizes and at
different depths. Six of the present seagrass species can dominate a given area, often occurring in
mixed-species meadows with densities ranging from a few Halophila ovalis plants to dense stands of
Thalassodendron ciliatum, while small patches of seagrass also occur in between coral bommies of
similar sizes.
Despite this environment, a field-based study (Hayford and Perlman, 2006) and high-resolution
satellite remote sensing (Knudby and Nordlund, 2011) have produced seagrass maps that provide an
important baseline against which to measure future changes in seagrass distribution (Figure 41).
In the absence of field data from the past, a historical perspective on seagrass cover dynamics often
relies on local knowledge. In the case of Chumbe Island, the park rangers, some of whom have
worked on the island since 1992, were interviewed and had the general opinion that the total
seagrass distribution around the island decreased from the time of the park’s inception in 1992 to
1998, and has slowly recovered since then but not yet reached the 1992 extent. The cause of the
initial decline, mentioned by the rangers, was strong winds burying seagrass meadows north of the
island with sand, as well as a large number of sea urchins at one time grazing on the seagrass.
II) BENTHIC ALGAE
Concern in the aftermath of any El Nino event is that opportunistic benthic macroalgae growth on
dead coral and rubble could lead to phase shifts in the CRS. After the 1998 bleaching event,
Sargassum was present in high abundance on the CRS reef flat (Rearick, 2000). Therefore, diversity
and zonation of benthic algae was subsequently studied (Businski, 2001) and resulted in a
preliminary macroalgae inventory list that has been further developed through records from visiting
scientists from WCS (see Appendix Five). Studies conducted between 2009 and 2015 confirm that
macroalgae cover as an indicator for reef health has been low but should be monitored in the
prospect of more frequent bleaching events.
79
Figure 41: IKONOS-based estimation of seagrass biomass around Chumbe Island and field mapped seagrass areas (Nov.
2006). Arrows indicate areas that are covered by seagrass and correctly identified in the field-based study, but mis-
classified as non-seagrass substrate by the satellite imagery.
Seagrass on Chumbe © Lina Mtwana Nordlund
80
6.2 The Chumbe Closed Forest Reserve (CFR)
The landmass of Chumbe Island covers an area of 16.64 ha. Within this area, ~0.36 ha is developed
(in the form of the ecolodge), while 14.73ha is dense forest, with the remainder covered by sparse
forest, islets or sandy beaches.
The non-settled area of the landmass is the designated Closed Forest Reserve (CFR). In the center-
south area of this forest, narrow footpaths have been provided for guests and education visitors to
undertake a forest trail walk. Other than these paths, the forest is unaffected by human presence, is
safeguarded, and in some areas is almost inaccessible due to extensive species cover.
No cutting or felling is permitted within the CFR except for the management of invasive species. In
this fully protected area there are three distinct habitat types:
I. Mangrove pool: This is a saltwater-inundated pool located close to the visitor center, with
water levels varying with the tides, and vegetation dominated by mangroves,
II. Scrub habitat: Relatively short scrub (3m), possibly wind/salt clipped, occurring on the
periphery of the forest habitat,
III. Tropical Dry Forest: Relatively tall (6m), dense coastal thicket covering approximately 90% of
the island.
The Tropical Dry Forest is a thriving example of an undisturbed 'coral rag' forest habitat, which is
becoming increasingly rare in the region and indeed throughout the Western Indian Ocean (Beentje,
1990).
As there is no groundwater on the island, species in this forest rely on adaptive mechanisms for
water collection and retention, and epiphytic species are common. Rooting depth is shallow and the
habitat in the northern section of the island is extremely dense.
6.2.1. Patrol, Surveillance & Enforcement (PSE) of the Closed Forest Reserve
Similar to the marine patrols, land-based patrols are conducted by the rangers each day. These
patrols are mostly conducted at low tide by walking around the island, as this is the time when
possible incursions onto the island are most likely. At other tide times the significant overhangs of
the island and craggy rock surfaces make accessing the island at any location other than the
observed beach sites in the development area virtually impossible.
Additional PSE is conducted from the vantage point of the top of the lighthouse when walking
patrols are not workable due to weather conditions and the like.
To date very few attempted incursions on to the land have been observed, and when they have
occurred they have been primarily related to fishers in distress, and on such occasions the rangers
respond accordingly to provide aid.
81
6.2.2. Plant Diversity
Plant diversity in the CFR falls into the below categories:
I. Mangroves
II. Vulnerable species
III. Other vascular plants
IV. Invasive species
I) MANGROVES
Out of the nine mangrove species encountered in the WIO-region (Richmond, 2011), five species are
found on Chumbe Island. Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (black mangrove) dominates the main mangrove
pool close to the visitor centre. Avicennia marina (white mangrove) and Ceriops tagal (tagal
mangrove) are represented by only a few trees, located at the edge of the intertidal pool close to the
old mosque. Individual Rhizophora mucronata (red mangrove) and Xylocarpus moluccensis trees,
growing in fossilized rock crevices on the eastern side of the island, have recently been confirmed by
the Chumbe conservation team.
Figure 42: Comparison images of the mangrove pool area (bottom right) from 1995 to 2015 © CHICOP Archive
II) VULNERABLE SPECIES
Uvariodendron kirkii, endemic to East Africa, is classified as “Vulnerable” in the IUCN Red List of
threatened species, as the global extent of occurrence is just under 20,000 km², with a severely
fragmented population along the coast of Kenya into Tanzania.
This species has shown a continuing decline in recent decades, but has been found to exist on
Chumbe. U. kirkii has the unusual characteristic of growing its fruits directly on the trunk and limbs
of the tree (Figure 43), and is also favoured in the diet of the rare Ader’s duiker antelope (Aplin,
2003).
82
Baseline information about this species inside the CFR was
provided by Graham (2003) who found a healthy population of
290 U. kirkii trees within a total transect area of 6416 m2
(~0.6ha), with the highest densities in the southern part of the
island.
However, repeat surveys since this time have not been
undertaken. Therefore, utilizing this baseline to undertake
comparison surveys to monitor the on-going population of this
species will be important in the coming years.
Figure 43: Fruits of Uvariodendron kirkii growing directly on the trunk of
the tree © Ulli Kloiber
III) OTHER VASCULAR PLANTS
Studies have so far confirmed 74 species of vascular plants occurring in the forest (Gillingham, 2011).
This includes the impressive Fireball Lily (Scadoxus multiflorus), the common Mother-in-Law’s
Tongue (Sansevieria kirkii) and several species within the poisonous Euphorbia family (see Appendix
Six).
In addition to this, more than 20 other vascular plants have been recorded, but have so far not been
possible to identify.
Certain fruit tree species that were introduced during the period of habitation by the lighthouse
keeper (such as banana and papaya) are not found anymore, while other exotic species that were
likely introduced through natural seed dispersal from Unguja, such as the Indian Almond tree
(Terminalia catappa) are growing well.
The forest of Chumbe is also resource rich in medicinal plant species, of which 13 have been
identified so far. However, research still lacks into their potential importance and medical
capabilities.
The Department of Commercial Crops Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF), Zanzibar (2005) stated that ‘the
Chumbe forest constitutes the last of the important remaining coral rag forest species of Zanzibar’
and if surveyed in more detail is likely to show high plant diversity.
Several forest monitoring programmes have been initiated on the island, but have not been
replicated sufficiently, or following the same protocols, to enable temporal analysis and comparative
assessment over time. Most recently a monitoring program has been established in 2010 which
provides plant ID images and baseline data (Gillingham, 2010). Therefore moving forward it will be
83
important to more rigorously adhere to forest monitoring schedules and procedures to allow for
more robust future assessments. Additionally, identifying the remaining 20 vascular plant species as
yet uncategorized, and documenting more thoroughly the medicinal properties of the species
identified, will be important elements of future forest conservation efforts in the coming ten years.
IV) INVASIVE SPECIES
Casuarina equisetifolia (whistling pine) is an evergreen, 6-30m tall tree, originally native in Southeast
Asia and Australia (Orwa et al., 2009) but its exotic range reaches also Unugja, including Chumbe
Island. C. equisetifolia is salt tolerant and only found along the western coastline of the island where
it has shown very fast growth as displayed in Figure 44 (image comparison). Although partly
protected in its home range because of its importance in controlling coastal erosion, Nowak et al.
(2009) reported that forest clearance and over-planting of exotics such as C. equisetifolia is already
adversely affecting some forest landscapes on Unguja.
Figure 44: Casuarina equisetifolia growth – image comparison from 1995 – 2015 © Koehler
Therefore, monitoring, and where necessary, removing this species from occupying niches of more
native plant species is an important part of the Chumbe forest management. As this species is a
principal building material used on the island, any felled specimens are recycled and used for
building maintenance.
Additionally, the Boat Lily (Rhoeo spathacea), a succulent perennial herb native to the West Indies &
Mexico, has been mentioned as possible threat for encroachment into the challenging environment
of the CFR (during a survey conducted in 2005). However, there have been no observations of this
species effectively competing with other native plants over the last 10 years, and it is therefore not
considered a threat at this time.
84
The dense Chumbe forest layers the island, backing directly onto the guest accommodation © Markus Meissl
85
6.2.3. Animal Diversity
Animal diversity in the CFR falls into the below categories:
I) Mammals
II) Birds
III) Reptiles
IV) Invertebrates
I) MAMMALS
Ader’s duiker
The Ader’s duiker (Cephalophus adersi) is a Critically Endangered17 species of mini-antelope, and the
Zanzibar population is believed to be the last remaining viable population (Finnie, 2001). The species
has been increasingly adversely affected by human activity on the main island of Unguja, especially
over the last 30 years. Associated with a large expansion in the human population (over 100% rise
since 1967), there has, and continues to be, substantial older growth vegetation cutting on Unguja,
and an intensity of illegal hunting activities to meet the continued market demand (Finnie, 2001). To
date, three surveys have been carried out within Zanzibar main island to assess the overall
population of this species (see Table 6). These surveys showed a significant decline in the population
in recent decades.
Survey undertaken Population estimate in Unguja (individuals)
1983 - Swai ~ 5,000
1995 – Williams et al. < 2,000
1999 - Kanga 614 ± 46
Table 6: Population estimates of Aders duiker have declined considerably since the early 1980’s
Historic records suggested that Ader’s had once been present on Chumbe Island (pre-1970’s), but
likely hunted to island-based extinction. Therefore in the late 1990’s, in collaboration with the
Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits & Forestry (DCCFF)18 a botanical survey was conducted on
Chumbe to assess the suitability of existing habitat for the species with the aim to assess the
feasibility of translocating a protected population to the island (Aplin, 1998).
17 Listed in the IUCN Red List as CR A4 acd. 18 Formally known as the Commission for Natural Resources, and since transformed into the Department of Forest and Non Renewable Natural Resources
86
The Chumbe forest was found to be suitable habitat for the duikers, and based on these findings a
total of six Ader’s were translocated to Chumbe Island (three males and three females) in 1999 and
2000.
This translocation was undertaken with the aims to:
provide an effective refuge for this species,
provide an isolated area where biological and ecological research on the species can be
conducted in order to assist the main islands efforts of species recovery.
potentially provide a breeding nucleus for future re-introductions.
The animals were ear-tagged and camera-traps (using heat and movement sensors) were
established in the forest to monitor them. Additionally professional duiker trackers were brought in
periodically to track the animals on foot (‘drives’).
Early results of these monitoring efforts indicated the birth of three new juveniles & the possible loss
of two individuals from the original translocated group (Daniels, 2004).
Since 2005, monitoring efforts have included observation of scent marks, sighting records (Figure
45), video and image footage from a new wildlife tracking camera, and implementation of the
above-mentioned periodic “drives” to estimate the number of these shy individuals. The latest drive
in 2012 confirmed at least four adult individuals and one juvenile.
Figure 45: Ader’s duiker sighting incidences within the CFR from 2005-2014
Although there have been no direct sightings since 2014, video footage derived from the wildlife
camera in 2014 and 2015 revealed a healthy male adult that was marked with a purple plastic tag in
his right ear. This is one of the originally translocated males (known as Mr. Purple) who was first
moved to the island in 2000, which makes this individual at least 15 years old. Mr. Purple is hence
the oldest recorded Ader’s duiker in Zanzibar!
87
Figure 46: Footage from the camera traps all show ‘Mr. Purple’ – the oldest recorded Ader’s duiker – in 2001, 2005, 2014
and 2015 © CHICOP Archive
Bats
On Chumbe Island the Giant leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros commersoni) was first recorded in 1993
(Bayliss & Stubblefield). Further research by Köhler (1995, 2014) and Hayes (2003) revealed a further
four species are present (see Table 7).
Observations are ongoing and recorded in order to get a better understanding of roosting sites and
behaviour of the bat species present on Chumbe Island.
Species Common Name Recorded Interesting Facts
Hipposideros commersoni
Giant leaf-nosed bat 1993, 2012
Nocturnal insect eater, rests during the day, photographed in 2012
Epomophorus wahlbergi
Wahlberg’s fruit bat 1995, 2003
named for erectable epaulettes of hair, feeds on fruits
Eidolon helvum
Straw-coloured fruit bat
1995, 2015, 2016
Seasonal island visitor with roosting sites on Chumbe
Tadarida limbata
White-bellied free-tailed bat
2014 Species not confirmed, young individual measured in 2014
Lavia frons Yellow-winged bat June 2016 Image taken by Peter Prokosch, only one individual seen, ID confirmed by experts
Table 7: Bat species found in the CFR
2001 2009
2014
2015
88
Rats
Rattus norvegicus were present in large numbers on the island at the start of the project, suspected
to have been introduced to the island during the time of lighthouse construction in the early 1900’s.
In 1997 a key initiative was undertaken to eradicate these non-indigenous mammals from the island.
This programme was successfully carried out by Dr Patrick Sleeman from Cork University (Ireland),
with support from the Irish Agency for Personnel Service Overseas (APSO), and involvement of the
Zanzibar Commission of Livestock (whose officials received on-site training for this first eradication
effort in the country).
The eradication approach used mammal-specific brodifacoum anticoagulant poison baits at a time
when the only other mammals on the island were bat species inhabiting a different canopy level of
the forest. Post-eradication, the remaining baits were removed and monitoring is on-going using
chew-sticks in key locations likely to be attractive to rats (ie. kitchen area and proximal to the
bungalows). To date three re-infestations have occurred and the rats found were immediately
exterminated on each occasion, in 1998, 2002 & 2004.
Constant vigilance is required, not only on the island through the chew-stick monitoring, but also at
Unguja end, when boat transfers are carrying large amounts of supplies or makutti (thatching) to the
island, as these are the occasions when re-introduction can occur.
A Yellow-winged bat on Chumbe © Peter Prokosch
89
II) BIRDS
Chumbe Island has a rich bird life. Ornithological observations and studies have been ongoing since
the project started in 1993 (Table 8). To date the Chumbe bird inventory includes 77 confirmed
species, including the African Fish Eagle (Haliaeetus vocifer), a range of Herons, Egrets, Sunbirds,
Sandpipers and the majestic Paradise Flycatcher (Terpsiphone viridis) amongst others (see Appendix
Seven).
Year Researcher(s) Output/reports
1993 Peter & Ursula Köhler A preliminary survey of birds on Chumbe Island: First report (6th-18th Jan 1993)
1993 Philip Bowen An ornithological introduction to Chumbe Island (Frontier Tanzania )
1994 Peter & Ursula Köhler A preliminary survey of birds on Chumbe Island: Second report (5th-19th Jan 1994)
1994/95 Dudley & Penny Iles Extracts from our diaries (observation throughout the year)
1993-95 Dudley Iles Peter & Ursula Köhler
Ornithological notes from Chumbe Island, Zanzibar: Summary of observations
1994/95 Peter & Ursula Köhler A preliminary survey of birds on Chumbe Island: Third report (28th Nov - 11th Jan 1995)
1994-95 Dudley & Penny Iles Observations and visitor booklets: Checklist for Chumbe, Chumbe Island Nature Trail
1995 Robert Mileto & Gill Castle
Chumbe aves species list 1995
2000 Heather Skillings The Birds of Chumbe Island: a case study (ISP project for School of International Training)
2003 Hart Webb Migratory Birds on Chumbe Island (ISP project for School of International Training)
2004 Alyssa Robb A survey of the Birds of Chumbe Island (ISP project for School of International Training)
2014 Peter & Ursula Köhler Follow-up Monitoring Survey of Birds on Chumbe Island, Zanzibar, February 2014 Supplement November 2014 to the “ Follow-up Monitoring Survey of Birds on Chumbe Island, Zanzibar, February 2014”
2014 Peter & Ursula Köhler Non-breeding bird species on Chumbe Island, Zanzibar, February and November 2014
2015 Köhler & Kloiber Revised Chumbe Aves List
Table 8: Summary of ornithological research conducted on the island: 1993 - 2015
Chumbe may also be home to the oldest recorded Mangrove Kingfisher (Halcyon senegaloides) in
the world, as one of three individual adults ringed in 1994 continues to be seen today, making it at
least 23 years old (see Figure 47).
91
Figure 47: Tracking the oldest recorded Mangrove Kingfisher in the world
Amongst the recent highlights in birding activity on the island, was the return of Dr. Peter and Ursula
Köhler who undertook the first bird monitoring in 1993 and conducted a follow-up monitoring
survey in 2014, providing interesting insights regarding the breeding and non-breeding bird
communities on the island.
Comparing the two study periods it can be seen that the community of birds known to breed on
Chumbe Island has extended from nine species (in 1993/94) to fourteen (in 2014). Based on
extensive field observations, mist netting of birds according to constant effort standards, and
interviews with CHICOP staff, Koehler (2014) assessed that only one species out of nine may be
declining for unclear reasons (the Mouse-coloured Sunbird), while eight have kept their numbers
and status more or less unchanged.
Out of the five species that have become new breeding birds in the meantime, four are expected to
have no significant impact on the biocoenosis presently. One species, Centropus superciliosus (the
White-browed Coucal), may have a respective potential which makes continuous monitoring
advisable. The greater part of the tropical dry “coral rag” forest has remained both untouched and
scarcely explored as far as birds are concerned. Therefore a few observations of uncommon forest
bird species deserve further attention.
92
Table 9: Revised status and assessed trends of breeding species, and provisional status of species not recorded on
Chumbe before as by Koehler, 2014.
Trend codes: + and ++ (strong) increase; +/- unchanged, - decrease. Status codes: R = Resident all year, W = Winter only, B
= Known to breed, C = Commonly seen, U = Uncommonly seen, V = Vagrant (1 or 2 records only), M = Migrant, O =
Recorded offshore
Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii)
In Zanzibar the Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) is a rare migratory coastal seabird. Globally however it
is regarded by the IUCN Red List as a species of ‘Least Concern’ due to an extremely large range and
an estimated global population of 80,000 individuals. Roseate terns are threatened by a number of
factors however, of which hunting in the wintering quarters may be the most significant. Natural
predators can also take a great toll on localized colonies, particularly when terns are disturbed from
the nest by other birds and humans. Finally, habitat loss and extreme weather events have caused
local extinction of some colonies.
In 1994, 2006 and 2012 large breeding colonies (600-800 birds) settled on Chumbe’s small islets in
the south area of the MPA for a period of ~ 3 months on each occasion. The colonies were closely
monitored on each occasion and detailed reports are available (Kloiber, 2012). The first recorded
93
visit in 1994 was prior to the rat eradication program implemented on Chumbe, and the nesting sites
were abandoned following rat invasions and attacks on the chicks and eggs. This further boosted
CHICOPs determination to implement the rat eradication programme which was successfully
concluded in 1997.
Overall these occasional, seasonal visitations are not consistent, and Roseate terns have not been
observed breeding on Chumbe since 2012, when they once again abandoned the nests, but for
unknown reasons.
Indian house crow (Corvus splendens)
A persistent challenge to the protection of the CFR fauna is the presence of the Indian house crow
(Corvus splendens). This exotic species was introduced to Zanzibar in 1891 when Sir Gerald Portal
sent a request to the Indian Government in Bombay for 50 scavenger birds to control garbage in
Stonetown. By 1917 their population had increased so much that they were already considered
pests. These birds not only scavenge on grains & fruits etc. but they also out-compete many species
for food and nesting sites, and directly feed on chicks and eggs of other bird species. Various
eradication programmes have been attempted in Unguja but most have been unsuccessful.
On Chumbe Island the inconsistency (and sporadic losses) of the seasonal breeding population of
Roseate Terns (Sterna dougallii) may be connected to the presence of these crows, and from 1998
Chumbe has attempted various initiatives to cull the population, including the laying of specifically
made crow-traps, and the use of closely observed poison baits.
Since 2003, CHICOP employed the services of a professional marksman to shoot returning birds. This
approach has proven successful, as these birds are considered particularly intelligent in the aves
community, and the mere presence of the marksman shooting only one or two individuals has been
sufficient to deter others from coming to the island for periods of time. However constant vigilance
is required to maintain control over this species.
III) REPTILES
A comprehensive reptile inventory has yet to be completed in the CFR, however, a recently
conducted ISP project (2017) confirmed the following species to be present: the coral-rag snake-
eyed skink (Cryptoblepharus boutonii), the speckle-lipped skink (Mabuya maculilabris), the writhing
skink (Lygosoma sp.), the common house gecko (Hemidactylus mabouia), the baobab gecko
(Hemidactylus platycephalus), and the yellow headed dwarf gecko (Lygodactylus luteopicturatus).
The non-nonvenomous green tree snake (Philothamnus punctatus) is also abundant on the island.
There was also one specimen of a rock python (Python sebae) in the early years of the project,
though no sightings have been observed of this species since 1999. In 2004, specimens of a
Typhlopidae blind snake species (most likely Rhinotyphlops) were recorded, though identification
could not be confirmed.
94
IV) INVERTEBRATES
A full invertebrate survey has yet to be undertaken in the CFR. However, of the insect species
collected over the years, (not including butterflies) there are predominantly four insect orders
present: Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera and Hymenoptera.
A thorough entomological survey is highly recommended for the coming years, as the well-preserved
and managed coral-rag habitat has been little studied in terms of the insect populations that it hosts,
and the Chumbe forest offers an important opportunity for such work to take place.
Two invertebrate groups that have been looked at to some level of detail in recent years have been
the land crabs and the butterflies.
Land Crabs
A full inventory of land crabs has yet to be completed on Chumbe, however observations suggest
there is a high diversity and considerable abundance of these animals, especially crabs from the
family Grapsidae (shore crabs) and Coenobitidae (hermit crabs). Further investigation into land crab
diversity and abundance on Chumbe is highly recommended.
One species that has been studied relatively extensively on the island is the Coconut crab (Birgus
latro). This is the largest land-living crab in the world, able to grow to a weight of 4.1 kg (9.0 lb), and
up to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) in length from leg to leg (Harries, 1983; Eldredge, 1996).
Listed as Data Deficient in the IUCN Red List, observations of this species from around the world
suggest a rapid population decline globally (Sheppard, 1984; Eldredge, 1996). Coconut crab research,
especially in the East African region is extremely limited. However, on Chumbe Island various studies
have been conducted using marking and recapture techniques, and these studies indicate a large
population is present on Chumbe (see Table 10) with one estimate placing as many as 6,000
individuals on the island.
However, as the table also shows, the methods used to capture data (bait locations, number of
stations, season of the year studied, replication levels etc.) have all differed widely between
different assessments. Additionally, methods used to extrapolate observational data into overall
population estimate data has differed (i.e. Schnabel method, Lincoln-Peterson estimator etc.). This
has considerably reduced any opportunity for temporal analysis or trend assessment of the data,
and has led to widely varied island population estimates (from 354 to 6,000).
Therefore, in the coming years it will be beneficial to establish a standardized technique and
seasonal time period to monitor Birgus latro, to acquire more robust data for future assessment.
Chumbe is an important island for this species. Along with Christmas Island, the Aldabra Atoll
(Seychelles), the Chagos Archipelago and the Cocos Keeling Islands, Chumbe Island is one of the few
islands in the Indian Ocean still populated by B. latro.
95
Researcher Sampling dates
Method Results Island Popn Estimate
Dr. Hartnoll 10-13 March, 1999
Baiting, mark, release, recapture
50 crabs captured
Rough population estimate of up to 6,000
Bruggers, Seth
16-28 April, 1999
5 Stations throughout island, coconut baits, mark, release, recapture: TL, sex
28 crabs: 12 males and 16 females
No estimate
King, Gianna
14-30 April, 2003
9 Stations throughout island, coconut baits, mark, release, recapture: TL, sex
90 crabs: 40 males and 50 females. Av. TL = 47 (males), 39 (females)
Population estimate (Schnabel method): 354
Roop, Jeremy
12 Nov – 2 Dec 2004
9 Stations (all in highly frequented areas): coconut baits, mark, release, recapture: TL, sex, time slots for crab activity
192 crabs: 87 male and 105 females. Av. TL = 51 (males), 38 (females)
No estimate
Singh, Kiran 5- 22 Nov, 2010
9 Stations (similar to Roop SIT), coconut baits, mark, release, recapture: TL, sex, time slots, crab activity
280 crabs: 110 males and 170 females. Av. TL = 50 (males), 39 (females)
No estimate
Kilströmer and Bergwall
9 Feb - 6 March, 2013
Similar to above but additional Haemolymph samples for genetics taken
394 crabs: 231 males and 163 females. Av TL = 48 (males), 39 (females) Higher activity during
Estimated population size using Lincoln-Peterson estimator = 446
Table 10: Summary of studies into Birgus latro conducted on the island; the techniques and population estimates
resulting from the work.
Coconut crab (Birgus latro) on Chumbe © Jimmy Livefjord
96
Butterflies
Butterfly inventories (Lepidoptera order) have been conducted in 1993 and 2012 (Bayliss &
Stubberfield, 1993; Santilli, 2012). The most recent (2012) revision and update to the species list
revealed 26 species present on the island, from five families (Acraeidae, Hesperiidae, Nymphalidae,
Papilionidae, and Pieridae). This includes both the southern and eastern race of the African monarch
(Danaus chrysippus). (See Appendix Nine). However, the surveys conducted were at all times brief,
and further research and assessment is recommended. In 2016 a butterfly ID card was produced for
the island (see Figure 48).
Figure 48: Butterfly ID cards produced (CHICOP, 2016) using CHIOP archive images complemented with internet images.
97
7. EDUCATION: Programmes & Lessons Learned
Environmental Education (EE) is a second core pillar of the work conducted on Chumbe. Educational
excursions and initiatives have been targeted towards a range of audiences over the years, including:
School children
School teachers
Fishers and marine resource users
Target community members (i.e. the communities most proximal to Chumbe)
Non-target community members
Universities and academic institutions
Governmental agencies
Local NGOs
Tourists / visitors to the Chumbe eco-lodge
Of these various stakeholders, school children have been by far the largest group targeted; and it
was the lack of environmental education in schools that in large part originally prompted the
establishment of the Chumbe project.
School education in Zanzibar, as elsewhere in the region, has long been based on rote-learning of an
extremely academic syllabus that has had little relationship with the immediate environment or
concerns of Zanzibari children. In the early nineties studies showed that whilst Zanzibar is a coral
island, coral reef ecology was not sufficiently covered in school syllabi (Riedmiller, 1991).
Additionally, extra-curricular activities, such as field excursions were rarely organised and through
their schooling few children had a chance to visit their surrounding ecosystems.
The “Chumbe Environmental Education (EE) Programme” was therefore designed to address this
need, starting with trial excursions to Chumbe Island for school children from Zanzibar being
conducted between 1996 and 1999.
Additional target groups for EE were then identified in the first Chumbe Management Plan (1995-
2005) and the program was expanded.
Activities during educational excursions to the island
In general, educative trips to the island include some core activities related to learning about marine
and forest ecology, sustainable coastal management and ecotourism, namely:
Snorkelling in the CRS – Through this, participants learn about the importance of the coral
reef habitat for sustainable fisheries and biodiversity conservation, and the reliance
humanity has on coral reef systems to provide essential ecosystem services. For many school
children this is the first time they experience snorkelling and seeing a coral reef under water,
and many have limited (or zero) swimming experience. Therefore, Chumbe educators
proficient in teaching snorkelling lead this work, and various support aids are available, such
as inflatables with hand-holds, glass viewers etc.
Walking the forest trail in the CFR – Here participants are taught about the unique ecology of
the coral-rag forest and the importance of sustainable landscape management for the many
species that are dependent upon this habitat.
98
Undertaking an eco-bungalow tour - Here participants learn about sustainable eco-tourism
and eco-architecture, and the importance of sustainable tourism management to avoid
detrimental impacts on marine and terrestrial environments.
Climbing the lighthouse – For some education participants this activity is incorporated into
an excursion day to include information about the history of the island and of navigational
aid infrastructural developments across the region through history.
However, these core activities are tailored to the audiences concerned and adapted to meet needs.
Educational outcomes
Since 1996, CHICOP has conducted environmental field excursions for 6,779 students, 1,169 teachers
and 752 community members (prioritized fishers) and government officials (figures at time of
writing, April 2016). This equals a total number of 8,700 participants that have participated in
Chumbe Environmental Education (EE) excursions up to April 2016 (see Figures 49 & 50).
7.1. School children The initial trials for EE for school children took place between 1996 and 1999. These trials focused on
establishing the modus operandi for school excursions to the island, including: processes for
transportation; safety provisions during boat transport; programme design; material development;
capacity building for the rangers in EE activities such as snorkel training, managing groups of
children, and proactive, positive, participatory teaching techniques; in-water safety standard
establishment; and the development and installation of in-water ‘Floating Information Modules’
(FIMs) for the school children to use (see Figure 51).
For many schoolchildren it is their first time
snorkeling © CHICOP
99
Figure 49: Total number of participants (students, teachers, government officials, community members, etc.) that have
participated in EE trips to Chumbe Island, accumulative from 1996 until 2015/2016.
Figure 50: Break-down of students (school children, University students, College students and NGO students) that have
participated in EE trips to Chumbe Island, from 2000 until 2015/2016 (excluding trial phase 1996-2000 data).
100
Through the lessons learned from these early trials, the Chumbe EE programme for school children
officially launched in February 2000, and has progressed since that time through eleven phases, with
some focusing on different target aspects of conservation and sustainable development.
PHASE 1: FEBRUARY 2000 – JULY 2000
Excursions conducted during this phase were coordinated in collaboration with the
Marine Education Awareness and Biodiversity Programme (MEAB) and involved the
participation of staff from the Department of Fisheries, the Institute of Marine
Science (IMS) and the wider staff of Chumbe Island. During this phase, the Floating
Information Modules (FIM’s) were augmented with underwater fish and coral
identification plates for children to better identify the species they saw. On March
13th 2001 the Island Classroom was officially opened. An end of phase evaluation
conducted showed that teachers were, however, unprepared for the visits and a
clear need was established for teacher training (see section 7.2). Total school
children participants in this phase = 239 (+34 teachers).
Figure 51: The floating Information Module (FIM) on Chumbe
PHASE 2: AUGUST 2001 TO NOVEMBER 2002
This phase focused more heavily on teacher preparedness and training. Through this
phase the excursions also started to be separated by gender, with school groups
being either all girls or all boys. This was in response to observations from the
previous phase that when mixed gender groups had come to the island, the girls
were often reticent to enter the water in front of their male counterparts (requiring,
as necessary, some level of de-robing, which was of concern to some of the girls in
the context of their Islamic culture). Additionally, this segregation of genders was
found to allow the girls more freedom and flexibility to be more vocal and inquisitive
(without feeling intimidated by their more boisterous male classmates). Total school
children participants in this phase = 120 (+85 teachers).
101
PHASE 3: FEBRUARY 2003 – MARCH 2004
This phase saw considerable expansion and consolidation of the EE program for
schools, with a total of 79 excursions conducted during this period. Intensive on-site
training conducted by CHICOP resulted in the development of the Assistant Head
Rangers position into the ‘Island-based Education Coordinator’, and the hiring of
assistant staff and volunteers resulting in a small but functionable Education
department. Through this, funds to run school excursions were expanded through
successfully acquiring matching support from the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF), Southern African Development Community Regional
Environmental Education Programme (SADC-REEP), and the World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF).
This phase also saw the start of student programmes being conducted off-island, in
schools, to introduce children to the Coral Reef Module CHICOP had developed in
collaboration with the Ministry of Education (see section 7.6). Additionally,
excursions for disabled children began in collaboration with the Physiotherapy unit
of Mnazi Moja hospital.
During this phase the Chumbe EE program acquired its own provisional logo (since
upgraded, see Figure 52), and some considerable media interest was aroused
through this phase, including the production of four local TV documentaries about
the school trips.
The impact of the Education Programmes also started to become clear at a local
level with the development of an “Environment and Coral Reef Club” at Chukwani
School (a target community located proximal to Chumbe Island & participatory since
Phase 1), and an “Environment Club” at Kiembe Samaki School. Total school children
participants in this phase = 984 (27% boys, 53% girls), +173 teachers.
Figure 52: (left) The Chumbe EE programme for schools logo (2003-2016), and (right) the logo
upgraded in 2017 (by artist Emma Akmakdjian)
102
PHASE 4: OCTOBER 2004 – APRIL 2005
This shorter phase had a total of 32 excursions and concentrated on widening
stakeholder involvement, cementing the coral reef module within the Ministry of
Education, expanding options for further courses, continuing the teacher training
work and school visits, and developing pre-excursion worksheets for students.
Support for some equipment purchase and excursion funds was provided by the
International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN). A wide stakeholder meeting was
also conducted during this phase and a study was undertaken amongst participating
teachers to examine possible developments to the programme. From these
consultations a plan was developed to produce environmental education booklets
for all secondary schools in Unguja.
By the end of this phase, 22 environmental clubs had been created in neighbouring
communities after teachers and students were ‘inspired by their trip to Chumbe
Island.’ (O’Bryan, 2005). This lead in turn to the Ministry of Education running their
own seminar on establishing environmental clubs. Total school children participants
in this phase = 388 (+59 teachers).
PHASE 5: JUNE 2005 – MARCH 2007
An evaluation conducted at the beginning of this phase showed that most schools in
Zanzibar were by now aware of CHICOP’s Education programme (CHICOP, 2005).
Focus in this phase was on the wider Environmental Education (EE) initiatives
created out of the Chumbe programme, primarily the EE booklets for schools.
A committee was established (comprising of a range of stakeholders and Chumbe
representatives) and final booklets were produced on the following topics: 1)
Mangroves, 2) Conservation of Natural resources, 3) Deforestation, 4) Eco-tourism,
5) Alternative Energy, 6) Coral Reefs, 7) Sand & coral Mining, 8) Litter/Taka taka
Meanwhile on-site on Chumbe Island school excursions continued. Assessments
conducted at the time suggested that CHICOP has been instrumental in assisting and
encouraging the Ministry of Education to develop an ‘environmental education’ (EE)
agenda in Zanzibar, and in a policy draft from the Ministry of Education an entire
section had been given to plans for the emerging issue of environmental education
in schools. Total school children participants in this phase = 579 (+105 teachers).
PHASE 6: MARCH 2007 – DECEMBER 2009
A total of 120 excursions were conducted during this phase. Also in this period the
“Chumbe Challenge Award” was launched, with the aim of encouraging students to
be more action-oriented following their excursion to the island, and motivating
them to introduce environmental projects in their school and at home.
103
The award encourages students to investigate environmental issues that affect
them, and after each season Chumbe’s Education Team invites the environmental
clubs from all participating schools to join the competition. During the competition
students, guided by a committed teacher, are asked to establish two environmental
projects, one within their school compound and another one outside of the school.
At the end of the competition, projects are assessed by the Chumbe Team and are
presented at an annual ceremony where the best projects are awarded.
Figure 53: A school student plants trees as part of the Chumbe Challenge Award © CHICOP archive
Also in this phase, an ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ (ESD) concept was
introduced to the Chumbe EE programme. Environmental educators from across
Africa, including a Chumbe EE team member, were sponsored by SADC for training in
both South Africa and Sweden. The outcome was the development of a change
project called ‘The Ranger Teaching Pack’.
Other key activities conducted during this phase included: improvements made to
the Chumbe on-site classroom; ranger refresher training; incorporation of video and
powerpoint media introduced into the pre-visit school-based activities run by the
Chumbe EE Team; key environmental days through the year commemorated in
schools through the distribution of video materials, talks and activities conducted;
and enhancement of the school activities on the island through the introduction of
role-play games. Total school children participants in this phase = 1,319 (+305
teachers).
104
PHASE 7: JANUARY 2010 – MARCH 2011
A total of 59 excursions were conducted during this phase. Additionally, in this
period CHICOP implemented an Environmental Education and Conservation
Expansion Project in Zanzibar, funded by the European Union Regional Programme
for the Sustainable Management of the Coastal Zones of the countries of the Indian
Ocean (ReCoMap). In consultation with scientists, experts, educators and
government this project resulted (after 18 months) in a locally developed
environmental education guidebook ‘Environmental Sustainability in Zanzibar' that
is now widely available and accessible in Kiswahili and English, to formal and non-
formal educators and learners in Zanzibar. Total school children participants in this
phase = 630 (+85 teachers).
Figure 54: Beach clean-up initiative with local students during International Coastal Clean-up Day ©
CHICOP archive
PHASE 8: JUNE 2011 – APRIL 2013
By this phase the operational elements of the Chumbe EE programme for schools
were cemented, and a further 89 excursions were conducted. The pre-visit in-school
presentations, talks and preparations with the children were augmented in this
phase by the inclusion of a new monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) system.
This involved the introduction of pre-visit questionnaires, completed by the children
prior to going to the island, and complemented by a post-visit questionnaire
detailing the same topics, in order to better assess the levels of learning during the
trip. Total school children participants in this phase = 978 (+142 teachers).
PHASE 9: JUNE 2013 – APRIL 2014
This phase focused on implementing the new MEL mechanisms to determine impact
of the visits on the children’s learning and information retention. Pre- and post
questionnaires became a permanent component of the program and early analysis
was undertaken. A total of 48 excursions were conducted during this period. Total
school children participants in this phase = 412 (+72 teachers).
105
PHASE 10: JUNE 2014 – APRIL 2015
This phase focused on reviewing and up-dating the Chumbe Challenge Award
teaching material (including improved training for participating teachers) and on
conducting more off-island educational activities with local environmental clubs.
Total school children participants in this phase = 347 (+57 teachers).
Figure 55: (left) Extensive teacher training provided by CHICOP during Phase 10 to improve the quality
and impact of environmental projects submitted to the Chumbe Challenge Award competition. (right)
Winners of the 7th Chumbe Challenge Award 2015. Images © Ulli Kloiber.
PHASE 11: JUNE 2015 – APRIL 2016
This phase started with a comprehensive teacher evaluation workshop in May 2015
where feedback from teachers was used to plan EE activities in light of the
Tanzanian Presidential Elections held in October 2015. Due to political instability
throughout this phase (presidential election in Zanzibar had to be re-run in March
2016), CHICOP had to cancel the Chumbe Challenge Award competition and also
reduce off island EE activities as schools were often closed and teachers assigned to
election-related activities. Total school children participants in this phase = 373 (+50
teachers).
“Through the Chumbe Challenge Environmental competition our students have become more
observant and active towards environmental issues in the school!”
Teacher from Bwefum Secondary School
106
Impact on learning
Results from the pre and post-tests given to the school children in the last three phases of EE
operations have shown consistent advances in learning. Increases in knowledge have been recorded
in all schools except two (where students struggle in general with exams), with overall increases in
knowledge observed in every phase assessed (see Figure 56).
During the yearly teacher evaluation workshop conducted at the end of each EE season, the
pre/post results are presented to the respective teachers of the schools that have participated in the
program and therefore provide not only the EE team with important information about the progress
of the students learning.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
PHASE 9 (n=145) PHASE 10 (n=162) PHASE 11 (n=283)
MEL: Results of the pre-Chumbe and post-Chumbe
knowledge tests (averages per phase) %
Av.Pre-test % Av.Post test
Figure 56: Assessments (pre and post visit to Chumbe) show increases in knowledge achieved with the school students.
Over the last three EE seasons, MEL results have also shown that schools that have an active
environmental club led by a committed science teacher (e.g. Bwefum Secondary School), score
higher and benefit more from the Chumbe EE program than schools that have either non-active
environmental clubs or environmental clubs that have been established for the sole purpose of
being able to participate in the Chumbe EE program.
The biggest challenge for evaluating the impact on learning has been trying to ensure students
participate in all three phases of the evaluation (pre-test, Chumbe excursion and post-test).
Improvements to the EE system have been made to ensure that pre-test students are also the ones
that actually participate in the island excursion, however, post-visit availability and teacher
commitment are often outside the influence of the EE team.
Until today, CHICOP’s EE program is the only regular and large-scale program in Zanzibar that fills the
gap in school curricula and provides educational experiences and information for local schools on
environmental issues and marine ecology. Not only have schools fully participated in the field
excursions but they have also shown great enthusiasm to undertake more field based, hands-on,
extra curricula learning in the ordinary school environment. Some of the topics for many
environmental clubs are waste management, biodiversity loss and climate change mitigation with
activities including litter clean ups, tree and mangrove planting.
107
7.2. Teachers (both in-service and trainee’s) Teacher training has always been an integral component of the Chumbe EE programme. In 2001 a
coordinator from the Ministry of Education was recruited to be liaison for the Chumbe school
excursions and to assist with in-service teacher training. At the same time the first ‘Teachers only’
workshop was held on the island, attended by in-service teachers from schools proximal to Chumbe
and various representatives from associated Government Departments and the local Teacher
Resource Centre.
A result of this workshop was the decision to produce a “Coral Reef Module” for schools to follow (as
an extra-curricular activity) in the form of an “Introductory Teachers Pack”. This module has two key
aims: (1) to bring issues of coral reef conservation and the importance of the marine environment
into more everyday schooling in the region, and; (2) to assist teachers (and students) who are able to
attend the Chumbe Education Programmes to make preparations prior to the excursion. This module
has proven to be extremely popular and continues to be in use today.
In 2003, a partnership was established with Nkrumah Teacher Training College, and through this a
range of teacher training programmes have been delivered, both at the college and through
excursion-based learning on the island. In the early years these activities generated considerable
interest from the wider teaching community (both in-service teachers and trainee’s) and led to the
development of a short training video that was developed and widely distributed.
“We really enjoyed the excursion
to Chumbe Island. We are going
to educate [our friends] about
everything we have learned from
Chumbe, especially about
protecting coral reefs in
Zanzibar.”
Bububu Secondary School Student.
108
Teachers actively bringing school children to the island are also provided with preparatory support
from the Chumbe Education team, and a chance to learn hands-on the more field-based,
participatory, fun and proactive methods for teaching the children through the visits. It is through
such work that both teachers and students have been inspired to set up Environmental Clubs in
schools across Unguja (now at 22 clubs across the region).
The Chumbe Education Team has also collaborated with teachers, the Ministry of Education and
other partners to develop a series of eight EE booklets for schools, and a range of teacher training
materials and resources.
7.3. Target & Non-Target Community Environmental Education The ‘target communities’ of the Chumbe project come from six villages (forming four wards/shehias)
which are most proximally located near the island. These are:
Mazizni (Shehia: Kiembe Samaki)
Chukwani (Shehia: Chukwani)
Buyu (Shehia: Chukwani)
Nyamanzi (Shehia: Kombeni)
Kombeni (Shehia: Kombeni)
Dimani (Shehia: Dimani)
‘Non-target’ communities refer to all others in Unguja.
In the early years of the project, considerable outreach and awareness raising activities were
conducted in the target communities (and less so in the non-target communities) regarding the
protected status of Chumbe, the importance of conserving the reef habitat for sustainable fisheries,
and the role Chumbe has in providing a model for sustainable ecotourism etc.
Target community EE excursions to Chumbe have taken place every two years (an average of six per
year in more recent years), with non-target community EE excursions taking place the alternate
years (also averaging six per year).
Specialist EE excursions have also been conducted with fisher associations active in both target and
non-target communities, as well as Sheha and Elders groups. Other specialist EE initiatives have been
undertaken with women groups (such as the Chaza women groups and women seaweed collective),
and other community groups and associations (such as local tourism collectives).
In addition to this there have been specialist EE excursions for disabled community members and
patients from the local psychiatric hospital.
109
These community-based EE programmes have been, and continue to be, essential for both
enhancing environmental awareness amongst the local population, as well as promoting local
resource users to be compliant with Chumbe’s non-extractive regulations and protected status.
7.4. Peer Educator Programmes conducted off-island Since 2010, following Chumbe’s engagement in the ‘Regional Programme for the Sustainable
Management of the Coastal Zones of the countries of the Indian Ocean’ (ReCoMap), a Peer Educator
programme initiated during this project, has been continued independently by the Chumbe
Education Team. This programme is focused towards training peer educators to enhance their
knowledge, skills and capacities to carry out environmental awareness and education activities
independently, with children, youth and adults, using non-formal education techniques.
These peer educators are men and women of different ages that are recognized as peer influencers
within their own communities / sub-communities, and who have an interest to become community
educators. They have, over the years, included teachers, seaweed farmers, fishermen, invertebrate
collectors, wood collectors, charcoal makers and individuals already engaged in conservation
activities.
Figure 57: (left) A Peer Educator field trip to investigate beach erosion in Jambiani, East Coast of Zanzibar © Chumbe
archive. (right) A Peer Educator field trip to learn about renewable energies © Ulli Kloiber.
Peer educator activities have included field visits, stakeholder workshops, trainings events, seminars
and radio shows. Every year CHICOP also plans small events for the commemoration of various
international environmental days, in order to inspire communities to take action and to further
promote environmental awareness. Since the consequences of climate change have become more
evident throughout the region (e.g. increased coastal erosion and changing weather patterns),
CHICOP’s stakeholders have shown a growing interest in learning more about how to mitigate these
impacts in the coming years.
110
Figure 58: Above left: Environmental radio program sponsored and conducted by CHICOP in 2012. Above right: Live radio
program organized by CHICOP during the International Day of Forests in 2015. Guest speakers included students from a
local secondary school and government officials from the Department of Forest and Non-Renewable Natural Resources
of Zanzibar. Images © Chumbe archive.
7.5. Universities and Academic Institution Programmes Since Chumbe opened to visitors in 1998 there has been considerable interest in the project from a
wide range of universities and academic institutions, both nationally and internationally.
From the outset, students from the College of African Wildlife Management (Mweke, mainland
Tanzanian) and the Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS) (Zanzibar based division of the University of
Dar es Salaam) undertook study visits to the island. These were coordinated by the Chumbe
Education Team and focused on a range of topics, from coastal management, fish identification,
marine and terrestrial monitoring techniques, through to sustainable ecotourism management.
As local Zanzibari higher educational institutions began to be become established in the early 2000’s,
student groups from the University College for Education in Chukwani, State University of Zanzibar
(SUZA), Marahubi University (MU) and Zanzibar university (ZU) also began to make study visits to the
island.
From the international academic community, student groups from the School for International
Training (USA), Kilmar University (Sweden) and Oxford University (UK), have been regular visitors to
the island, with other university groups visiting including the University of Bayreuth (Germany),
University of Stockholm (Sweden), and University of Cambridge (UK).
Study topics for such groups are prepared in advance and the EE excursion conducted are tailored to
the students’ interest areas.
In recent years, demand from the local Zanzibari institutions has become such that Chumbe secures
study visits for IMS and SUZA, with remaining study excursion slots only being made available
through application and bidding.
111
7.6. Governmental Agencies Environmental Education (EE) activities in support of wide ranging government agencies have been
on-going since the projects inception. These government agency-based EE programmes are essential
for both creating awareness about the Chumbe project and its role in wider Zanzibars’ efforts
towards biodiversity conservation, sustainable development and food security; as well as promoting
general environmental awareness amongst the civil service sector.
Excursion-based initiatives have been implemented with a range of cross-sector agencies within the
Government of Zanzibar. Common repeat excursions are predominantly for officers from all the
departments that are Advisory Committee members (outlined in section 3.4). Undertaking repeat
excursion-based EE initiatives with these agency departments is critical due to the high turnover and
transition rate of staff within the departments.
7.7. Local NGOs Since 2011, Chumbe has also undertaken excursion-based EE initiatives with a range of local NGOs
focused on providing training for Zanzibaris in the areas of tourism and environment. Among the key
organisations/training centers are: Almalik Training Center, Jambiani Tourism Training Institute
(JTTI), and the Zanzibar Geography Organisation.
“Many things that we learned today
are mostly taught theoretically in
our university, but during our field
excursion to Chumbe, we have seen
practical examples of good tourism,
we got wet to see fish and corals and
we walked in the forest to learn
about trees – this is such an
important program!!”
Chukwani University student.
112
Additionally, Chumbe supports the Kawa
Training Center. This center has a strong
focus on capacity building for Zanzibari
Youth, and offers licensed tour guiding
courses where EE excursions to Chumbe
and pre-visit lectures by the EE team
have become a significant part of the
program (Figure 59).
Figure 59: Future Zanzibari tour guides from the
Kawa Training Center learn about the intertidal
habitats as part of their EE excursion to Chumbe
Island. Image © KTC
7.8. Tourists / visitors to the Chumbe eco-lodge All tourists that visit Chumbe Island are able to participate in guided snorkeling, forest trail and
intertidal walks to experience and learn more about the exceptional natural environment. To
support learning for all visitors, a range of comprehensive information boards are displayed in the
Education Centre that cover all aspects of the project. These are regularly up-dated and provide
another learning opportunity beyond the guided tours.
Evening presentations by visiting researchers and/or the Conservation Manager are also very
popular and allow staff and visitors alike to get further insights in current projects (Figure 60).
Figure 60: (left) Evening presentation held by visiting researchers for staff and eco-lodge guests on Chumbe Island in
2014. (right) Example of an information board displaying marine monitoring programs that are conducted in the CRS.
Images © Ulli Kloiber.
113
8. SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM: Service Provision & Sustainable
Financing
The bedrock of all the conservation and education work taking place on Chumbe Island is
ecotourism. The island opened to visitors in July 1998.
The ecotourism on the island both finances all of the above described conservation management
and education initiatives, and provides a globally recognized model of excellence for sustainable
tourism management.
This section explores all elements of the ecotourism operations to date and identifies key
considerations for moving forward in the coming ten years.
Revenue generated from ecotourism funds all the conservation and education activities – making Chumbe the first not-for-profit, financially sustainable MPA in the world © Markus Meissl
114
Chumbe Rack Rates
The standard rates charged to visitors coming to Chumbe vary between high season and low season.
High season is from the start of June to end of September, and again from mid-December to end of
February. Low season is from the start of October to mid-December, and again from the start of
March to early April (when the island closes for between six to eight weeks each year during the
heavy rainy season for maintenance work) 19.
The lodge rates are currently as follows:20
High Season: US$280 per person per night (+ US$ 100 single persons supplement where relevant)
Low Season: US$260 per person per night (+ US$80 single persons supplement where relevant)
Children aged 12 and under receive a 50% discount & infants aged 2 years or under are free of charge
A minimum stay of 3 nights is required for booked between 24th December and 2nd January This rate has only increased by 40% since the island opened to visitors nearly twenty years ago, in
1998 (from a high season rate of US$200). Thus the rate has increased well under comparable
inflation rates in the country over that 20 year period.
The above rates are inclusive of:
Boat transfers to and from the island on the fixed transfer times
Accommodation in one of the seven award winning Eco bungalows
Full-board meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner)
All activities and associated equipment provided
All sodas, water, coffee, tea and snacks
Laundry service and all taxes Payment is required from all guests (or associated agents) prior to departing to the island.
Additional goods and services are available, but not included in the above price. This includes:
alcoholic beverages (available for sale on the island); day excursions to other areas of Zanzibar (for
long-term guests and organized on a case by case basis); any transfer boats on or off the island
outside the set transfer times (costing an additional US$50); land transportation to and from the
boat meeting point in Zanzibar (these can be arranged and are billed separately depending on
distance travelled for pick up / drop off).
Chumbe’s cancellation policy is as follows:
More than one week before the reservation date: 50% charge of the overall price
48 hours to one week before the reservation date: 75% charge of the overall price
Less than 48 hours before the reservation date: 100% charge of the overall price
Bookings starting on / or during 24th Dec-2nd January: 100% charge of the overall price
19 High and low season periods are relevant at the time of writing, 2017, but may be adjusted in future. 20 These rack rates are relevant at the time of writing, 2017, but may be adjusted in future.
115
In addition to overnight guests, and dependent upon availability, day trips are also possible to the
island. However, the total number of tourists on the island (overnighters plus daytrippers) must not
exceed 18 people.
The rate for a day trip is US$90 per person21 (all year, not seasonal). This price is inclusive of all the
goods and services provided to overnight guests, with the exception of accommodation, and with
only lunch provided. Additionally, some of the night-based activities available on the island (such as
searching for the coconut crab, or participating in evening talks etc.) are not available to day guests.
Day guests depart Zanzibar (Mbweni Ruins meeting point) at 10:00 am (the same time as
overnighters visiting the island), but depart Chumbe at 16:30 pm the same day.
8.1. Tourism Infrastructure & Technology There are seven eco-bungalows on the island, as well as an eco-designed education center. Key
features of these buildings are as follows:
Rainwater collection
Chumbe island has no ground water source and no freshwater source on the island. Therefore, in
order to provide water for the lodge, both the bungalows and the education center have been
designed with large roof surface areas to maximize rainwater catchment during the two rainy
seasons experienced in Zanzibar (the large rains in April / May, and the smaller rains in November).
Rain falling onto these large roof areas is channeled into natural sand and gravel filters, after which
the cleaned water is stored in cisterns located underneath each of the bungalows, and underneath
the front portion of the education center. Each of the bungalow cisterns can contain up to 15,000
liters of water, sufficient to provide water for the bathroom taps and shower units for the entire
year.
However, rain catchment in the education center has proven insufficient in recent years to provide
the remaining water needs of the island22. This is in part due to a reduced reliability of rainy season
periods (time duration, annual timing and rainfall quantity) expected to be related to climate change
impacts. Therefore, at the time of writing additional water needs are being supported through the
regular transportation of water in jerry cans, from the Chumbe head office on Unguja to the island.
This practice is far from ideal, and moving forward alternative mechanisms for enhancing water
provision on the island are expected.
21 2017 figure 22 These remaining needs include: water for use in the guest kitchen and staff kitchen and water for staff showers.
116
Solar water heating
Solar water heating panels are located on each bungalow to provide hot shower and tap water for
guests. The collected rainwater is hand-pumped into cisterns located in a technical tower at the back
of each bungalow. From here it gravity feeds through the solar water heating panel, ensuring guests
have hot water showers and tap water available at all times.
Water conservation
To promote the conservative use of water, the shower heads in the guest bungalows are ‘press
action’ (requiring the user to press a lever on the handset to get water), with water release
automatically stopping when the handset lever is not depressed.
Water conservation is further enhanced through the use of composting toilet systems (see below).
Through these systems, water usage on Chumbe is calculated to average 60 liters per person per day
(a regular hotel average is > 200 liters per person per day).
The large surface area provided by the
specially designed roof structures maximizes rainwater catchment
© CHICOP
117
Greywater management - bungalows
Chumbe provides complimentary biodegradable soaps for use in each of the bungalows, and
recommends, in advance, guests bring only biodegradable, environmentally sensitive toiletries to
the island to avoid chemical and micro-plastic pollution. Additionally, the greywater run-off from the
showers and taps in each of the bungalows is channeled through sprinkler release systems encased
in clay-lined individual ‘gardens’ in front of each bungalow. These ensure no greywater can run-off
into the marine environment. These gardens have a range of local plants that uptake the
phosphates and nitrates from the soil, and dispose of the greywater through evapotranspiration and
direct evaporation from the soils.
Greywater management – education center
This greywater management system for the education center has been most challenging over the
years. Based on a series of filters, from grease trap, to gravel / sand and ultimately on to reed beds,
the system was found to be overwhelmed as the occupancy rates on Chumbe increased over time.
Figure 61: (top) Rainwater is funneled through specialized filters for cleaning. (middle) Water is hand-pumped to cisterns
in the back of each bungalow before gravity-feeding through a solar water heater. (bottom) Guest showers have press-
action hand-sets to conserve water
118
Therefore, over the last ten years, CHICOP has received much appreciated assistance from various
experts, including engineers from Volunteer Services Overseas (VSO) and German Senior Expert
Services (SES), to strengthen the system accordingly.
While the efforts made improved the system, continued monitoring showed it continuing to be sub-
optimal in ensuring zero impact run-off into the marine environment (even though all soaps and
detergents used within the kitchen are 100% biodegradable).
Therefore, in 2015, an expert from Senior Expert Service (SES), Germany, returned and upgraded the
system to become a well-functioning wetland greywater filtration system. In support of this, the
kitchen staff now have manuals for use, and an operational manual has been produced for the
maintenance team.
Figure 62: The Wetland greywater filtration schematic for the education center (source: Boehm, 2016).
Composting toilets
The composting toilets on Chumbe are advanced, utilizing a semi-dry aerobic decomposting process
whereby the toilet lid seals, and a narrow wind-powered turbine attached to the outside of the
bungalow draws up smells and gases from the composting process, up and out of the composting
chamber and away from the bungalow. Guests are expected to throw two scoops of organic
compost (provided next to the toilets) into the chamber after each use. Through this process, the
toilets avoid any need for flushwater (thus provide an added measure for water conservation on the
island), and ensure a pleasant experience for the guests without unwarranted smells. They also
ensure no sewage waste (or ‘blackwater’) is released into the environment.
The decomposed matter from the bottom of the chamber forms excellent compost, is removed
annually during maintenance time, and is reused as the organic compost for ‘flushing’ in the
bungalow toilets when the new season starts.
119
Solar photovoltaic electricity
Electricity on the island is provided by photovoltaic solar panels. Each bungalow has its own solar
panels located on the roof, that provide power for that bungalow independently. A separate array of
panels is located behind the mosque on the island, and this array powers the education center and
staff quarters. These have proven to be a reliable source of energy, providing enough power for:
lights in the bungalows, education center and staff houses; fans in the bungalows; a charging array
(for charging computers and phones) in the education center; computers and a wifi modem in the
education center.
Temperature regulation
Both the bungalows and the education center have been architecturally designed to maximize flow-
through of the natural sea breezes that occur on the island, mitigating any need for air coolant
systems. In the bungalows this natural breeze is supplemented by solar-powered fans provided in
the bedrooms and living rooms.
Waste management
Waste is carefully managed at all stages, from procurement to disposal, as part of Chumbe’s
‘sustainability policy’ (see Appendix One). At the procurement stage, all supplies and materials are
purchased with minimal non-recyclable packaging and transported using re-usable locally made
bags. This approach has been aided in recent years by Zanzibar’s ban on the use of plastic bags in
shops (which started in 2016).
A comprehensive audit of Chumbe’s waste was conducted in 2012 (Woolven, 2012), and this
revealed that the island produces about 11.5 tonnes of solid waste per year. The constituent parts of
this waste are predominantly related to the kitchen, with compostable waste being the largest
contributor (comprising of uncooked fruit and vegetable peels) at ~ 6-7 tonnes annually (57% of all
waste). This is composted on the island and used as supply for the island toilets. The second largest
contributor is non-compostable organic waste (i.e. cooked food waste) which is not appropriate for
use in the compost toilet systems on the island, and is produced at ~ 4 tonnes/year (35% of all
waste). This waste is collected and should be removed from the island and disposed of at the
Photovoltaics provide all energy needs on
the island © CHICOP
120
Chumbe office in Unguja. However, this system remains weak and requires strengthening in the
coming years.
The remaining far smaller proportions of the waste (combined total 8%) includes: inorganic re-
useable items (that are re-purposed for boutique sales products, storage items or other purposes);
inorganic, non-re-useable recyclable waste (namely plastics, metal and glass, which are sent to a
private recycling company based in Unguja [Zanrec - https://www.zanrec.com/]); and small amounts
of non-recyclable and non-re-useable waste (which is removed from the island and collected by the
municipality).
Particularly challenging items to dispose of sustainably include non-rechargeable batteries (washed
up on shore, or waste from the staff quarters), and tetra pack cartons. Therefore, there remains
room for improvement with regards to achieving 100% sustainable waste management.
Notably ~ 1% of all waste managed on the island comes from the daily beach clean ups, removing all
and any trash that has washed up on the shores from the ocean. This commonly includes plastic
bottles, plastic packaging, glass containers, tetra pack cartons and flip flop shoes.
Night lighting
To avoid light pollution at night, torches are provided to guests to get back and forth to their
bungalows. These are solar powered and re-charged daily, to avoid the use of toxic single-use
batteries.
Other sustainable infrastructure / systems
Other areas where the tourism infrastructure and / or systems have been carefully developed for
sustainability include the following:
Supplies for the eco-lodge restaurant are nearly all bought from the proximal local
communities, to maximize revenue streaming locally.
A Sustainable Seafood Purchasing Policy is in place to ensure only sustainably caught
seafood is bought for the island (though this policy requires regular updating).
Drinking water for guests on the island and office staff is provided through ‘Drop’ local
suppliers, with re-useable large plastic containers (to avoid any single-use plastics).
Transportation needed for supply runs and the like are well coordinated to minimize
unnecessary use of fuel.
All technologies and equipment (including boat engines) are well maintained to avoid
pollutant leakages.
All laundry is done off-island, in the Chumbe head office in Unguja, to conserve the limited
water supplies available on the island, and to ensure no detergent pollution on the island.
Guests are encouraged to use ‘reef safe’ sun protection on their skin (that doesn’t leach over
the reef when people are snorkeling, and which is available on the island).
121
Bungalow Upstairs: the front wall lowers down for a
spectacular view and to promote natural breeze cooling
© Markus Meissl
Bungalow Downstairs: décor & furnishings designed by Jan
Huelsemann and produced by local artisans © Manolo Yllera
122
8.2. Guest Activities Tourists visiting Chumbe can enjoy a range of activities.
Snorkeling
This is one of the most popular activities on Chumbe given the impressive reef in the CRS. A pre-
briefing for all guests is provided by the rangers. This briefing informs visitors of the expected code
of conduct whilst snorkeling (see Appendix Nine) that includes no touching of the reef, awareness of
the risk of fin kicks, safety procedures, and likely exciting species the guest may see in the water.
Snorkeling equipment is provided, and pre-excursion tuition is available to any guests new to
snorkeling. Guests are then transported out to the reef in the rangers’ boat, that then stays nearby,
manned by the boat ranger observing the snorkelers for safety during the activity. At least one
guiding ranger per eight guests accompanies the group, equipped with a floating tube in case people
get tired whilst in the water.
No scuba diving is permitted in the CRS, with the exception of scuba for research, buoy
maintenance, or professional filming purposes.
Forest Trail
The forest trail winds around the center / south of the island, and takes about one hour to walk. This
activity begins with a pre-briefing from the ranger, ensuring guests are aware to wear appropriate
shoes, and of the time anticipated for the walk; as well as introducing guests to the history and
conservation status of the forest.
Lighthouse
Often taking place after the forest trail, this activity permits visitors to to walk up the 132 steps of
the lighthouse and out through the trapdoor at the top of the lighthouse, to take in the spectacular
views from that vantage point.
Intertidal walk / walk around the island
When tides are favorable, another activity is the inter-tidal walk. Accompanied by a ranger this walk
explores the rock pools, impressive overhangs and inter-tidal marine environment of Chumbe.
During spring low tides it is also possible to walk all the way around the island. This is a popular
activity given the large sand-bar that is exposed in the north of the island during very low tides.
However, guests undertaking this activity are strongly cautioned to be sure to return before the tide
comes in, as access on to the island is almost impossible without returning to the landing sites in the
developed area of the island.
Ngalawa Sail
In 2012 an Ngalawa (wooden dugout outrigger fishing boat) was donated to Chumbe, permitting a
further activity of ‘Ngalawa Sailing’. This is a very popular activity today, and is especially popular
when undertaken just before sunset.
123
Mangrove Boardwalk and Baobab Cave
In the mangrove pool area of Chumbe, a small boardwalk has been built that allows guests to access
the area. At high tide this pool offers lush viewing and inviting waters, whilst at low tide it reveals a
small cave nestled within the roots of the giant baobabs that border the pool.
Coconut Crabs
Overnight guests to Chumbe have the chance to go into the edges of the forest trail at night to seek
out Coconut Crabs – the largest land living crabs in the world. Accompanied by a ranger, these crabs
are often found in certain areas near the forest trail at night, and this excursion allows guests to see
close up these impressive nocturnal animals.
Bungalow Tour
All guests also receive a bungalow tour, that explains how the bungalows were designed using eco-
technology and eco-architecture, and how they have zero impact on the environment.
Snorkeling is one of the most popular activities on Chumbe © CHICOP
124
8.3. Guest Services
As well as the above described activities on the island, guests also receive the following services.
Boat Transfers
These are operated daily, leaving the departure point in Unguja, Mbweni Ruins Hotel, at 10am. For
day guests the boats depart the island at 4.30pm. For overnighters, the boat departs the island the
following day at 9am.
All boat transfers are outsourced with a local boat operator. This operator runs several boats and
crew out of the Malindi area of Stonetown. This outsourcing arrangement was established in the
early years of the project, following challenges from the Malindi fishermen over the closure of the
Chumbe Reef Sanctuary. Through this arrangement, Malindi fishers agree to respect the boundaries
of the MPA and the associated no-take regulations, and in exchange receive the livelihood of running
boat transfers to the island.
This arrangement has worked well over the years, with the Malindi crews becoming an increasingly
integral part of the Chumbe ‘family’. Additionally, many of the boats have been decorated by the
crews themselves to celebrate the marine richness of Chumbe and advertise the island – all
undertaken independently by the crews (not at the behest of CHICOP), which is a strong indication
of the positive relationship that exists with this boating community today.
Figure 63: Over the years the Malindi fisher boat crews have decorated their vessels with Chumbe motif’s and
conservation messages. Main picture © Louise Heal, inset © Lorna Arabia
125
Full Board Meals
Overnighters to the island receive full board meals, while day trippers receive lunch. All food is
prepared freshly on the island, and is local Swahili style. The food has received exceptional reviews
from guests and has become one of the key features of guest experience.
Beverages
Soda’s, juices, water, coffee and spiced teas are provided free of charge to all guests, and are
available at all times in the education center. Alcoholic drinks are available for purchase.
Boutique
A small boutique operates on the island, selling locally made sustainable, fair trade products and
Chumbe related memorabilia (including a Chumbe cook book and glasses made from recycled wine
bottles with the Chumbe logo etched onto them).
Spa
Since 2016 basic massage services have also been made available on the island during high season,
through partnership with Mali Spa in Zanzibar. A qualified masseuse from Mali Spa is stationed on
the island over these periods, and the massages offered include: head + shoulder; head + shoulder +
back; and full body massage. All oil products used are from Inaya Zanzibar and all are pure natural
products that are environmentally friendly.
Chumbe food is authentic
Swahili cuisine © Markus
Meissl
126
Other
Other services made available to the guests (but not included in the price), are:
Taxi transportation to and from the boat departure point on Unguja.
Day excursions to other areas of Zanzibar can be arranged for long-term overnighters.
Participation in research activities is permitted on a case by case basis, where guests show
interest to be involved.
On occasion Yoga retreats are arranged on the island.
The island also has a range of relaxation areas. These include swinging beds on the beaches, benches
strategically positioned at key view points, an upstairs swinging bench in the education center and
beach beds for sunbathing.
8.4. Chumbe Tourist Visitors Since the opening of tourism on the island in 1998, annual average occupancy rates on Chumbe have
ranged from a low of 21% (in 1999) to a high of 89% (in 2007) (see Figure 64).
22 21
3833
37 40
5964
73
8981
65
5461
71 7163 60 63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
YEAR
Chumbe Occupancy Rate
Figure 64: Average annual occupancy rate on Chumbe: 1998 - 2016
Note: Average annual occupancy rate is calculated based on a total occupancy expectation of 14 pax (lodge guests), divided by how many
overnight guests stayed on the island over the total number of days the lodge is open each month. Therefore in April and June, when the
island is closed for part of each month for maintenance, the occupancy is calculated against only the days open. Overall occupancy for the
year is an average of all months occupancy over 11 months (as the lodge is closed for the whole month of May each year during rainy
season for maintenance). Daytrippers are included in occupancy by consideration of three daytrippers equaling one overnight guest.
Children under the age of 2 are not considered in occupancy calculations. Children aged 2 – 12 are consider 0.5 occupancy, and single
persons’ occupancy is calculated as 1.4% occupancy rate (considering payment of additional single person supplement charge).
127
In the last five years, occupancy rates have been relatively steady, between 60% (lowest) and 71%
(highest). A more nuanced assessment of monthly occupancy rates over the years reveals, however,
that some months confer far higher occupancy rates than others (as to be expected in any seasonal
industry) (see Figure 65).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
JAN FEB MAR APR JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Occupancy rates: 2006 - 2016
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 65: Monthly occupancy rates over ten years, from 2006 – 2016.
Some months have regularly tipped well into 90 + % occupancy, particularly around the months of
August, October and January. However, there is not a strong consistency between seasonal highs
and lows over the years, indicating seasonal effects on occupancy may not be a prevailing factor to
consider in assessing overall annual occupancy averages.
Overall, therefore, it would appear there is room for improvement in strengthening overall
occupancy rates on Chumbe in the coming ten years.
One of the causes of sub-optimal occupancy may be related to the rise of day guest numbers and
reduction of overnight visitors in recent years. For example, in 2016, the number of individuals
booking day trips exceeded the number of individuals booking overnight stays for every month of
the year, with the exception of only July and December (see Figure 66).
128
Figure 66: Number of individuals booking day trips compared to number of individuals booking overnight stays on
Chumbe in 2016.
This is particularly note-worthy for two key reasons:
(a) The per-capita net revenue23 generated through day guests is considerably lower than the
per-capita net revenue generated through overnights. This means that the transition to a
predominance of day guest bookings compared to overnight bookings in recent years is
failing to maximize the per-capita net revenue potential of the island.
(b) As the occupancy calculations consider three day guests as equaling the equivalent of one
overnight guest, this prevalence of day trippers may be giving the perception of lower
occupancy figures compared to the actual capacity levels being experienced on the island.
This is important, as higher levels of daytrippers compared to overnighters puts additional
short-term strains on the island (in terms of staff time, wear and tear on infrastructure,
usage of quick-turnaround goods and services such as shower towels and subsequent
laundry needs etc.) without the benefits of the revenue potential conferred by overnighters.
Thus on-site perception may be one of regular full capacity being experienced, without the
gains of full capacity revenue being accrued.
Day trippers also benefit from access to a shared bungalow to use during their stay (max. of 6 day
trippers per bungalow) thus compounding the challenge of wear and tear on infrastructure, goods
and services etc.
23 “Per capita net revenue” is the amount of money remaining available for conservation and education related expenditure after the immediate costs of tourism goods and services is deducted. In traditional businesses this is regarded as the ‘profit margin’.
129
This challenge of proportionally greater day trippers may be being further exacerbated by the
increased tendency observed in recent years for overnighters to stay for only a short number of
nights. For example, in 2016, there were more overnight bookings for ‘one-night-only’ compared to
the sum total of all the ‘more-than-one-night’ bookings combined (as shown in Figure 67).
571
327
144
20 13 12 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 00
100
200
300
400
500
600
1N 2N 3N 4N 5N 6N 7N 8N 9N 10N 11N 12N 13N 14N 15N 16N
Duration of stay: Chumbe Guests
Figure 67: Number of individuals booking overnights set against their duration of stay on the island (1 night to 16
nights), for 2016.
One night stays are not optimal, for the following key reasons:
(a) From the guests perspective:
Overnighters staying for just one night tend to arrive on the island alongside day
guests. As they also only have one full day on the island (as they are leaving the
following morning) they tend to have to participate in all the activities together with
day visitors, with the only difference being that the overnighters stay, whilst the day
guests depart the island at 4.30 pm. With only one night booked, this means the
‘added’ activities available to the overnighters are: an optional sunset view from the
lighthouse or sunset ngalawa cruise (weather dependent) and coconut crab walk.
The following day the guests have to depart at 9am, an unusually early check out
time for most establishments, due to fixed, and necessary boat transfer times. This
means time for additional activities in the morning (such as snorkeling) is very
limited. This can lead to a resentment in one nighter guests, as they have paid more
than 300% more money to stay overnight, but do not get 300% more experience and
activities.
130
Staying more than one night allows the guests far greater flexibility in activities. They
are not pressured into participating in activities alongside the day guests, but can
rather take their time and enjoy the island in a far more relaxed fashion. Also,
following the first snorkel excursion (that is always accompanied by a ranger), if the
rangers see that the guests are competent swimmers, with awareness of managing
themselves in the reef environment, then the guests are free to go by themselves
snorkeling at any time in their remaining stay; allowing a far greater depth of
experience and enjoyment for the guests.
(b) From CHICOPs perspective:
Overnighters staying for just one night require similar resource use to those staying
more than one night in terms of: (i) new bungalow preparedness, (ii) bedsheets, towels
and associated linens, (iii) introductory guiding by the rangers, such as bungalow tour
etc. Therefore, a higher frequency of one nighters puts additional strain on staff time
and logistical resources compared to multi-nighters.
Additionally, as with any lodge, the desire is to have contented guests staying for several
nights, to optimize revenue potential. The tendency in recent times to have
predominantly day guests and one nighter stays is not optimal for generating revenue.
Some overnighters will pay an additional $70 to stay for the full day on the day two and
depart in the evening instead of the morning. Whilst this certainly enables an improved
guest experience, it still fails to maximize revenue generation potential from increased
overnight stays.
Interestingly, it has been noted that sometimes day guests, when they arrive on the island, are not
aware of the option of staying overnight. And it is not uncommon for day visitors to ask if they can
stay the night once they are on the island (so much so that the Chumbe team keep a stock of basic
toiletries, toothbrushes and the like, for last minute guests).
It is also noteworthy that the day guest market tends to come from local hotels and other
establishments that have a vested interest to promote the day trip (and acquire the commission)
though not the vested interest to promote overnights (as that would compete with their own
hotelier businesses).
Therefore, reliance upon the local operators to promote and provide overnight bookings is likely to
be inherently limited, though CHICOP management has recently started to promote last minute
discounted overnight stays with local operators such as Fisherman Tours, Eco Culture and Tours and
Tropical tours, which is aimed at boosting the overnight booking opportunities locally. However,
international agents and international mechanisms for overnight promotion are generally far more
effective at achieving overnight bookings.
131
Other potential causes of sub-optimal occupancy may also include the following:
A fluctuating tourism market overall in Zanzibar.
In recent years, challenges such as the 2012 acid attack that took place in Zanzibar, as well as
political uncertainty and civil unrest during election periods (Nov 2015 and March 2016), have led to
speculation regarding overall decreases in tourist visitors to Zanzibar, which in turn impacts visitor
numbers to Chumbe.
Additionally, the devaluation of key currencies in recent years (particularly in South Africa and
Europe) have resulted in visitors from those areas experiencing higher real-term costs if coming to
the region.
Finally, costs of goods and services in Zanzibar have overall increased fairly dramatically in recent
years, making Zanzibar as a whole a more expensive destination to visit.
Increasing competition with other eco destinations.
Over the last ten years there has been a marked increase in the number of environmentally and
socially responsible destinations available to discerning visitors all around the world. Whilst this is a
great step forward for sustainable tourism overall, it may have impacted numbers coming to
Chumbe, as wider options are available, and highly competitive, both within Tanzania and globally.
It is important to note however that few to none of these other destinations operate as a not-for-
profit enterprise, and whilst that remains one of Chumbe’s Unique Selling Points (USPs) it remains
rarely, or perhaps inadequately featured in associated marketing materials, literature and
promotional information.
Limited proactive marketing of Chumbe.
CHICOP is without a dedicated marketing staff member, and has no fixed marketing budget, relying
instead on promotion of the island to take place through predominantly media articles produced
about the project, agent promotions and online visibility. This is discussed in further detail below.
8.5. Marketing Marketing for Chumbe is generally approached through ‘zero-cost’ (or close to zero-cost) efforts. As
a not-for-profit enterprise, expenditure on marketing may diminish available expenditure for other
elements of Chumbe’s work, and therefore efforts have been made over the years to capitalize on
zero-cost / low-cost approaches wherever possible.
The key mechanisms utilized for marketing have been as follows:
132
Media articles
Given the uniqueness of Chumbe as a not-for-profit enterprise, supporting the first financially self-
sustaining MPA in the world, there has been considerable media interested generated around
Chumbe for many years. Numerous articles have appeared in leading newspapers, and magazines all
around the world. Several television documentaries have been made, and a range of other media
attention has benefited the project (including blogs, online articles, journal publications and the
like). This media attention has oftentimes been fueled by the various awards Chumbe has received
(see section 9), and such awards and associated media attention have proven critical, particularly in
the early years of the project, for acquiring free publicity for the project.
The Chumbe website
The chumbe website, www.chumbeisland.com, is well optimized24 and appears readily at the top
end of any search for ‘Chumbe’.
Online reviews and booking options
In recent years a strong presence (and high ranking) on online review websites and booking portals
has been a critical marketing tool for Chumbe. See more on this below.
Social media
Chumbe has a facebook (FB) page with posts added approximately once per month, featuring news
from the island. At the time of writing the FB page has 1,918 followers, predominantly former
guests, conservation professionals or individuals who have been connected to the project over the
years. Chumbe’s FB page is also automatically linked to a Chumbe Twitter account. There are plans
to set up an Instagram account in 2017.
Agents
Both national and international tourism operators and agents promote Chumbe to their clients;
particularly agents with a focus on the sustainable travel market.
8.5.1. Impacts of Marketing
As Figure 68 shows, the predominant mechanism through which guests learned about Chumbe has
changed considerably over the years. Today, the high ranking and presence on Trip Advisor is the
most common method by which guests first learn about the island, with the internet in general
coming second to this.
24 Through Search Engine Optimization (SEO) efforts
133
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Per
cen
tage
of
gues
ts o
ver
the
yea
rsHow guests learned about Chumbe
Travel agents Media
Internet Word of mouth
Guidebooks Other
Trip Advisor(added to questionnaire 2011)
Figure 68: Responses to guest questionnaire conducted on how guests learned about Chumbe. Source: Chumbe data.
An increasingly popular mechanism for booking Chumbe in recent years has become the website
‘Booking.com’, with which Chumbe has a set-aside arrangement, to which an 18% commission is
given.
The increase in bookings coming from these online portals has both advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages are that these portals are globally recognized, have a ‘review’ element so that
prospective guests can read other guests thoughts on the experience, and have high exposure within
the travel industry. The disadvantage is that the high rankings Chumbe has on these websites (see
section 8.5.3) can sometimes lead people to book the island without properly reading the
information. They are then somewhat surprised to arrive at a functioning conservation and
education project, rather than a purely luxury resort.
With regards to bookings coming through Chumbe’s own website, based on google analytics
statistics, Table 11 shows that the Chumbe website received more than 37,000 hits in 2016. The
origin of people visiting the website are firstly Tanzanian, followed by British, American and German.
The high number of searches coming from within Tanzania may be linked to the high prevalence of
day trippers and / or guests learning about Chumbe once they arrive into Zanzibar. Additionally, as
the proportion of ‘new users’ is lower for this country than all others, the high number of hits may
also be connected to the Chumbe Team themselves accessing the website.
For the other top ranked countries accessing the Chumbe website, this correlates well with the
origin of guests coming to the island (see section 8.5.2).
134
Table 11: Sources and hit rates of visitors to the Chumbe website (Source: Google Analytics)
The statistics also reveal that the websites bounce rate is ‘moderate’. This is defined as the
percentage of visitors who navigate away from the site after viewing only one page (a high bounce
rate is a sure sign that a homepage is boring or off-putting). With an overall average bounce rate of
31.58% in 2016, it appears the site is holding sufficient attention, whilst there remains room for
improvement.
The average number of pages visited per session is nearly 4 pages, and the average time spent on
the site is just over 3 minutes per person. These results are relatively positive, showing the site is
holding sufficient interest to make people want to browse further and read the information shown.
The stats show these interactions (1st, 2nd and 3rd tier flow-through) are most commonly related to
the pages on (i) rates, (ii) accommodation, and (iii) photo gallery. Therefore it is clear the website is
being generally approached by people interested in the tourism element of the Chumbe MPA (i.e.
prospective guests) more than people interested to read about the other elements of Chumbe’s
work (education, conservation etc.).
With regards to the routes through which people find the Chumbe website, Table 12 reveals that the
vast majority of traffic (>60%) comes from ‘Organic Search’ (i.e. through search engine listings)
meaning that people are most commonly proactively searching around topics related to Chumbe, or
specific to Chumbe. This may likely be through individuals who learned of Chumbe on Trip Advisor
and then undertook an organic search for the project (as CHICOP does not have TA membership,
therefore no direct weblink is provided on the TA platform).
COUNTRY # Overall Hits
Proportion new users (%)
Percentage of overall traffic (%)
Bounce rate (%)
Av. # pages per session
Avg. session duration
1 Tanzania 4,780 60 12.75 37.2 3.4 00:03:53
2 United Kingdom 4,538 71 12.11 35.74 4.13 00:04:12
3 United States 4,073 79 10.87 38.67 3.71 00:03:01
4 Germany 3,300 74 8.80 33.3 4.32 00:03:10
5 Russia 2,901 73 7.74 5.93 2.22 00:03:11
6 South Africa 1,828 77 4.88 28.28 4.1 00:03:23
7 France 1,580 77 4.22 36.71 4.11 00:02:36
8 Italy 1,084 82 2.89 34.96 4.38 00:02:51
9 Switzerland 1,029 77 2.75 31.29 4.59 00:03:06
10 Netherlands 901 79 2.40 33.74 3.93 00:02:39
Other 11,465
Averages 31.58 3.89 00:03:04
TOTAL 37479
135
Default Channel Grouping
Acquisition Behavior
# sessions Proportional distribution (%)
Bounce Rate Pages/Session Avg. Session Duration
1. Organic Search 22,817 60.88 31.92 4.16 00:03:38
2. Direct 6,855 18.29 47.18 3.41 00:03:10
3. Referral 5,329 14.22 39.74 3.12 00:03:15
4. Social 2,474 6.60 16.25 2.22 00:01:50
Averages 34.8 3.75 00:03:22
Table 12: Routes through which people access the Chumbe website
Approximately 18% of visitors also find Chumbe through direct means (i.e. through direct input of
the URL, or clicking links provided in pdfs, word documents and associated literature). Beyond this ~
14% of visitors are directed to Chumbe through referral links (i.e. links on other websites).
Of particular interest in these results however is that only ~ 6.6 % of all visitors find the Chumbe
website through some form of social media, and when they do access the Chumbe website through
social media, they tend to browse far fewer pages on average, and spend far less time on the
website. This suggests that: (a) the social media platform is so far being considerably underutilized
by Chumbe; (b) what social media presence there is, it is not perhaps reaching the relevant target
audience effectively; (c) the website home page and overall design is not in keeping with the short
‘sound-bite’ (limited text / easy access) flow that social media users are more familiar with today,
and that may be off-putting to new viewers accessing the site through this portal.
It is also noteworthy that the Chumbe website style is a little outdated and may benefit from
upgrading in the coming years. Additionally, the website hosting mechanism that Chumbe has at this
time is challenging, with limited access for updating the site, managing domain email options or
upgrading design. Therefore, this is something that will require addressing in the coming
management plan period.
Guests learning about Chumbe from guidebooks has diminished considerably (as is to be expected,
as the guidebook market becomes replaced with online platforms). Likewise, guests learning of
Chumbe from travel agents has reduced.
Interestingly ‘word of mouth’ remains a strong method through which guests learn about Chumbe.
This has both positive and negative implications. On the positive side, guests booking Chumbe
through word of mouth are generally far more aware that Chumbe is not-for-profit and is a
functioning project (and not only a luxury resort). On the negative side, the continuing high
prevalence of ‘word of mouth’ bookings suggests that exposure about Chumbe on other marketing
platforms is relatively very limited.
136
In recent years, bookings coming from media articles also appears to be relatively low. This may be a
feature of the reduction in media coverage Chumbe has received in recent years. Tracking media has
also been hindered, as on several occasions journalists have visited the island but have not followed
up with any publication. Additionally, the approach currently utilized on Chumbe towards dealing
with journalists has altered over the years, and in recent times media visits have not been
accompanied by managers / staff able to present the unique selling points (USPs) of the island. The
media briefing package previously utilized by Chumbe for all visiting journalists is also no longer
made available. These elements combined may be a factor in the reduction of Chumbe exposure in
media in recent years.
This data may however also be somewhat misleading, as guests who have read a media article likely
then go online to make a booking – and therefore may respond to the questionnaire (source of data)
by considering their booking portal more strongly than their original introduction to the project. In
future it will be important to ensure the wording of the questionnaire is such that this data can be
teased apart more effectively.
Overall, in the coming years it will be important to maximize zero-to-low cost marketing effectively,
to maximize targeted exposure and, in particular, promote overnight stays of longer time-periods, in
order to in turn maximize occupancy and revenue generation potential.
8.5.2. Origin of Guests
In the last five years, the national origin of guests has remained remarkably consistent. Germany
remains Chumbes biggest source of visitors, with North America, Scandinavia and Great Britain being
the other most common nationalities visiting Chumbe (see Figure 69).
The consistency in this demographic trend may be related to some extent to the historic linkages
made by Chumbe (with a German national as founder and Director, and various American,
Scandinavian and British managers present over the years).
Certainly it would suggest that making efforts to broaden the demographic coverage of Chumbe in
the coming years could be advantageous to boosting potential occupancy and revenue generation.
8.5.3. Guest Experience
Questionnaires are provided to all overnight guests who stay on the island. These questionnaires are
used to inform and guide management with feedback, observations and suggestions. Whilst
considerable information is available, and utilized by management from these documents, analysis
has not been undertaken over the last ten years. And as the questionnaires are paper-based,
retroactive analysis was beyond the remit of this management plan development. In future it is
recommended that numerical ratings (likert scales and the like) that form part of the questionnaires
are routinely written up into a database to enable effective quantitative assessment over time.
137
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f gu
est
s o
ver
the
ye
arNationalities of guests visiting Chumbe
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 69: Nationalities of visitors to Chumbe
Data on rankings for guest experience is available however on two key online platforms: Trip Advisor
and booking.com.
As Figure 70 shows, the Trip Advisor rankings for Chumbe are exceptional. More than 90% of
reviewers have rated the Chumbe experience as ‘Excellent’ (the top ranking available). This strongly
endorses Chumbe’s tourist service and operations, and in itself provides excellent marketing for the
project. Between 2012 and 2015, Chumbe was also ranked as the #1 destination in Zanzibar on Trip
Advisor (now ranked #4).
Chumbe has been awarded the Trip Advisor Travellers Choice Award every year since 2011, and
joined Trip Advisors ‘Hall of Fame’ after five consecutive years of achieving a certificate of
excellence.
Chumbe has similarly received all top ranks on the German review website www.holidaycheck.de,
where all review are #6 (the top ranking score). Likewise on www.booking.com, nearly 70% of all
guest ratings are ‘Wonderful’ (the highest rating available), with the remainder being ‘Good’.
Of the breakdown feedback from guests on booking.com, it is also possible to see that the elements
of tourism services that received the highest accolades from guests was the ‘Location’ and ‘Staff’,
whilst the element receiving the lowest ranking was ‘Value for Money’.
138
0 100 200 300 400 500
Terrible
Poor
Average
Very Good
Excellent
Number of reviews
Terrible Poor Average Very Good Excellent
Series1 4 3 10 24 444
Trip Advisor Rankings (to end 2016)
Figure 70: Trip Advisor rankings for Chumbe
0 5 10 15 20 25
Very poor
Poor
Okay
Good
Wonderful
Very poor Poor Okay Good Wonderful
Series1 0 0 0 9 20
Booking.com rankings (to end of 2016)
Figure 71: Booking.com rankings
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cleanliness Comfort Location Facilities Staff Value forMoney
Booking.com service ratings (out of 10)
Figure 72: Ratings of various tourism service elements by booking.com customers
139
8.6. Sustainable Financing for MPA Over the last six years, gross revenue25 from the ecotourism activities on Chumbe peaked in 2012,
but has been gradually decreasing since this time (see Figure 73).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
US$
(0
00
,00
0)
GROSS REVENUE
Figure 73: Total gross revenue generated through ecotourism on Chumbe, 2010 – 2015.
This aligns with the similar trend found in the overall occupancy rate in the last couple of years, from
71% in 2012, to between 60 and 63% in recent years. With these lower occupancies, lower revenue
is to be expected. However, occupancy rates should not be considered in isolation, given the
complexity of the occupancy calculation base (i.e. 3 daytrippers = 1 overnight), and the fact that
occupancy fails to factor in revenue considerations such as discounts, special offers, varying agent
commissions and the like.
Therefore, whilst boosting overall occupancy will be important in the coming years, a caveat is that it
should be heavily targeted at boosting overnight occupancies in particular, in order to maximize the
per capita income potential of the island.
This may be achieved through a range of approaches, including:
Improving targeted and systematic social marketing presence, with an emphasis on the
lodge element of Chumbe (as opposed to day trip options).
Promoting greater linkages with local tourism operators as opposed to hotelier operators
locally, to avoid competition with other overnight facilities and to target the Chumbe lodge
for greater promotion locally.
25 Gross revenue is the total income received by the project before any expenditure.
140
Promoting / regalvanizing linkages with other, similar high-end lodge destinations, to be able
to offer complimentary ‘packages’ to guests (such as safari lodges on mainland, and other
eco-lodge destinations within the region).
In situations where guests are enquiring for a one-night-only stay on the island, it is
worthwhile proactively offering them small discounts on extending their stay (to two or
more nights), as even with these discounts the per capita increase in revenue is still far
beyond that available through a day tripper.
Undertaking targeted efforts to acquire media attention in nations so far little exposed to
Chumbe (to broaden the demographic market access), with publications emphasizing the
lodge (overnight) component, and not day trip options.
Encouraging overnight guests (as opposed to day guests) to write reviews on Trip Advisor
about their (lodge) stay on the island, so as to proportionally promote awareness of Chumbe
as a predominantly overnight stay location.
Developing a more systematic approach to managing journalistic visits to the island,
including production of a media package of information (for handout to all journalists) with
associated lodge information, and to ensure any journalistic visit to the island is
accompanied by an appropriate Chumbe representative able to talk to the USPs of the
project.
Ensuring the Chumbe website continues to be optimized for visibility. This involves regularly
updating the site (as google and other search engines always prioritize their ‘crawling’26 to
sites with new content). Additionally, to ensure the site is appropriately updated in
appearance (in keeping with advances in web design and technology) and promotes
overnight stays above day trip options.
All of the above actions are possible at zero-to-low cost to Chumbe, and offer mechanisms for
enhancing revenue potential. They will however require committed time of an appropriate Chumbe
staff member to undertake.
Additionally, improving occupancy will rely always on ensuring the tourism infrastructure, services
and activities on the island are being delivered to the highest possible quality.
26 Crawling is the process by which a ‘Googlebot’ (also known as robot, bot or spider on other search engine
platforms) discovers new and updated pages to be prioritized on the index.
141
8.6.1. Proportional Expenditure
Of all the revenue generated, CHICOP has had a ‘rule-of-thumb’ target for the following proportional
expenditures:
60% of revenue generated is anticipated to cover all the ecolodge operations, guest costs, all
lodge related staffing, transport, goods and services. In traditional for-profit business lodge
operations this would be the overall expenditure of the organization, with the remainder
being profits for shareholders. However, as a not-for-profit initiative, the remaining 40% of
funds generated are utilized for the conservation and education components of the project.
20% of revenue generated goes to the Chumbe’s Environment Education (EE) program
20% of revenue generated goes to Chumbe’s conservation work (including conservation
management, monitoring, surveillance etc.).
Analysis on whether CHICOP has met these targets over recent years has not been consistently
undertaken. However, using one year – 2015 - as a review example, it was found that these targets
remain relevant and robust. In the coming years, an annual assessment of expenditure will be
required to assess proportional expenditure and ensure it remains within the target allocations.
Figure 74: Proportional annual expenditure on (i) tourism, (ii) education and (iii) conservation. 2015. (CHICOP data)
8.6.2. Managing costs
Expenditure at CHICOP is closely managed by the Project Manager and finance team, and audited
annually. In recent years, costs of goods and services in Zanzibar have increased with high levels of
inflation, whilst CHICOP rates have stayed the same in this period, limiting CHICOPs ability to keep
up with costs.
142
This is compounded by a weakening Tanzanian currency over the last decade27, which has led to
increased costs for utilities (electricity etc.) in the Unguja head office, and increased market costs of
produce. Therefore, cautious and closely managed financial expenditure remains critical to the
effective functioning of CHICOP.
Expenditure at CHICOP includes a range of permits, leases, licenses and insurance costs as shown in
Table 13.
Agency Type Amount Renew date Renewable
COMMISSION FOR TOURISM Tourism certificate $1,000 USD January Annually
Management Certificate $560 USD January Annually
COMMISSION FOR LANDS Land lease - Chukwani $700 USD September Annually
COMMISSION FOR LANDS Land lease - Chumbe $4,873 USD October Annually
ZATI Certificate of Membership $450 USD January Annually
ZANEMA Certificate of Membership $200 USD January Annually
ZIPA Investment license $500 USD January Annually
IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT Resident Permit (for foreign employees)
$2,050 as expires (per expatriate)
2 years
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupation Safety Tsh. 1,800,000 January (next due 2019)
Every two years
For foreign employees
Work permit-1st time
$300 USD as expires (per expatriate)
Annually Work permit- Renew
$150 USD
TANZANIA COMMUNICATIONS REGULATIONS AUTHORITIES
Radio frequency $150 USD January (next due 2024)
Every ten years
NATIONAL INSURANCE COORPORATION OF TANZANIA LTD
Fire insurance $450 USD January Annually
NATIONAL INSURANCE COORPORATION OF TANZANIA LTD
Island insurance $450 USD October Annually
NATIONAL INSURANCE COORPORATION OF TANZANIA LTD
Workmen Compensation Tsh. 1,637,000 October Annually
WESTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL Liquor license $1,500 December Annual
WESTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL Garbage collection fee Tsh. 30,000 as expires Monthly
ZANREC Recycling fee Tsh. 50,000 as expires Monthly
ZANZIBAR REVENUE BOARD Road License for vehicles Tsh. 20,000 Per vehicle Annually
Infrastructure Tax $1 Per guest Monthly
ZANZIBAR INSURANCE CORPORATION
Road insurance Tsh. 120,000 Per vehicle Annually
Table 13: List of permits, licenses and fees payable by CHICOP. All prices listed at 2017 rates.
In addition to this, Chumbe pays VAT on all sales (at 18%), though this is able to be recouped to
some extent through reclaiming the VAT from purchases made. End of year corporate tax on any
profits made (based on audited profit and loss records) is charged at 30% annually. Therefore,
Chumbe operates just as any other business in Zanzibar and despite being a not-for-profit enterprise
remains liable for all incumbent charges just as any profit making business.
27 From 0.00086 USD to the shilling in 2006, to 0.00045 USD to the shilling in 2016
143
9. CHUMBE AWARDS & RECOGNITION TO DATE Over the years, Chumbe has won a wide range of internally acclaimed awards, including becoming
the World Winner of the British Airways ‘Tourism for Tomorrow Award’ after only one year of
tourism operations in 1999, and receiving the United Nations Global Laureate award for
‘Outstanding Environmental Achievement’ in 2000. Other prestigious awards include the
Smithsonian ‘Tourism Cares for Tomorrow’ award (2005), the National Geographic award for
‘Innovative Approaches in Promoting Ecotourism’ (2008), the Pan-African award for
‘Entrepreneurship in Education’ (2009), and the Rio+10 Sustainia Global Solution Award (2012).
Figure 75: (left) Receiving the British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Global Award in UK, 1999 © CHICOP; (right)
Attending the UN Global Laureate ceremony in Australia, 2000 © CHICOP
Chumbe has been voted the best ecotourism destination in the world (Condenast Traveller
Magazine, 2001), the most romantic eco-holiday in the world (Harpers & Queen Magazine, 2003),
and one of the top 25 worlds best ecolodges (National Geographic Magazine, 2008).
Chumbe was selected to represent Tanzania at the EXPO 2000 World Exhibition in Hannover,
Germany, where one of the eco-bungalows was re-constructed at the exhibition for visitors to
explore. And within the tourism industry, Chumbe has received numerous accolades, including:
Worlds Best Marine & Beach Destination (Responsible Travel, 2004), One of Africa’s Best Ecological
Safari Property (Safari Awards, 2012), and the Worlds Best Water Conservation Destination
(Responsible Travel, 2013). Chumbe was also featured in the New York Times bestseller ‘1000 places
to see before you die’ (2003).
Locally, Chumbe received an award from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment for
‘Outstanding Environmental Conservation and Awareness Raising in Zanzibar’ (2009), and in 2012
Chumbe received special recognition by the UN Secretary General in his report to the General
Assembly on Protection of coral reefs for sustainable livelihoods and development in 2012, as part of
the preparation for the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.
Chumbe has been featured in numerous media publications, and more than twenty television
documentaries. For a complete list of Chumbe’s Awards, see Appendix Ten.
145
10. MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017 – 2027: METHODOLOGY
As Chumbe Island MPA has been a successful initiative already operational for more than 20 years,
this management plan is unlike ‘start-up’ MPAs, or donor funded project cycle plans. The aim for this
third ten-year management plan has been, from the outset, one of consolidation and refinement.
CHICOP is not aiming to expand operations spatially or detract in any way from the initial mission of
the organization, which was, and continues to be: “To manage, for conservation purposes, the
Chumbe Island Reef Sanctuary and the Chumbe Island Closed Forest Reserve. This includes
educational and commercial activities related to the non-consumptive use of the above mentioned
natural resources and the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the
attainment of the above object.” (CHICOP Articles of Association).
With two previous ten-year management plans already in completed (1995 -2005, and 2006 – 2016
respectively), the process for developing this third management plan aimed to refine and re-develop
the existing objectives based upon reflection and assessment of achievement and challenges to
date.
To that end, in early 2016, two consultants from the Long Run Initiative (LTR) undertook a thorough
and comprehensive review of Chumbe’s achievements under the 4C model of LTR (Conservation,
Culture, Community and Commerce). Their findings were presented in an extensive report that
provided foundational insights into the projects strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
Building on these findings, in June 2016, the former Project Manager (and alternative Director of
Chumbe), who is also founder of Sustainable Solutions International Consulting (SSIC), came on
board to support the full development of the management plan. This started with a full team
workshop was on the island that involved a review of CHICOP’s overall vision and mission, followed
by an achievement and challenge session (using a consensus-workshop technique, as developed by
the Technology of Participation [ToP] Institute). This approach was utilized in order to further solicit
input from all Chumbe staff, at all levels within the organization, regarding the projects key
achievements and challenges of the previous ten-year period.
Following this, the challenges to address were prioritized using a ‘challenge tree’ approach, and the
CHICOP management then held separate focus group discussions to address each challenge in turn
and propose solutions to be presented back to the team for feedback, and for later incorporation
into objectives and targets moving forward.
From this initial meeting, the Chumbe vision for the coming ten years was refined, a simplified
Theory of Change (TOC) developed, and an outline concept model produced to better elucidate the
integration and interaction between the three core pillar areas (conservation, education and
ecotourism) in achieving Chumbe’s overall vision.
146
In the months that followed, work focused on gathering, collating and consolidating all available
data on the three core pillars. Whilst in some areas of Chumbe’s work the data was readily available
and had been analyzed and utilized by management in an on-going way, in other areas of work the
data was considerably lacking, or was available but had not been collated or analyzed in some time.
Therefore, the management planning process provided an opportunity to gather, glean, analyze and
consolidate all existing information, and identify the key gaps to address moving forward.
In November 2016 the CHICOP management team met with the Chumbe Advisory Committee. At
this meeting the management planning process and findings to date were shared with the
committee and input was solicited for the forthcoming management plan period (2017 – 2027).
Participants included: the District Commissioner for Western District “B” (Silima H. Haji), the
community Sheha of Kombeni (Mussa Khamis Mussa), the community Sheha of Dimani (Khatibu
Ame Baraka), a representative from the Department of Forestry (Ameir Himid Ali), a representative
from the State University of Zanzibar (Mohammed S. Mohammed), a representative from the
Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS) University of Dar es Salaam (Batuli M. Yahya), a representative
from the Fishery Departments’ Marine Conservation Unit (Abdulaziz A Mussa), three Planning
Officers from the Department of Fisheries Development (Mchanga S. Khamis, Mkubwa S. Khamis and
Ali S. Mkarafuu), a Fisheries Officer (Daudi H. Pandu), and the Manager of neighboring Menai Bay
Conservation Area (MBCA) (Anas M. Othman).
In February 2017 further focus group discussions were held with Chumbe team members in order to
incorporate feedback to date and further refine the objectives and targets for the coming ten years.
Mechanisms for effective monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) were identified against each
objective, and the final management plan was produced.
11. STRATEGIC GOALS & OBJECTIVES: 2017 – 2027 The overall goal for 2027 is as follows:
The Chumbe Island Coral Reef Sanctuary and Closed Forest Reserve are
effectively and sustainably managed in order to maximize their contribution to
biodiversity conservation, serve as a model for effective ecotourism and MPA
management, and provide a platform to promote wider environmental
awareness for sustainable development and ecological stewardship in Zanzibar.
Figure 76 shows a basic concept model of how the three pillars of ecotourism, conservation (marine
and forest) and education, combine to achieve this goal.
Marine area is effectively protected against direct anthropogenic threats
Marine area is maintained against impacts from COTS
and SST increases caused by climate change
Forest area is effectively protected against direct anthropogenic
threats
LHCC, fish biomass & marine diversity is maintained or
increased from 2016 levels
Sustainable high-end ECOTOURISM provides
the financing for all MPA operations & provides a model for sustainable
tourism management in Zanzibar
Revenue generation sufficient to
maintain all MPA operations
• Annual income• Occupancy rate
Excellence in ecotourism
experience & delivery achieved
& maintained
• Trip Advisor ranking
• Guest feedback • Repeat
customers / rec’mmend’ns
Sustainable ecotourism education
provided to stakeholders
• # of education visits incur-poratingsustainable ecotourism
The Chumbe Island Coral Reef Sanctuary
and Closed Forest Habitat are
effectively and sustainably
managed in order to maximize their contribution to
biodiversity conservation, serve
as a model for effective ecotourism
and MPA management, and provide a platform to promote wider
environmental awareness for
sustainable development and
ecological stewardship in
Zanzibar.
RHM and daily observations conducted to inform
management response
• Stability / health of ecosystem (LHCC, fish biomass etc.)
Research activities undertaken to support management
objectives
• # research initiatives implemented
PSE undertaken 24/7 to ensure no CRS non-permitted activities
occur - using educative enforcement approach
• Level of incidences
PSE undertaken 24/7 to ensure no forest encroachment /
extraction
• Level of incidences
Research activities undertaken to support management
objectives
• # research initiatives implemented
Forest monitoring undertaken
• Stability of forest diversity
Schools Programmeimplementation (EE)
• # school visits • # schools
supported
Peer Education & Outreach initiatives
implemented
• # initiatives
Wider stakeholder education initiatives
implemented (university students,
govt official etc.)
• # initiatives
Forest area is proactively managed against invasive
species (inc. rats)
Effectively managed habitat supports biodiversity including
endangered species
• Level of incidences
• Level of incidences
• Pop’n # C. adersi• Pop’n # B.latro• Biodiversity
• Level of incidences
Management actions are responsive to mitigate impacts from invasives
(COTs) and other factors (SST etc.)
• Time from observation to management reaction
• LHCC + other obs• Fish kg/ha• Fish ind/500m2
• Level of incidences• Obs of resilience factors
Healthy CRS supports fishery productivity & food security
beyond MPA
• Spilover
Figure 76: Basic concept model to achieve overall 2027 goal.
Summary strategic objectives
Indicators Outcomes Overall goal Tourism Marine Conservation
Forest Conservation
Education
The following sections outline the more detailed objectives, targets, indicators and associated
monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) methodologies anticipated under each of the three
pillars. These MEL approaches are further described in section 13.
11.1. Conservation The core strategic focus areas for Chumbe’s Conservation Programme are:
Patrol, Surveillance and Enforcement (PSE)
In-house Monitoring
Research (in collaboration with partners)
A. PATROL, SURVEILLANCE AND ENFORCEMENT (PSE)
A.1. Patrol, Surveillance and Enforcement – Coral Reef Sanctuary (CRS)
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
A.1.1 By 2027, active and routine PSE activities in the CRS will have effectively managed and deterred 100% of attempted encroachments (poaching, anchoring and any other non-permitted actions) within the CRS
Daily active PSE is conducted in the CRS
# of active patrols conducted in CRS # incidences observed
Ranger reports
100% of attempted infringements deterred
# incidences addressed
Ranger reports to be filled daily and submitted monthly to Conservation & Education Manager
# daily reports
Ranger report data to be copied, entered in system and analyzed quarterly
Database updated monthly and analyzed quarterly
Conservation Status Report
Summary report of ranger report data and copies of ranger report data sheets sent quarterly to Fisheries Department
# of summary reports sent to Fisheries Department
A.1.2 By July 2017 Security support staff will be re-instated on island to assist with PSE
Permanent placement of security staff
# Security support staff
Description: PSE is proactively implemented through an observation and reaction approach.
In-water PSE: undertaken during concurrent activities (i.e. observations during supply trips and guided snorkeling), as well as in-water responsive to land post observations. Land post PSE day: undertaken from top of lighthouse (vantage point across entire MPA) Land post PSE night: undertaken from Jahazi view observation point Land post PSE low tide: undertaken via inter-tidal (2 rangers on foot patrols - one north, one south)
PSE complimented by wider team and visitor observations where relevant. PSE utilizes an ‘Education Enforcement’ (EdEnf) non-confrontational technique, to enable positive transfer and reinforcement of conservation messaging. In case of potential escalation scenarios, and for the safety and security of staff and guests on the island, two armed security staff must be deployed on the island from a Police unit in Unguja. This placement has not taken place in recent months due to limited personnel in the local police office; however, efforts are expected to be resumed to ensure their re-installation within the early parts of year 1 of this management plan. PSE is documented through ranger reports that are filled out on a daily basis and submitted to the Conservation & Education Manager at the end of each month. Data from ranger reports is then immediately entered into the PSE database and copied. Copies and a short summary report including graphs are sent quarterly to the Zanzibar Fisheries Department.
149
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
A.1.3 By 2027 all PSE equipment has been appropriately maintained and made available to ensure PSE operational viability at all times
PSE equipment is fully available and operational at all times
Presence / absence (checked by rangers and reported to island manager)
Reports from weekly spot checks conducted by Island Manager
At least 1 boat has been available for reactionary PSE at all times in-water
Presence / absence (checked by Rangers and boat crew)
Rangers reports
A.1.4 By April 2018, additional surveillance equipment needs are explored and installed / established
PSE equipment on-island adequately supports PSE activities
PSE equipment list Conservation department status report
Description: PSE related equipment includes:
At least 1 boat (Virore) available (and afloat) at all times for responsive PSE actions and patrols (equipped with paddle for safety in case of engine failure)
Fuel for boat
Binoculars x 2
Night vision device x 1
Night torches x 3 Future additional PSE equipment to be explored may include:
Camera surveillance equipment from lighthouse vantage point
A.1.5 By 2027, at least three CRS boundary markers have continued to be in place and effectively functioning throughout management period.
A minimum of 3 CRS boundary markers are in place at any given time
Presence / absence (checked by Rangers and boat crew)
Buoy maintenance schedule
CRS boundary markers are maintained each quarter
Completed Buoy maintenance documentation
A.1.6 By June 2018, support systems will be established to ensure skilled personnel are available to support buoy maintenance every four months.
System established (either through ranger training or through dive center partnership).
Description: Quarterly maintenance checks include:
On-boat: checking solar lantern & all buoy shackles
In-water: Scuba diving to check cement mooring block and cleaning rope/chain with iron brush Skilled support is systematically required for these efforts, and in year 1 of the management plan, further exploration will be undertaken with regards to either (a) implementing appropriate dive and maintenance ranger training, or (b) developing appropriate partnership with a local dive operator to get regular volunteer support with this work.
A.2. Patrol, Surveillance and Enforcement – Closed Forest Reserve (CFR)
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
A.2.1 By 2027, active and routine PSE activities in the CFR will have effectively managed and deterred 100% of attempted encroachments (cutting, felling and any other non-permitted actions) within the CFR
Daily active PSE is conducted in the CFR
# of active patrol observations
CFR ranger reports
100% of attempted infringements deterred
# incidences addressed
A.2.2 By June 2017 new CFR PSE documentation system established to compliment CRS data recording
Production of CFR ranger report form
CFR ranger report form available
Description: Patrols in the CFR have not been documented to date. Therefore, a new CFR patrol form will be developed to compliment the CRS PSE
documentation. To be completed on a monthly basis, and combined with the ‘Occasional Observation’ (OccObs) system described in the
Monitoring section below.
150
B. IN-HOUSE MONITORING
B.1. Coral Reef Sanctuary (CRS)
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
B.1.1 By September 2017, the Chumbe Reef Health Monitoring (RHM) Protocol is updated in line with latest international standards.
Updated protocol in place by September 2017 incorporating new additional elements highlighted below (see elements showing *new protocol)
Protocol established Conservation status report
B.1.2 By December 2017, the seagrass monitoring data to date will be fully reviewed by an external advisor, and appropriate trend levels and targets for future monitoring identified.
Seagrass data reviewed and clarity available on trends and target development
Summary report on findings and recommendations
B.1.3 By 2027, full suite surveys within the RHM protocol have been implemented annually in order to monitor the ecological health and status, and manage where necessary, a range of marine biomes present in the CRS.
≥ av. 50 % LHCC across
all CRS
Live hard coral cover (LHHC) - *new protocol
Annual RHM (plus conducted after any bleaching incident).
≥ 1000 kg/ha fish biomass in CRS
Total fish biomass (existing protocol)
Annual RHM.
≤ 1/m2 sea urchin density in CRS
Urchin Density (existing protocol)
Annual RHM (plus regular monthly observation)
< 10 % fleshy algae cover on reef areas
Fleshy algae cover - *new protocol
Annual RHM (plus conducted after any bleaching incident).
< 10 % of colonies surveyed show indications of mortal bleaching
Bleaching incidence (existing protocol)
Annual RHM (plus conducted after any bleaching incident).
Bleaching response protocol (in the event of bleaching) -*new
< 5 % corals surveyed show signs of disease
Disease prevalence (existing protocol)
Annual RHM
<2/16ha COT density maintained
COT density (existing protocol)
Annual RHM (plus regular random swim observations throughout year)
COT removal protocol
B.1.4 By September 2018, in-house training of trainers (TOT) will be completed with the ranger team to both expand the number of team members with existing monitoring skills and provide additional skills building for the new monitoring areas.
At least two (2) rangers (ideally 3) will be trained to an appropriate level to implement full suite RHM monitoring.
TOT summary report Conservation status report
Description: By Sept 2017 the CHICOP in-house monitoring protocol to be revised and updated to both continue monitoring the existing monitoring activities and incorporate new additional activities in line with recognized international best practice approaches. To enable and improve implementation, training of trainers will be conducted with the ranger team to enable effective in-house monitoring of the revised protocol. Clarity on seagrass data (trend and future targets) will be achieved with support from PhD student from Stockholm University.
151
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
B.1.5 By 2027, at least two sea surface temperature (SST) loggers will have been present at all times in the CRS to appropriately record SST over time (in collaboration with the Institute of Marine Sciences - IMS).
Two (2) SST loggers deployed at any given time inside the CRS
Presence / absence (through manager deployment)
Bleaching response protocol
Conservation Status Report
Bleaching threshold to trigger Bleaching Response Protocol = 30.5 °C (SST that is 1°C warmer than the highest monthly mean temperature)
Bleaching response protocol enacted in a timely manner in response to SST findings
Description: Continuing to track SST is critical for regularly assessing potential bleaching thresholds and implementing the bleaching response protocol in a timely manner. More information on bleaching threshold for the region can be found here:http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/cb/TS_vs/vs_ts_2yr_Zanzibar_Tanzania.png
B.1.6 By April 2018, baseline water quality data will be established, and thereafter monitoring will be undertaken twice annually to enable observations of status and trends in water quality within the MPA (in collaboration with the State University of Zanzibar – SUZA).
Baseline data available by April 2018
Targets for water quality monitoring TBD
Summary data available for baselines
Indicators for water quality in monitoring thereafter TBD (see below description)
Conservation Status Report (to provide baseline data)
Monitoring MEL beyond baseline TBD
Description: To implement water quality monitoring in cooperation with SUZA and conduct sampling at least twice a year to monitor water quality status. Protocol to be developed (TBD) as well as targets and indicators, which may include (for example) pH levels, salinity, nutrient levels etc.
B.1.7 By June 2017, an Occasional Observation (OccObs) protocol is developed and relevant data capture forms are utilized thereafter to record sightings of sharks, turtles, dolphins and other occasional megafauna within and adjacent to the CRS.
Protocol and data capture form developed
Protocol and data capture form available
Conservation Status Report
B.1.8 By 2027, OccObs protocol will have been routinely implemented and data submitted monthly to the Conservation Manager.
Completed OccObs forms submitted monthly.
OccObs database
Description: Occasional Observation data will enable the more systematic capture of observational data related to visiting and transient megafauna within the CRS.
B.1.9 By 2027, CHICOP will have participated in at least ten (10) regional humpback whale monitoring events (one annually).
Annual whale monitoring data submitted each year
Synchronized Whale Watching Day (SWWD) implemented
SWWD data sheets
Description: The Synchronized Whale Watching Day (SWWD) is a regional initiative established in 2008 by Dr. Matt Richmond that uses a standard, 11-point log sheet to record sightings of humpback whales seen in the seas of Tanzania, Kenya and Mozambique. The log sheet is circulated by email to interested parties who live or work along the coasts of eastern Africa and data gathered is shared via newsletters.
152
B.2. In-house Monitoring – Closed Forest Reserve (CFR)
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
B.2.1 By December 2017 a new Aders Duiker monitoring protocol will be designed and developed in order to confirm the existing current number of Ader’s duiker present on island, and monitor the population over time.
New protocol established
New protocol available
Conservation Status Report
B.2.2 Starting in January 2018, the new Aders Duiker monitoring protocol will be implemented.
Existing Duiker population numbers clarified
Population estimates updated over time
# recorded visible sightings of Aders Duikers # recorded evidence sightings of Aders Duikers # Camera trap recordings
TBD
Description: Methods are going to be discussed (in April 2017) with a PhD student who is currently working with Ader’s duiker on Mnemba Island. Previous ‘drive’ method is very stressful for animals, time intense and requires experienced hunters from Unguja, however, due to dense coral rag forest not the ideal method of regular monitoring and it also doesn’t provide the information that’s needed. Wildlife camera deployed opposite of scent marks that are monitored by Head Ranger most effective and led to most recent recording of Mr. Purple in February 2017.
B.2.3 By April 2018 a systematic methodology will be designed and developed to enable consistent and comparable monitoring of the resident coconut crab population on the island.
Coconut crab monitoring methodology and data analysis system established (with external scientific specialist support)
Methodology available
Conservation Status Report
B.2.4 By June 2018, Training of trainers (ToT) on crab methodology will be conducted with ranger team.
At least 3 rangers trained in coconut crab population monitoring
ToT activity summary available
B.2.5 By 2027, at least three coconut crab studies will have been conducted in the CFR, with the first being conducted in year 2 (18/19)
3 population assessments completed
Population assessment results available
Description: Whilst numerous coconut crab surveys have been conducted over the years, the inconsistent methodologies and incomparable data analysis processes used have resulted in a lack of any temporal trend assessment or quantitative observation on population dynamics to have been undertaken. This new methodology is anticipated to be supported by an appropriate scientific specialist in crab population surveying.
B.2.6 By 2027, regular and effective monitoring of existing and potential invasive species threats will have been undertaken and appropriate management responses implemented.
Zero Indian house crows on the island
# Indian House Crows observed / shot per year
Conservation Status Report
Zero rats on the island # chew mark indicators annually # rats observed / removed annually
Chewsticks established at all times and monitored weekly
Zero rhino beetles on the island (adults and larvae)
Sightings of adults / larvae and # incidence of removal
Conservation Status Report
Casuarina appropriately managed to ensure non-competition with native plants (in development area) and zero encroachment (in CFR)
# incidence of casuarina removal
Conservation Status Report
Description: In an enclosed ecological system such as Chumbe, invasive species (particularly those described above) are a constant challenge, and vigilance, along with swift response systems, are essential for preserving the ecological integrity of the indigenous habitat on the island.
153
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
B.2.7 By 2027, regular conservation meetings with the ranger team (every two months) will have been routinely conducted.
Meetings conducted every two months
Minutes/ reports from meetings
Conservation Status Report
C. RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
C.1 By June 2017 a preliminary research plan has been drafted for preliminary sharing with immediate term interested parties *
Preliminary plan available June 2017
Research plan(s) available
Conservation Status Report
C.2 By April 2018 a full comprehensive research plan will be produced that would thereafter be up-dated annually with priority research areas identified in the CRS and CFH.
Comprehensive plan available April 2018
Description: The comprehensive research plan is anticipated to include the following sections:
An introduction to undertaking research on Chumbe
Codes of conduct for researchers undertaking activities in the CRS and CFR
Data sharing agreement templates
Research agreement templates (outlining roles and responsibilities of CHICOP and the researchers; supervisory responsibilities etc)
Priority areas of research identified for both the CRS and CFR (this section to be updated annually) The research plan is anticipated to be shared with all prospective researchers coming to the island. The aim of the plan is to ensure clarity of expectations between CHICOP and the researchers / research institutions, including around areas of data sharing and final presentation of results. It is also intended to focus and prioritize external research efforts to better align with management objectives and areas of management interest, and to minimize ad hoc research.The plan would support the development and strengthening of potential alliances and collaborative arrangements with research institutions both nationally and internationally. * The preliminary plan is proposed in response to existing institutional relationships under development, such as links with the Stralsund Meeresmuseum and Oceanum in Germany.
C.3 By 2027, research and monitoring findings will have been effectively communicated to a range of audiences, and through a range of media, including at least 10 scientific publications, 3 communication collaterals, and the presentation of findings in 10 national or international fora.
At least 1 scientific publication produced annually as a result of research and / or monitoring conducted on Chumbe
Publications available in scientific literature (journals, books or associated professional media).
Conservation Status Report
At least three communication collaterals produced annually, sharing the results / insights gained from Chumbe based research and / or monitoring
Three communication collaterals annually (may be in the form of factsheets, Facebook / other social media posts, media articles etc.)
Presentation of Chumbe science (results of research / monitoring) in at least 1 national or international conservation forum annually
Presentations may be in forums such as conferences, workshops or associated fora.
Description: Communication collaterals are essential for communicating the results of Chumbe’s research and / or monitoring observations, management experiences and lessons learned to a wide audience. Collaterals would range from professional publications tailored towards fellow conservation practitioners, through to the materials developed that are accessible by lay-men and the general public arena.
155
11.2. Education The core strategic focus areas for Chumbe’s Environmental Education (EE) programme are:
Schools programme
Peer education and outreach initiatives
Wider stakeholder education initiatives
D. SCHOOLS PROGRAMME
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
D.1 By June 2018, Phase 13 of the EE programme will be designed and developed ready for roll out for EE season 2018/19.
Phase 13 designed & developed
All associated Phase 13 materials, curricula prepared.
Education Status Report
D.2 By the end of year 1, training-of-trainers (TOT) for the Chumbe education team will be completed, ready for Phase 13 roll out in 2018.
3 Chumbe team members trained in Phase 13 roll out.
TOT completed
D.3 By the end of year 5, Phase 14 of the EE programme will be designed and developed ready for roll out in 2022.
Phase 14 designed & developed
All associated Phase 14 materials, curricula prepared.
D.4 By the end of year 5, training-of-trainers (TOT) for the Chumbe education team will be completed, ready for Phase 14 roll out in 2022.
3 Chumbe team trained in Phase 14 roll out.
TOT completed
Description: In the coming 10 years, two phases (#13 and #14) are planned that will each adapt the existing information and messages used in previous EE excursion to two consecutive (different) tailored thematic focus areas. These tailored approaches will aim to support the enhanced promotion of post-visit activities around key marine & coastal conservation issues. The targeted theme and design of the programmes will be developed in year 1 of the management plan period, for roll out in year 2 (for Phase 13) and again in year 5 for roll out in year 6 (for phase 14). Examples of potential thematic focus include teaching about illegal fishing gears (to promote the production and distribution of school produced posters urging fisher to stop using illegal gears in communities), or promoting particular ‘good’ gears (such as fish traps with escape gaps), or addressing pollution (to promote post-visit beach and village clean ups etc.). At each thematic renewal period, training-of-trainers will be conducted internally with the Chumbe EE team to equip them to be able to deliver the adapted materials appropriately.
D.5 By 2027, at least 190 EE excursions for local schools will be conducted, with at least 2,660 participating school children
190 school trips
2,660 school children
EE reports show total annual school trips and numbers of participating school children
See below objective
D.6 Each year, at least 50% of participating school children show an increase in knowledge of marine & coastal conservation following the EE trip to Chumbe Island, and 25% of participating school children implement proactive post-visit activities related to their learning.
ANNUALLY:
50% of school children show increased knowledge after visit.
25% of school children implement proactive post-visit activity
LONG-TERM (10 year):
1,330 children show increased knowledge.
625 children have implemented post-visit activities
# of individual pre and post visit questionnaires that indicate increased knowledge
# of post-visit activities implemented
Pre and post visit questionnaires
Follow up post-school visits documenting number of students implementing post-visit activities
Full results provided in Education Status Report
Description: These school excursions will be rolling out the EE designs of phases 13 and 14 respectively.
156
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
D.7 By 2027, at least 280 teachers participating in EE field trips to Chumbe Island.
280 participating teachers
EE report MEL method to be developed. Will focus on conducted small FGDs with participating teachers each season along with pre/post questionnaires.
Full results provided in Education Status Report
D.8 By 2027, at least 25% of participating teachers 280 teachers are able to articulate how their experience on Chumbe has impacted their environmental teaching in-school.
At least 70 teachers able to articulate positive impact on in-school environmental teaching.
EE report
Description: Each EE field trip to Chumbe Island for local schools, Universities and NGO/training centers is accompanied by at least one teacher/professor per trip. Implementation of a MEL system for teachers is required for the beginning of year 1.
D.9 By 2027 the classroom has been consistently maintained to optimize information display space, messaging and functionality for the schools programme.
Fittings, furnishings and fixtures in the classroom are optimized to ensure targeted messaging and education information presentation in line with the education phase focus topics
Classroom fittings, furnishings and fixtures are all presented attractively and functioning optimally
Improvements identified by the education team are incorporated (where relevant) in the annual maintenance plan
Conservation Status Report
Annual maintenance plan
D.10 By 2027 the information panels and associated information materials located throughout the education center have been reviewed an updated annually, and maintained to a high quality of presentation for visitors.
Information wall panels are updated and presentable at all times
Information books / booklets available on the table in front of the island office are reviewed, kept up to date, streamlined where necessary for consistency, clean and presentable at all times
Information panels are clean and up to date
Table based information is clean, presentable and up to date
Daily spot-checks
Conservation Status Report
Annual maintenance plan
Description: Information, tools, resources and space to learn needs to be maintained to ensure optimal educational support.
E. PEER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH INITIATIVES
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
E.1 By June 2018, a new peer-education program will be strategically designed and ready for roll out for EE season 2018/19.
New peer-education program designed & developed
All associated peer-education materials, curricula prepared
Education Status Report
E.2 By June 2018, training-of-trainers (TOT) for peer educators will be completed, in order for peers to be able to carry out peer-education activities for EE season 2018/19.
Number of peer educators to be trained to be determined during design of program
TOT completed
E.3 By 2027, at least 18 peer education activities will be conducted outside of Chumbe Island
18 peer education activities
EE report
157
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
Description: The new peer-education program aims to build up on the ReCoMap initiative, however, needs to be strategically re-designed in line with Phase 13 of the EE programme. The previous `peers` are not active anymore, hence, the EE team needs to set up a new group of peers (ideally from target communities and # of peers to be determined) that can then be trained in order to be able to carry out peer-education activities. The re-designing of the peer educator program will require a TOT for new peers
E.4 By 2027, at least 30 EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with 6 ‘Target’ communities (1 trip community/year), with at least 450 participating fishers
30 EE trips for target communities
450 fishers
EE report MEL needs to be developed e.g. 3-4 pre/post questions given on excursion day and/or focus group discussions
Full results in Education Status Report
E.5 By 2027, at least 30 EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with 6 ‘Non-Target’ communities (1 trip community/year), with at least 450 participating fishers
30 EE trips for target communities
450 fishers
EE report
E.6 Each year, at least 50 % of participating fishers show an increase in knowledge of marine & coastal conservation following the EE trip to Chumbe Island.
ANNUALLY:
50% of participants show increased knowledge after visit.
LONG-TERM (10 year):
450 participants show increased knowledge.
# of individual pre and post visit questionnaires that indicate increased knowledge
Pre/post MEL system (to be developed)
Full results in Education Status Report
Description: For the EE programme, fishing communities are divided into ‘Target’ communities (originating from the villages Mazizini, Chukwani, Buyu, Nyamanzi , Kombeni, Dimani) and ‘Non-Target’ communities (originating from any other village in Unguja). EE trips for `Target’ and ‘Non-Target’ communities will alternate each year, targeting 6 villages each year, whereby each village is provided with one trip per year.
F. WIDER STAKEHOLDER EDUCATION INITIATIVES
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
F.1 By 2027, at least 70 EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with Universities, with at least 980 participating students
10 EE trips for SUZA University
10 EE trips for IMS
50 EE trips for other national Universities based on applications
EE report # of applications to show demand
F.2 Each year, at least 25 % of participating university students are able to articulate how their experience on Chumbe has influenced their career planning.
245 students able to articulate influence on career planning
Testimonials assessed as part of EE report
MEL method to be developed, but will incorporate collection and collation of testimonials from visiting university students
Full results in Education Status Report
158
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
Description: The EE programme for Universities targets the Institute of Marine Science (IMS) and the Marine Program of the State University of Zanzibar (SUZA) by providing each institution with one guaranteed EE field trip to Chumbe Island per EE season. Other local Universities (such as SUZA tourism department, Marahubi University, Zanzibar University and Chukwani University) are also recognized but are required to send in a written application letter in order to be considered for the programme. Implementation of a MEL system for University students is required for the beginning of year 1.
F.3 By 2027, at least 20 EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with local government departmental agencies, with at least 300 participating government officers
20 EE trips for government officers
300 participating officers
EE report MEL system to be developed. To involve pre/post questionnaires related to Chumbe project knowledge.
Full results in Education Status Report
F.4 By 2027, at least 50% of participating government officers will show an increased understanding of the Chumbe project.
At least 150 government officers show an increased understanding of the Chumbe project
Pre/post questionnaires
Description: The EE programme for local government agencies targets departments that are CHICOP advisory committee members and will rotate trips for departments, targeting those where new staff have been placed. Implementation of a MEL system for local government agencies is required for the beginning of year 1.
F.5 By 2027, at least 20 EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with local NGO/training centers, with at least 280 participating students
20 EE trips for local NGO/training centers
280 participating students coming from NGO
EE report MEL method to be developed, but will incorporate collection and collation of testimonials from visiting students.
Full results in Education Status Report
F.6 Each year, at least 25 % of participating local NGOs / training center students are able to articulate how their experience on Chumbe has influenced their NGO operations / career planning.
70 students able to articulate influence on their work/ planning
Testimonials assessed as part of EE report
Description: A range of local NGOs that provide training for Zanzibari’s in the areas of tourism and environment are targeted for these EE trips, however, written application is required to be considered. Among the key NGO/training centers that are targeted are: Almalik Training Center, Jambiani Tourism Training Institute (JTTI), Zanzibar Geography Organization and Kawa Training Center. Implementation of a MEL system for NGO students is required for the beginning of year 1.
F.7 By 2027, at least 10 ‘International days’ recognized through event based activities on/off the island.
10 ‘International days’ event based activities conducted
EE report Event Tracking
Education Status Report
Description: At the beginning of each EE season, a calendar which summaries the internationally recognized Environmental Days (such as World Environment Day, World Ocean Day, International Coastal Clean-up Day, etc.) will be produced with the target to implement activities in regards to at least 1 of these international events per season. Activities can be conducted on or off the island but should involve a range of stakeholders, especially youth groups. Implementation of a MEL system for such activities is required for the beginning of year 1.
160
11.3. Ecotourism Ecotourism operations on the island are the bedrock of all activities in the Chumbe MPA (as shown
in the concept model). These operations not only provide a model for successful sustainable and
socially responsible tourism in East Africa, they also provide all of the financing for the related
conservation and activities on the island.
The core strategic focus areas for Chumbe’s Sustainable Ecotourism Operations are:
Excellence in service delivery and guest experience
Revenue generation optimized
G. EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE DELIVERY AND GUEST EXPERIENCE
G.1. High quality ecotourism Infrastructure provisioned and maintained effectively
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
THE BUNGALOWS
G.1.1 By 2027 the seven bungalow buildings, fittings, furnishings and fixtures have been consistently maintained to a high quality standard.
Rook makutti is repaired and replaced according to maintenance schedule and needs
Quality, attractive and functioning roof expanse areas
Daily checklist
Guest feedback
Weekly maintenance plan with ranked prioritizations
Internal fittings (i.e. grouting, cement murals, paint) are presented to a high quality
Internal bungalow fittings, furnishings and fixtures are all presented attractively and functioning optimally
Internal furnishings (chairs, tables, beds, shelving, hammock and soft furnishings) are maintained, attractive and functioning
Internal fixtures (lights, light covers, sinks, toilets, showers) are presented and maintained to a high quality and functioning
G.1.2 The fittings, furnishings and fixtures of the bungalows are reviewed annually, and improvements identified and implemented to ensure continued high quality infrastructural provision, with preliminary improvements already identified and addressed by June 2018.
Fittings reviewed and improved:
Groutings
Paint coverage and quality
Improvements identified and implementation plan clear in annual maintenance plan
Annual maintenance plan
Furnishings reviewed and improved:
Shelving provision (particularly in bathroom areas)
Storage provision in bedroom areas
Bathroom matting
Quality (non-mouldy) cushions, matresses, covers
Fixtures reviewed and improved:
Toilet seating (replacement / deep-cleaned wood / plastic, and inner tube deep-cleaning / painting for improved aesthetics)
Shower head improvements (exploration into higher pressure flow models)
Light positionings and consistent coconut shade coverage
Addition of charging plug in bungalows
161
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
Description: As a high end ecotourism location it is essential that Chumbe maintain and strive to improve where necessary the bungalow infrastructure in order to deliver best-possible standards to clients and become / remain competitive with other eco-accommodation destinations globally. This includes keeping up with trends and availability of improved infrastructural provisions (such as shower head systems and the like) that can be utilized to enhance visitor experience.
THE EDUCATION CENTER
G.1.3 By 2027 the education center building, fittings, furnishings and fixtures have been consistently maintained to a high quality standard.
Rook makutti is repaired and replaced according to maintenance schedule and needs
Quality, attractive and functioning roof expanse area
Daily checklist
Guest feedback
Weekly maintenance plan with ranked prioritizations
Internal fittings (i.e. cement floors, inner mural, paint, wall hangings / decorations) are presented to a high quality
Education center fittings, furnishings and fixtures are all presented attractively and functioning optimally Internal furnishings (chairs, tables,
shelving, hammock and soft furnishings) are maintained, attractive and functioning
Internal fixtures (lights, light covers, candle shelves) are presented and maintained to a high quality and functioning
G.1.4 The fittings, furnishings and fixtures of the education center are reviewed annually, and improvements identified and implemented to ensure continued high quality infrastructural provision, with preliminary improvements already identified and addressed by June 2018.
Fittings reviewed and improved:
Paint coverage and quality
Inner mural quality
Improvements identified and implementation plan clear in annual maintenance plan
Annual maintenance plan
Furnishings reviewed and improved:
Quality (non-mouldy) cushions, mattresses, covers
High standard tables, chairs and other furnishings
Fixtures reviewed and improved:
Light positionings and consistent coconut shade coverage
G.1.5 By 2027 the boutique room has been developed, secured and maintained to be aesthetically attractive
Fittings, furnishings and fixtures in the boutique are optimized to ensure the room is attractive and secure for visitors, including:
Clear information provided on drinks availability
A secure glass presentation casing installed for saleable goods to prevent thefts
Maintenance of books available (for cleanliness and presentation)
Boutique room fittings, furnishings and fixtures are all presented attractively and functioning optimally
Improvements identified and implementation plan clear in annual maintenance plan
Annual maintenance plan
G.1.6 By December 2017 the ‘inner restaurant’ area is re-designed for improved aesthetics and functionality, with alterations implemented by June 2018
Re-design optimizes inner space for improved utilization and attractiveness for visitors
Inner space is aesthetic and functional
Annual maintenance plan
G.1.7 By 2027 the kitchen area has been maintained at the highest quality for hygiene and functionality.
Kitchen area is consistently hygienic and well presented
Daily spot-check list items are consistently 100% achieved
Daily spot-check template
G.1.8 By 2027 the education center adjacent toilet area is maintained at the highest quality for hygiene and water provision is consistent.
Toilet area is consistently hygienic and well presented
Daily spot-check list items are consistently 100% achieved
Daily spot-check template
162
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.1.9 By March 2018 exploration into the possibility for an additional changing area are explored (particularly to cater for and separate day visitors), and plans are finalized and implemented (where approved) by June 2018
Additional changing area – possibility and viability explored
Viability assessment documented and available
Annual maintenance plan
Description: As a high end ecotourism location it is essential that Chumbe maintain and strive to improve where necessary the education center infrastructure in order to deliver best-possible standards to clients and become / remain competitive with other eco-accommodation destinations globally. In particular, immediate term concerns to address include the boutique room presentation (and sales goods security) and the ‘inner restaurant’ room that has, over the years, become simply an open store room, is not kept well presented, is unsightly and is no longer functional. This is a priority area to address, with a re-design to enable the necessary storage as well as become an aesthetic and appropriate location for guests to utilize..
OTHER TOURIST USE AREAS
G.1.10 By June 2018 the snorkel banda has be reassessed for functionality and design improvements have been made accordingly, including exploration of the provision of a concrete floor, changing area and (where feasible) a nearby ‘rinse shower’ for day visitors
The snorkel banda is well presented and space is optimized.
A changing area and (where feasible) a rinse shower is available for day visitors to reduce wear and tear usage of the bungalows
The snorkel banda and associated rinse area functions optimally
Annual maintenance plan
G.1.11 By 2027 all the relaxation areas for visitors to Chumbe are maintained to the highest quality
All relaxation areas are clean, well presented, inviting and attractive to visitors at all times
Daily spot-check list items are consistently 100% achieved
Daily spot-check
G.1.12 By March 2018, the viability of placing solar walkway lighting in front of bungalow area is explored, and plans are finalized and implemented (where approved) by June 2018
Walkway in front of bungalows has minimal, discrete and sustainable lighting (to be explored)
Viability assessment documented and available
Annual maintenance plan
Description: In order to both remain competitive with other destinations over the coming years, enhancements described above are to be explored and implemented where feasible. Aspects of enhancement such as the installation of a changing area and a nearby ‘rinse shower’ situated close to the snorkel banda not only offer an improved quality of experience for visitors, but would also allow management to explore greater options for divisioning dayguests and overnighters. This would reduce the use of bungalow shower systems and associated wear and tear (laundry, use of bungalow materials etc.) in order to enable both a more cost-effective management of the dayguest experience, and enhance the ‘benefits’ perceived by overnighters.
SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE
G.1.13 By 2027, fire sand buckets and extinguishers will have been maintained and are available and functioning at all times on the island
Fire extinguishers checked and maintained once per year
Sand buckets and extinguishers always available and appropriately strategically positioned in the event of an emergency
Fire safety equipment available and functioning at all times
Annual Maintenance Plan
Description: It is essential to maintain all fire safety equipment in the event of an emergency
163
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
THE HISTORIC MONUMENTS
G.1.14 By 2027 the Port Authority will have consistently maintained the lighthouse and it continues to be accessible and secure for Chumbe visitors
[Note: Responsibility of Port Authority, not CHICOP]
Lighthouse is kept well presented (cleaned / painted as required)
Barriers around viewing area are maintained securely
Solar panels are maintained and function effectively to power the lighthouse at night
Access areas and associated information is provided for visitors
A maximum of six (6) guests are permitted in the lighthouse at any given time.
Spot-checks confirm lighthouse remains presentable, accessible, secure and effectively functioning at all times
Spot-checks
Annual Maintenance plan
G.1.15 By September 2017 upper door information is provided in the lighthouse for guests, to ensure they can safely and securely open, close and manage access to the upper viewing platform
Upper door information provided
Upper door information visible
Weekly maintenance schedule (Sept 2017)
G.1.16 By June 2018 water catchment opportunities from the lighthouse are maximized and storage systems managed optimally for enhanced water collection.
Guttering and collection systems are checked prior to each rainy season and repaired / maintained to maximize water collection
Water catchment optimized
Annual maintenance plan (2018)
G.1.17 By 2027 the mosque has been consistently maintained, with external areas presentable for visitors, continues to be accessible, and is utilized as a place of worship by Chumbe staff and Islamic visitors
Mosque maintained, accessible and presentable
Spot-checks confirm mosque remains presentable, and accessible at all times
Spot-checks
Annual Maintenance plan
Description: As caretakers of these historical monuments on Chumbe, it is essential to ensure they are maintained, safe to utilize and functional at all times. For safety, the limitation of six visitors at any given time in the lighthouse needs to be strictly enforced by the rangers (promoting a cycling system of groups going into and out of the lighthouse where necessary).
STAFF INFRASTRUCTURE
G.1.18 By 2027 the staff accommodation, kitchen area, beach banda and associated managers house have all been maintained to a high standard to ensure safety, hygiene and security of personnel, as well as appropriate living quality for staff
Infrastructure of the staffing quarters meets the needs of staffing numbers (with each room not exceeding the maximum staff numbers identified)
Staff quarters are maintained to promote good hygiene
Each member of staff is provisioned with a bed, mattress, pillow, sheets. Mosquito nets and storage area for personal affects
Staff infrastructural needs are effectively met, to promote a happy and healthy workforce
Annual Maintenance plan
G.1.19 By June 2019 the stairs to the top floor of the managers house are re-made / secured for safe access
Stairs to top floor of managers house secure and useable
G.1.20 By 2027 the maintenance banda has been maintained to a high standard to enable sufficient storage and workable space for the maintenance team, storage of technical goods and aesthetic presentation for passing guests
Maintenance banda is well presented and functional at all times
Technical goods are stored and managed effectively, are retrievable when required, the workspace is functional and the area is well presented aesthetically
Description: Staff quarters and associated staff use areas need to function optimally, hygienically and to a quality to ensure the workforce’s needs are sufficiently met for an appropriate quality of life whilst on the island
164
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
BOATS
G.1.21 By 2027 the transfer boats (Nassor owned) are maintained to a high quality standard for safety, hygiene and a quality visitor experience
Transfer boats are at all working times:
Clean
Well presented (no broken / torn components)
Structurally safe (wooden infrastructure, engines, fuel tanks)
Appropriately equipped (lifejackets, cell for communication, flare for emergency, medical kit, GPS unit, paddle)
Transfer boats meet standards at all times
Monthly spotcheck
G.1.22 By 2027 all Chumbe boats are maintained to a high quality standard for safety, hygiene, ranger / boat transfer utilization purposes and quality visitor experience
Chumbe boats are clean, and at all working times:
Well presented (no broken / torn components)
Structurally safe (wooden / fibreglass infrastructure, engines, fuel tanks)
Appropriately equipped (tarpaulin, lifejackets, cell for communication, flare for emergency, medical kit, GPS unit, paddle)
Chumbe boats meet standards at all times
Weekly spotcheck
Boat maintenance schedule twice per year
Description: Boat transfers to and from Chumbe need to be safe at all times, and – when involving tourist visitors – should be appropriately well presented and equipped to ensure a quality visitor experience.
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
G.1.23 By 2027 the solar photovoltaic panels and associated battery systems in all areas of the island have been effectively and consistently maintained in order to maximize performance
All solar photovoltaic systems are working optimally and providing sufficient energy for all operations
Energy provisions available and functioning 100% of the time
Annual Maintenance plan
G.1.24 By June 2018 additional charging area options are explored and installed where feasible
New charging areas (in the bungalow and / or other areas) are available (where explorations reveal feasibility)
Charging area availability
Description: Sustainable, renewable energy provision on Chumbe (through solar power) needs to be available, optimal and functioning at all times, and meeting the existing (and any emerging) needs of staff and visitors
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
G.1.25 By December 2017, opportunities for expanding / enhancing rainwater collection on the island will be explored, and a plan developed to install / modify systems accordingly
All roof surfaces on the island currently not being utilized for rainwater collection are to be assessed for their potential, including:
Staff quarters
Maintenance banda
Snorkel banda
Mosque
Opportunities assessed and captured in associated Water Plan
Water Plan for Chumbe (due Dec 2017)
G.1.26 By March 2018, a precipitation monitoring system will be established on the island to monitor rainfall levels annually
Precipitation monitoring system established Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.1.27 By 2027, rainwater cistern water quality will have been tested annually in collaboration with ZAWA
Cistern water attains ‘potable’ categorization under the Zanzibar Water Authority (ZAWA) testing
Completed ZAWA test forms
G.1.28 By December 2017, options for new water sourcing systems are explored, best-fit option is identified and a plan developed to implement the new system
A range of systems are explored in order to find an appropriate best-fit solution to Chumbe’s water challenges, including the potential for seawater desalination (through reverse osmosis, solar distillation and other mechanisms)
Best-fit approach identified and captured in associated Water Plan
165
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.1.29 By June 2018, new / augmented water sourcing system is implemented and functioning effectively
Best-fit approach implemented
Annual Maintenance Plan
Description: Chumbe’s current water sourcing challenge (at the time of writing) urgently needs to be addressed, and affordable, environmentally sustainable augmented and / or additional systems need to be implemented. Sourcing water through jerry can transfers from mainland Unguja need to be an emergency measure only, and should no longer be the norm by June 2018.
WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE& MANAGEMENT
G.1.30 By September 2018, management systems for dealing with non-compostable cooked organic waste (food leftovers from guests) off-island are strengthened and functioning optimally
Non-compostable organic waste is managed off-island in a sustainable manner
Non-compostable organic waste management system functioning optimally
Annual Maintenance Plan
G.1.31 By September 2019, non-compostable cooked organic waste produce is equal to or less than 2.5 tonnes/year
Food usage on the island is managed effectively to reduce wastage
Tonnes / year non-compostable organic waste produced
Repeat Waste Audit to be conducted in 2020
G.1.32 By September 2018, efforts to ‘reduce’ acquisition of non-recyclable – re-useable or re-purposable items have resulted in less than 2% of all waste going to municipal dumps
98% of all non-organic waste items recycled / re-used / re-purposed sustainably
Tonnes / year of non-recycled/ non-repurposed items
G.1.33 By September 2018, systems for recycling challenging items (i.e. used batteries, tetratech cartons) are developed and implemented.
G.1.34 By June 2020 at least 98% of all non-organic waste items from the island are either recycled, re-used or re-purposed
G.1.35 By 2027, all human waste from the compost toilets across the island is effectively composted and removed from the chambers in a timely manner to ensure toilet systems function optimally and meets acceptable standards for guest experience
Each bungalow chamber is emptied once per year.
Public toilet and staff toilets are emptied between 2 and 4 times a year depending on levels utilized
Chambers emptied to schedule
Annual Maintenance Plan
G.1.36 By 2027, the kitchen grey water system will have been managed and maintained in line with the associated manuals, and the level of dissolved oxygen (biochemical oxygen demand-BOD) tested every two years (more frequently where necessary)
The kitchen greywater management system is functioning optimally
BOD levels are < 100 mg/L post reed-bed treatment
Completed greywater test sheets
Annual Maintenance Plan
G.1.37 By 2027 all cleaning products utilized on the island have been consistently fully biodegradable and ecologically sensitive
Only biodegradable and ecologically sensitive cleaning products continue to be used on the island
Only biodegradable and ecologically sensitive products available on island
Monthly spotchecks
Description: Chumbe’s waste management system, whilst already highly effective, will benefit from continued improvement and strengthening, to ensure infrastructure and systems meet Chumbe’s overall goal for ecological integrity.
MAINTENANCE TEAM MANAGEMENT
G.1.38 By 2027, maintenance team meetings (full team) will have been conducted monthly to review progress (past) plans (future) and problem-solve challenges together
Monthly all-maintenance-team meetings Number of meetings Annual Maintenance Plan
166
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.1.39 By 2027, training needs in the Maintenance department will have been assessed and implemented annually with all team members to ensure top quality work
Annual training needs assessment (linked to annual staff appraisal process)
Annual training provision
Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: To promote team engagement, problem-solving and clear communications, monthly all-maintenance team meetings should be conducted, led by the Project Manager and with the Island Manager also in attendance
G.2. High quality lodge services provided to guests
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
TRANSPORTATION TO (and from) ISLAND
G.2.1 By 2027, transportation to / from the island (including taxi transfers arranged by CHICOP, and boat transfers) are of a consistently high standard, reliable and a pleasant experience for guests
80% satisfaction with transfers each year
Satisfaction responses from guests
Guest experience questionnaires, analyzed annually G.2.2 By June 2018, training needs have been identified (where
relevant) with transfer boat drivers to ensure high customer care, effective and positive communication skills
G.2.3 By December 2018, training has been provided (where identified) to all key transfer boat drivers
G.2.4 By 2027, Mbweni welcome and support to boat is of a consistently high standard (including welcome communications ensuring guests are aware of boat safety [i.e. the availability of lifejackets, the provision of cell communications and GPS units for safety], ease of beachside payment systems, assistance with luggage, provision of support aids including walking shoes and sticks).
G.2.5 By 2027, zero transfer boats have exceeded their safety capacity (10 persons travelling with luggage for overnight stays, or up 14 persons travelling for a day trip).
Safety limits for transfer capacities are met at all times
Boat capacity observations
Spotchecks / office inventories
Description: Transfer services are provided by contracted third parties, but they nonetheless represent Chumbe and need to be of an appropriately sufficient standard to ensure positive guest experience.
CHUMBE WELCOME / INTRODUCTION
G.2.6 By September 2017 the ‘welcome process’ (led by the rangers) for guests arriving onto the island is fully reviewed, and plans developed to strengthen the quality of this service for a consistent, accurate, warm and welcoming introduction to the island. This will include a review of:
Accuracy of information provided to guests
Body language and communication styles
Length and timing of introduction (and identification of priority information areas required at welcome)
System utilized for dayguests vs overnighters
Welcome and introduction process reviewed and plan for improvements developed (summary / brief)
Summary plan Welcome and introduction summary plan
Guest experience questionnaire
167
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G,2,7 By October 2017 a clear plan will be agreed for strengthening this welcome process
G.2.8 By November 2017, all training materials for strengthening the welcome process will be produced and ready for delivery (including briefing cards with correct facts and figures for sharing, support guides and other materials as may be required)
All training materials available and ready for use
Presence / absence of materials
G.2.9 By December 2017 all rangers have received training on the upgraded welcome process and welcome system on the island, with ranger assessments showing at least 80% scoring on training received
Rangers achieve 80% or higher in post-training tests
Training assessment results
Post-training test
G.2.10 By June 2018 at least 75% of guests rank the welcome process as eight or higher on a likert scale
At least 75% of guests satisfied with welcome process
Likert scale question on guest experience with regards to ranger welcome added to guest experience questionnaire
Guest experience questionnaire (results from Jan to June 2018 only – post training) G.2.11 By 2027, rangers have at all times been
consistently well presented when dealing with guests, wearing clean uniforms and well turned out
Ranger team are well presented and professional in appearance at all times
G.2.12 By June 2017, to complement / support the introduction to the island, each bungalow will be equipped with a thorough and professional looking ‘bungalow book’ with key information for guests
Bungalow book available in each lodge unit
Presence / absence of book
Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: The ranger welcome and introduction to the island provides a critical ‘first impression’ of Chumbe. In recent years, challenges have been observed regarding the accuracy and consistency of information being provided to the guests (particularly in relation to facts and figures about Chumbe). In addition to this, the grouping of dayguests (being welcomed for a day trip) and overnighters (anticipating to ‘check in’ to their bungalow) has led to confusion (for both staff and guests) and has diminished the positivity of the welcome experience. Urgent training and systematic overhaul is required for this process to function effectively, with more strategic separation of daytrippers and overnighters, a more standardized welcome process and information provision.
FOOD & BEVERAGE
G.2.13 By 2027, the food and beverage (F&B) service on the island will have been maintained to the highest quality, with at least 80% of guests rating the service as very good to excellent
80% of guests rank F&B as ‘8’ or over on likert scale
8 or over on likert scale
Guest experience questionnaires
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.2.14 By 2027, provision of soda’s, juices, water and hot beverages will be consistently available to guests (from 6.30am to last person sleeping each day)
G.2.15 By December 2017, exploration will be undertaken into mechanisms to offer guests in-bungalow hot beverages first thing in the morning (by pre-order) in a manner that befits privacy considerations
G.2.16 By January 2018, best-fit mechanisms for providing hot beverage delivery to bungalows in the mornings (by pre-order) will be implemented
G.2.17 By December 2018, systems for turning water sourced on the island (through the new water sourcing system outlined in previous objective into potable water for drinking will be fully explored and best-fit option(s) identified
Potable water is available for all persons on Chumbe
Annual Maintenance Plan
Annual Chumbe business assessment G.2.18 By June 2019, potable water provision will be
systematically available on the island (thus reducing the need to carry drinking water from mainland Unguja, and ensuring all persons on the island – including staff – have access to clean potable drinking water) where investigations have revealed feasible best-fit option(s). Meantime drinking water will be provided in re-useable ‘Drop’ containers to avoid single-use plastics
168
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.2.19 By 2027, training needs in the F&B department will have been assessed and implemented annually with all F&B team members to ensure top quality service
Annual training needs assessment (linked to annual staff appraisal process)
Annual training provision
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.2.20 By 2027, bar services will have been consistently available on the island, with waitering staff on standby at all key times to take orders
Bar services efficient and user friendly
Bar services maximize income
Guest experience questionnaire
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.2.21 By 2027, supply transportation to and from the island will be managed efficiently and in a cost-effective manner
Supply transportation efficient
Supply transportation cost effective
Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: The F&B services on Chumbe continually receive exceptional acclaim. However, efforts are required to continue to strengthen these services where necessary in order to remain competitive with other high end operations in the region
BOUTIQUE
G.2.22 By 2027 the boutique has been consistently well stocked, clean, well presented and inviting to visitors
Boutique is well stocked, clean, presentable, and items are easy to purchase
Spotchecks Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.2.23 By 2027 there has been consistent clarity on the process of purchasing items available (through the island manager)
Description: In addition to the infrastructure of the boutique requiring maintaining to high standards (as covered in the previous section) the presentation, accessibility and ease of use of the boutique is also essential to both provide high quality service to guests and to promote revenue generation (covered in later sections)
OTHER GENERAL SERVICE QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
G.2.24 By 2027, all personnel on the island, and engaging with guests on mainland Unguja, will have been consistently well presented, polite and respectful at all times
80% of guest rank their stay on Chumbe as good to excellent
‘8’ or more on a likert scale
Guest experience questionnaire
G.2.25 By 2027, all personnel on the island will have maintained low noise levels to avoid disturbing guests stays
G.2.26 By 2027, the office on the island will have maintained consistent provision of general supplies available to guests for purchase (i.e. toiletries, cigarettes, paper, pens etc.)
G.2.27 By 2027, all personnel on the island will have maintained their basic first aid training, with at least two members of staff present at any one time having advanced first aid certification
Advanced first aid support always available on the island
Number of trained personnel available
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.2.28 By 2027 a complete first aid kit will have been maintained and available at all times on the island
Complete first aid kit available
Spotchecks monthly
G.2.29 By 2027, all personnel will have been consistently knowledgeable on Chumbes fire and safety procedures, with repeat reminder trainings taking place once per year
Once per year staff reminder trainings on fire and safety procedures
Number of reminder trainings
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.2.30 By July 2017, armed security personnel (at least 2 Kikosi Cha Valantia.[KVZ - Volunteer squad, government branch] officers) are once more permanently available on the island.
Armed security personnel are available in case of an emergency
Presence / absence of armed personnel
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.2.31 By December 2017 a new guest experience questionnaire will have been designed and developed (with appropriate back-office set up to easily assess data as it comes in), with the questionnaire starting to be actively used on January 01st 2018
New ‘guest experience questionnaire’ enables appropriate evaluation of guest experience
Presence / absence of guest questionnaire
Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: Overall service provision on the island needs to be maintained to the highest standard
169
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
RANGER TEAM MANAGEMENT
G.2.32 By 2027, ranger team meetings (full team) will have been conducted monthly to review progress (past) plans (future) and problem-solve challenges together
Monthly all-ranger-team meetings
Number of meetings Conservation Status Report Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: To promote team engagement, problem-solving and clear communications, monthly all-ranger team meetings should be conducted, led by the Island Manager and Conservation Manager, with results shared to the Project Manager
F & B TEAM MANAGEMENT
G.2.33 By 2027, F & B team meetings (full team) will have been conducted monthly to review progress (past) plans (future) and problem-solve challenges together
Monthly all-F&B-team meetings
Number of meetings Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: To promote team engagement, problem-solving and clear communications, monthly all-F&B team meetings should be conducted, led by the Island Manager, with results shared to the Project Manager
G.3. High quality activities provided to guests
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
SNORKELING
G.3.1 By December 2017 the snorkel briefing will be fully reviewed and improvements / adjustments identified where appropriate to ensure consistent and accurate presentation of information and preparation of visitors for snorkeling.
80% of guests describe the snorkel experience as good to excellent
‘8’ or over on a likert scale
Guest experience questionnaires
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.2 By June 2018 the snorkel briefing will be strengthened based on the review, and information provided will be accurate and consistent. This will include a briefing on reef safety based on Green Fins guidelines and anticipated duration of snorkeling
Conservation Status Report (re: ranger knowledge)
G.3.3 By June 2018, ranger knowledge on marine species and interesting observations ‘in-water’ will be reviewed and improvements identified and implemented where required
G.3.4 By June 2018 all guiding rangers will be fully trained in how to provide introductory snorkel training
G.3.5 By June 2018, a factsheet about the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary will be available for guests to read in English, German, French and Italian
G.3.6 By 2027 all guiding rangers will have been trained on marine-specific first aid, with reminder trainings once per year provided
All guiding rangers trained in marine-specific first aid
Number of trained rangers
G.3.7 By 2027 snorkel equipment will have been checked monthly for damages and hygiene, with stock updated as required
Snorkel equipment (all, including masks, fins, snorkels, wet/skin suits and associated gears) is consistently available in clean and good condition
Monthly spotchecks (more during high season)
G.3.8 By 2027, procurement of high quality snorkel equipment for stock updating will have been conducted in a timely manner, to ensure continuous provision of goods to meet guests needs
170
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.3.9 By 2027 snorkel excursion with guests will have kept to a strict safety size of 9 pax per guiding ranger
Maximum 9 guests per guiding ranger on snorkel excursions
Number of guests in group
Spotchecks
Description: Snorkeling is the main activity highlight on the island for many guests, and it is essential to ensure the activity service provided is of top quality and safety conscious
FOREST TRAIL & MANGROVE BOARDWALK
G.3.10 By December 2017, to explore opportunities for engaging a botanist (through the Chumbe research program) to collate, research and document improved facts and figures about the Chumbe Forest Reserve (CFR), interesting medicinal plants and other interesting botanical features to support guiding services
Forest trail experience is updated to reflect accurate, consistent and interesting information for visitors
80% of guests describe the forest tour experience as good to excellent
A new forest trail guiding protocol is available
‘8’ or over on a likert scale
Conservation Status Report
Forest trail guiding protocol
Guest experience questionnaire
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.11 By March 2018, to have engaged botanist support and documented associated CFR facts and figures
G.3.12 By March 2018 existing information on the geology of the island will be updated, as well as the history of the telecommunications connection, ready for incorporation into the new forest trail guiding protocol
G.3.13 By June 2018 all guiding rangers have been trained on revised forest trail guiding (including revised pre-briefing) and an associated protocol has been developed (to include non-botanical information related to history of island [geology] and historic stories [telecommunications system])
G.3.14 By June 2018, a factsheet about the Chumbe Forest Reserve will be available for guests to read in English, German, French and Italian
Factsheet available
G.3.15 By 2027 the forest trail will have been maintained consistently to ensure ease and safety of visitor access
Forest trail is safely maintained and accessible
Accessibility and safety of trail
Monthly spotchecks
G.3.16 By 2027 the strict rule for no smoking in the forest reserve will have been 100% enforced
Zero smoking in forest reserve
Number of persons smoking
Spotchecks
G.3.17 By 2027 the mangrove boardwalk area will have been consistently maintained for safety and aesthetic appearance
Boardwalk is safe and secure at all times Annual Maintenance plan
G.3.18 By December 2017 facts and figures about the mangrove area will have been collated ready for inclusion in a factsheet and to provide additional ranger training as part of the forest trail
Facts and figures collated Conservation Status Report
G.3.19 By June 2018, a factsheet about the Chumbe Mangroves will be available for guests to read in English, German, French and Italian
Factsheet available Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: The forest trail activity for guests (and schoolchildren) has, over the years, lost much of its foundational factual information (due to staff changes / lack of institutional memory retention) and needs urgent regalvanizing to meet the standards necessary for Chumbe to be competitive. The mangrove boardwalk requires consistent and high standard maintenance for safety, and guests questions about the area should be possible to address by the rangers
LIGHTHOUSE TOUR
G.3.20 By December 2017, the lighthouse tour will be reviewed and improvements identified related to facts and figures provided
Lighthouse tour is informative, accurate and consistent, with 80% of guest rating it as very good to excellent
Tour is rated ‘8’ or more on the likert scale
Guest experience questionnaire
Annual Chumbe business assessment
171
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.3.21 By March 2018 a new lighthouse tour protocol will be developed, documenting all relevant information for the tour
Lighthouse tour protocol available Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.22 By June 2018 all guiding rangers will have received training on the new lighthouse tour protocol, including all safety procedures
All rangers trained Training summary Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.23 By March 2018 exploration will have been undertaken with regards to installing electric lighting within the lighthouse (connected to the solar panels available) to avoid the doors having to remain open for lighting
Ascending and descending the lighthouse is well lit and secure for guests
Presence of lighting Annual Maintenance plan
G.3.24 By June 2018, a factsheet about the Chumbe Lighthouse will be available for guests to read in English, German, French and Italian
Factsheet available Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.25 By 2027 the lighthouse will have been maintained and cleaned consistently to maintain tour standards
Lighthouse is clean, presentable and secure at all times
Presentation of the lighthouse
Spotchecks
Annual Maintenance Plan
G.3.26 By 2027 the strict limit on numbers of people accessing the lighthouse at any one time (max 8 people) will have been strictly complied with at all times
Maximum 8 persons at a time access the lighthouse
# of people accessing light-house at any one time
Spotchecks
Description: The lighthouse is a key feature on the island and a popular tour to undertake. However, factual information being presented to guests has become limited / lost and this tour requires regalvanizing for consistency, accuracy and safety. Key safety procedures to include in the new lighthouse protocol include:
For safety reasons only 8 guests should climb the lighthouse at any one time.
Guests should not lean on the railings.
The bottom door should always be closed before climbing the lighthouse, and both the top doors closed descending.
Smoking in the lighthouse is strictly prohibited.
Ensure guests understand that they climb the lighthouse at their own risk.
NGALAWA EXCURSION
G.3.27 By December 2017, clarity is needed with regards to whether the current Ngalawa (being handed over late 2017) will be replaced and this activity will continue to be offered, or if this activity will cease NOTES:
as one of the most popular activities on Chumbe it is highly recommend the activity continue
the remainder of the objectives are based on the assumption of continuation
Chumbe owned Ngalawa available
Presence / absence Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.28 By March 2018 a replacement Ngalawa of equivalent standard and quality is purchased and available on the island
G.3.29 By June 2018 at least two boat rangers will be sufficiently trained to lead ngalawa tours, with staff rota’s adjusted to ensure one is always available on the island
Rangers trained and available to take Ngalawa tours (when weather permits)
G.3.30 By June 2018, a factsheet about the Chumbe Ngalawa Tour will be available for guests to read in English, German, French and Italian
Factsheet available Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: As a popular activity on the island it is critical this service is readily and consistently available to guests. This requires more than one driver to be able to lead the excursion, and a willingness to deliver this activity routinely
172
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
INTERTIDAL WALK
G.3.31 By December 2017, facts and figures regarding the intertidal area will have been collated, ready for incorporation into a revised intertidal trail protocol
Facts and figures collated
Presence / absence Conservation Status Report
G.3.32 By March 2018 opportunity for developing a night fluorescent intertidal trail will be explored for potential inclusion in the protocol
Flourescent trail options explored
G.3.33 By June 2018 a new intertidal protocol will have been developed and all rangers trained on the new protocol
New protocol developed Protocol available
G.3.34 By June 2018, a factsheet about the Chumbe intertidal area will be available for guests to read in English, German, French and Italian
Factsheet available Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.35 By 2027 at least 80% of guests have rated the intertidal activity as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’
80% of guests rank activity as 8 or more on the likert scale
>8 on likert scale Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: The intertidal trail has become less routinely undertaken with rangers having limited detailed knowledge on this area, and requires regalvanizing as a tour to offer guests (recognizing this tour is limited by time availability and tide schedules, this is only / particularly relevant for overnighters staying several nights)
COCONUT CRAB NIGHT EXPLORATION
G.3.36 By December 2017, facts and figures regarding the coconut crabs will have been collated, ready for incorporation into factsheet and associated ranger training
Facts and figures collated
Presence / absence Conservation Status Report
G.3.37 By June 2018 all guiding rangers will have been trained on up to date and accurate coconut information, to share with guests during this activity
All rangers trained Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.3.38 By June 2018, a factsheet about the Coconut Crabs will be available for guests to read in English, German, French and Italian
Factsheet available
G.3.39 By 2027 at least 80% of guests have rated the Coconut crab activity as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’
80% of guests rank activity as 8 or more on the likert scale
>8 on likert scale Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: Finding the coconut crabs on the island is a hugely popular activity, and it is essential that the information being shared with the guests is accurate and thorough.
SPA SERVICES
G.3.40 By 2027, Spa services have been maintained to a consistently high quality
80% of guests describe the spa experience as good to excellent
‘8’ or over on a likert scale
Guest experience questionnaires
Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: Spa services need to be high quality and consistently available
173
G.4. Headquarters in Unguja effectively provisioned and functioning to provide support services to
island operations
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
OFFICE EQUIPMENT& MATERIALS
G.4.1 By June 2018 all computers in the office are power surge protected
Computers are all power surge protected Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.4.2 By June 2018 a data back-up system for all computers has been established and is optimally functioning, with Chumbe data being routinely and regularly backed up for security
A data back up system is established and functioning
Data back up system presence / absence
G.4.3 By 2027 all computers and associated communications devices (i.e. phones, modems, fax machine etc.) have been well maintained, updated, replaced when necessary and virus free and have continually functioning optimally
Computers and comms devices are functioning efficiently and optimally
G.4.4 By 2027 all other technical equipment in the office (i.e. washing machine, generator, large chest freezers, solar system as back up etc.) has been well maintained and functioning effectively
All technical equipment is effectively functioning
G.4.5 By 2027 all Chumbe road vehicles have been well maintained and are functioning optimally to ensure emissions are limited where feasible and vehicles are available at all times
Road vehicles functioning optimally
G.4.6 By December 2018, all stored boxes / storage areas have been thoroughly gone through and materials either stored appropriately or disposed of (in consultation with Chumbe Director)
Storage boxes / areas sorted
Description: All office equipment and materials should be functioning optimally to ensure efficient support services can be provided to island operations
OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE
G.4.7 By September 2018 the office has been painted and fixtures / fittings repaired, kitchen area thoroughly cleaned, and bathrooms made functional, such that the area is appropriately presentable for visiting agents, guests and researchers
Office is appropriately clean and presentable for visitors
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.4.8 By 2027 the office has been appropriately maintained and is well presented for visiting agents, guests and researchers
G.4.9 By 2027 the office has been maintained securely at all times to mitigate against threats of burglary
Office is secure
Security infrastructure and personnel are in place and operating effectively
G.4.10 By 2027 the Chukwani landing site has been well maintained, is accessible and useable to facilitate supply runs to / from island
Chukwani site is maintained and effectively operational
Description: All office infrastructure should be functioning optimally and presentable to ensure efficient support services can be provided to island operations
OFFICE OPERATIONS
G.4.11 By September 2018 all operational support systems for bookings and reservations are being managed 100% effectively, with payment details forms (PDFs) being filed and available for review and tracking by finance on the same day as the booking is taken, and communication with the island taking place on the same day as each booking is confirmed
Effective booking communication processes support island operations and financial tracking and accountability
Annual Chumbe business assessment
174
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.4.12 By 2027, bookings for following-day visitors will aim to be concluded by a 12 midday deadline the previous day unless unusual circumstances prevail and the island is prepared to take on last minute bookings
Bookings processes ensure island operations can be conducted effectively
12 midday deadline pre-day bookings adhered to
G.4.13 By 2027 all bookings processes will have adhered to the maximum guest rule (18 per day), with the exception of ‘special event days’ coordinated and communicated well in advance
Carrying capacity of island is not exceeded
18 guests / day max is consistently implemented outside of special event days
G.4.14 By 2027 all laundry turnarounds will take a maximum of 24 hours (from leaving the island to returning to the island)
Laundry services effectively meet the demands of the island
Clean materials are available at all times to meet the needs of island operations
G.4.15 By 2027 the HQ will have ensured all materials and supplies requisitioned by the island have been reviewed and approved (or challenged) on the same day, and purchased in a timely manner, to ensure the effective functioning of island operations
Same day requisition approvals (or challenge and resolution) Clear deadlines for purchase acquisitions
Materials and supplies are available when required on the island
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.4.16 By 2027 all supply delivery systems have been optimally functioning to ensure timely delivery to Chukwani site and the island
Boat and car meet according to the planned time schedule 90% of the time
G.4.17 By 2027, training needs amongst the office operations team will have been assessed and implemented annually with all team members to ensure top quality service
Annual training needs assessment (linked to annual staff appraisal process)
Annual training provision
Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: All office operations should be functioning optimally and presentable to ensure efficient support services can be provided to island operations
FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
G.4.18 By September 2018 all staff will have clear job descriptions (documented and on file)
All staff have clear job descriptions Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.4.19 By 2027, all salaries and associated social security payments will have been paid in a timely manner in alignment with staff contracts and the associated requirements under Labour Law
Salaries and associated payments are made in a timely manner and in legal compliance
G.4.19 By June 2018 an annual staff appraisal process (documented) will have been reinstated and is functioning effectively
Staff appraisals are conducted annually
Individual appraisal documentation
G.4.20 By 2027, all and any staff disciplinary measures will have been conducted following the regulations as laid out in the labour law
Any disciplinary measures are conducted in legal compliance
G.4.21 By 2027, all emerging laws, policies and regulations that may impact on Chumbe operations have been tracked, assessed and responded to effectively
Chumbe management is aware of, and in possession of any new / emerging legal documentation that could have an impact on Chumbe operations
Measures to mitigate / manage any impact to Chumbe operations resulting from emerging / new legal documentation are implemented effectively
G.4.22 By 2027, all reporting requirements to the government of Zanzibar and associated agencies (i.e. ranger report summaries to department of fisheries, ZIPA reports, TRA reports, Department of Statistics report etc.) will have been submitted in a timely manner and in alignment with the agreed reporting schedules
All reporting requirements to the Government of Zanzibar are effectively met
175
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
G.4.23 By 2027 all financial management procedures will have adhered to best-practice management principles, with clear, trackable credit and debit records, and annual audited accounts
Best-practice, accountable financial management systems are implemented at all times
Financial record keeping and analysis is trackable and reviewable
Annual audit is produced
G.4.24 By 2027, all taxes will have been paid in a timely manner in alignment with the laws of Zanzibar
All taxes paid in a timely manner and in compliance with the law
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.4.25 By 2027, all licences, permits and insurance payments will have been paid in a timely manner in alignment with the laws of Zanzibar and in order to ensure safe and compliant Chumbe operations
Tourism certificate from Commission for tourism (annually)
Management Certificate from Commission for tourism (annually)
Land lease – Chukwani, from Commission for lands (annually)
Land lease – Chumbe from Commission for lands (annually)
Investment license from ZIPA (annually)
Occupation Safety permit from Department of labor (every two years)
Fire insurance from NIC Tanzania ltd (annually)
Island insurance from NIC Tanzania ltd (annually)
Workmen Compensation insurance from NIC Tanzania ltd (annually)
Liquor license from Western district council (annually)
Garbage collection fee from Western district council (monthly)
Recycling fees from ZANREC (monthly)
Radio frequency permit from Tanzania comms authority (every ten years)
Road License for vehicles from ZRB (annually)
Road insurance from Zanzibar insurance corporation (annually)
Certificate of Membership from ZATI (annually)
Certificate of Membership from ZANEMA (annually)
Resident Permit (foreign employees) from immigration department (every two years) Work permits (for foreign employees) from immigration department (annually)
Annual Chumbe business assessment
Description: All financial, legal and human resource issues should be thoroughly and transparently conducted, and efficient in order to support island operations
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT
G.4.26 By 2027 all office operations have been managed to consistently consider environmental impact (for example: lights, computers and air conditioners turned off when not in use; printed paper used sparingly and on both sides etc.)
All operations strive to meet best-practice environmental sustainability considerations
Annual Chumbe business assessment
G.4.27 By 2027 supply runs (to town & Chukwani site) have been managed effectively to ensure efficient use of fuel and car usage
G.4.28 By 2027 all consumables purchases have factored in sustainability of produce consistently in acquisition decisions (including annual updating of the sustainable seafood policy)
G.4.29 By 2027 supply purchases have consistently avoided single-use items (plastic bottles, straws, paper napkins, plastic bags etc.)
G.4.30 By 2027 all waste management going through the Chumbe office is managed in line with the waste management targets.
Description: As an initiative famed for ecological sustainability, efforts to meet best-practice sustainable approaches need to be implemented in all areas of operations
176
H. REVENUE GENERATION OPTIMIZED
H.1. Zero/low cost marketing efforts effectively target key demographics
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
MARKETING PLATFORMS
H.1.1 By October 2017, the management of the website will be reviewed and solutions found to the on-going accessibility and update issues.
Website challenges solved
Website effectively manageable
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.2 By December 2017 the website management will be clarified, updating mechanisms reliable, accessible and thorough.
H.1.3 By December 2017, web-linked email addresses will be established in order to transition team members away from the use of personal email accounts for Chumbe operations, to ensure long-term retention, accessibility and filing of chumbe communications and secure communication records are kept appropriately and professionally
All relevant chumbe staff have appropriate chumbeisland.com email addresses
Communications are appropriately professional and storeable within Chumbe system
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.4 By 2027 the website will have provided an up to date, clear, representative, user-friendly interface to promote Chumbe operations and garner bookings
Website is presented optimally to maximize bookings
H.1.5 By 2027, the website will have received at least 50,000 annual ‘hits’ per year, with an overall average bounce rate of less than 20% per year
50,000 ‘hits’ per year (total 500,000 hits over ten years), with consistently low bounce rate (<20% av per year)
Google Analytics annual analysis
H.1.6 By 2027, route access to website will be at least 15% from social media linkages
15% annual route traffic to Chumbe website comes through social media links
H.1.7 By June 2017, Chumbe has established an Instagram account on social media
Instagram account established and active Annual Chumbe Business Assessment H.1.8 By 2027 the Chumbe Instagram account will have
recruited at least 100 new followers per year on average
1,000 new Instagram followers by 2027 (totaling 1,000)
# new instagram followers
H.1.9 By 2027 the Chumbe Facebook account will have recruited at least 100 new followers per year on average
1,000 new facebook followers by 2027 (totaling at least 2,918)
# new facebook followers
H.1.10 By 2027 the Chumbe Twitter account will have recruited at least 100 new followers per year on average
1,000 new Twitter followers by 2027 (totaling 1,000)
# new Twitter followers
H.1.11 By 2027 the Trip Advisor rankings will have been maintained with at least 90% of rankings as ‘excellent’
90% of Trip Advisor rankings are ‘excellent’
Percentage ranking as ‘excellent’
H.1.12 By June 2020, all existing mainstream media publications are catalogued and documented to date
Catalogue of mainstream media publications up to date and available
H.1.13 By September 2018, a media contact database will have been updated and available to utilize for the dissemination of press releases and the like
Media contact database established
H.1.14 By June 2019, the number of DMC’s (destination management companies) including Chumbe overnight promotion on their websites will be reviewed, catalogued, and calculated to provide a baseline figure
DMC review completed and catalogued
DMC promotion of Chumbe clarified and opportunities explored for expanding DMC
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
177
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
H.1.15 By June 2019, DMCs that target appropriate Chumbe demographics that are so far “not” including Chumbe in their websites will have been identified
New DMCs identified representation
H.1.16 By June 2021 at least 50 new target DMCs will be promoting Chumbe overnight stays on their websites
50 new DMCs promoting Chumbe by June 2021 Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.17 By 2027, amidst an ever-growing online marketing world, any new, emerging marketing platforms (advisory sites, information portals for prospective eco-travellers and the like) will have been reviewed and added to the Chumbe marketing platform portfolio where appropriate
Chumbe appropriately represented on new and emerging marketing platforms where relevant
Description: Maintaining, managing and establishing demographically targeted marketing platforms is essential to achieving overnight occupancy levels necessary to maximize revenue generation
MARKETING MECHANISMS
H.1.18 By June 2018, five social media overnight promotions should be designed and developed ready for bi-monthly launch for year 2018/ 2019
5 social media promotions designed
# social media promotions designed
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.19 By June 2019, five annual social media overnight promotions will have been disseminated on the social media platforms (one every two months during open season), and will be cycled with five annually from this time
45 social media promotions disseminated by 2027 (five per year from year 2)
# social media promotions disseminated
H.1.20 By June 2018, interesting Chumbe news-bites are shared at least one time every two weeks across all social media (SM) platforms
189 social media stories shared by 2027 (at least 21 social media stories shared annually from June 2018)
# social media stories disseminated
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.21 By June 2018, the website news section will be updated at least once every two weeks
189 news stories shared on the website by 2027 (at least 21 news stories stories shared annually from June 2018)
# social media stories disseminated
H.1.22 By December 2018, the guest experience questionnaires will have been completed for one calendar year, and analysis undertaken to ascertain key up to date demographic information
Guest experience YR1 questionnaires analyzed for demographic information
H.1.23 By 2027, utilizing the media database at least two press releases will have been disseminated per year.
20 press releases issued by 2027 (two per year)
# press releases Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.24 By 2027, at least one blog-post per year will have been written and published about Chumbe to promote bookings
10 blog-post articles produced by 2027
# blog-posts
H.1.25 By 2027, at least two mainstream media articles will have been published about Chumbe every year
20 mainstream media articles by 2027
# mainstream media articles
H.1.26 By 2027, at least one “Chumbe weekend for two” giveaway will have been donated to a high profile fundraising / charity event annually in the East Africa region
10 chumbe giveaways by 2027
# donated giveaways to high profile events
H.1.27 By 2027, Chumbe will have been recognized through some form of international award at least once every two years
5 international awards achieved by 2027
# international awards
H.1.28 By 2027, ecotourism on Chumbe will have been featured in at least one ecotourism related industry media every two years
5 ecotourism industry publications by 2027
# ecotourism industry publications
178
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
H.1.29 By June 2019, research into potential “group / retreat” partnerships (i.e. yoga retreat partners, other full island group partners) will have been explored, and at least two new partnerships established
At least two new group booking events partners identified
# new group booking partners
H.1.30 By 2027 at least two ‘group’ (full island booking) events will have taken place with partners every year on the island from 2019
At least 16 group events (booking entire island) by 2027
# group events on island
Description: All of the above marketing efforts are necessary to promote Chumbe as a key ‘overnight’ destination in the region, and to maximize revenue generating potential
MARKETING MATERIALS (hard/soft copy) & PERSONNEL
H.1.31 By June 2018, the below marketing materials (hard & soft copy) will be readily available in the HQ, and will be updated when required beyond June 2018:
Chumbe brochure
Chumbe Project Summary
Chumbe one-page factsheet
FAQ document
Marketing materials (soft/hard copy )available and up to date at all times
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.32 By 2027, hard/soft marketing documentation will have been developed and produced as required to meet marketing demands
H.1.33 By June 2018, a “Media Pack” will be developed and readily available to give all visiting / interested journalists
Media pack available Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.1.34 By June 2018, clarity will be attained regarding the roles and responsibilities of the above described marketing efforts amongst the team members of Chumbe, led by the Project Manager
Roles and responsibilities for marketing clarified
Description: Hard/soft copy standard marketing materials should be available at all times to utilize as opportunities allow. Personnel are sufficient skills-equipped to ensure marketing efforts are appropriately implemented.
H.2. Bookings process is user friendly and efficient
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
BOOKINGS MATERIALS
H.2.1 By October 2017, all booking materials (emails, attachments) are reviewed, copy-edited to improve language flow and streamlined for maximal information adoption and promotion
Booking materials copy-edited and improved Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.2.2 By December 2017, bookings process has been upgraded with use of new materials
New booking materials utilized in bookings process
Description: Booking materials are streamlined, effective and functioning optimally to advance enquiries into bookings, and maximize overnight stays
BOOKING PORTALS
H.2.3 By 2027, existing bookings portals (booking,com) will have been managed effectively to ensure bookings are optimized
Booking portals are managed effectively Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
179
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
H.2.4 By 2027, amidst an ever-growing online booking climate, any new, emerging booking platforms will have been reviewed, assessed for appropriateness, and added to the Chumbe booking portal portfolio where relevant
New booking portals are explored, reviewed and adopted where appropriate
Description: Booking portals are a growing feature for guests booking holidays, and Chumbe needs to be sure and remain competitive with other destinations through appropriate (and feasible) use of portals where relevant
BOOKING MECHANISMS TO PROMOTE REVENUE GENERATION
H.2.5 By December 2017, bookings mechanisms will have been reviewed and optimized to advance and prioritize the acquisition of overnight bookings
Bookings mechanisms reviewed and methods of communication to promote and advance overnight booking acquisition understood by frontline staff members
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.2.6 By June 2018, at least 80% of booking enquiries become confirmed bookings
80% of enquiries become confirmed bookings
# enquiries translating into bookings
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.2.7 By 2027, the carrying capacity of the island (16 overnight guests or 18 guests with a combination of overnighters and daytrippers) will not have been exceeded, with the exception of special events being hosted on the island
Carrying capacity (max 18 combined guests) is not exceeded
# guests on island
Description: Bookings are the front line of communications between guests, agents and Chumbe, and the process and communication mechanisms utilized need to be optimally professional, efficient and consistent to promote maximal revenue generation
H.3. Revenue generating potential is maximized
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
OVERNIGHT BOOKINGS MAXIMIZED (LODGE INCOME)
H.3.1 By June 2020, the number of individuals booking overnights exceeds the number of individuals booking daytrips consistently through the year (and beyond to 2027)
Number of overnighters exceeds number of dayguests (individuals)
Proportion of overnighters vs dayguest calculations
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.3.2 By June 2019, at least 60% of all overnight bookings are for ‘more than one night’
At least 60% of overnighters stay more than one night
# nights booked per overnighter booking
H.3.3 By June 2020, at least 70% all overnight bookings are for ‘more than one night’, with this proportion being maintained by 2027
At least 70% of overnighters stay more than one night
H.3.4 By 2027, overall occupancy rates will have averaged 60% during low season and 85% during high season
Average overall occupancy rate:
60% low season
85% high season
Occupancy rate analysis
Description: Overnight bookings bring considerably higher per capita revenue generation that daytrip bookings and need to be promoted and optimized on the island
BAR SALES PROMOTED (BAR INCOME)
H.3.5 By 2027, bar menu visibility on the island (particularly around sun-downer times) will be consistently high, with waiters available to take orders
Bar menu visible and promoted to maximize sales
Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
180
OBJECTIVES TARGET(S) INDICATOR(S)
MEL METHOD (see
section 13 for more
information)
H.3.6 By 2027, at least 10 bar promotions will have been implemented annually (one per month during open season), featuring a particular drink / cocktail
10 bar promotions per year
# bar promotions
H.3.7 By 2027 a “sundowner event” will be organized at least once a month during high season to promote bar sales
At least 5 sundowner events per year
# sundowner events
Description: Bar sales need to be promoted in order to maximize revenue generation
BOUTIQUE SALES PROMOTED (BOUTIQUE INCOME)
H.3.8 By December 2017, the range of boutique products (particularly ‘Chumbe’ products) will be expanded to promote product diversity and sales
Range of boutique products expanded and diversified
Boutique sales Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
H.3.9 By 2027 the boutique will have been kept clean and presentable at all times, with price tags available for all items, to promote product sales
Boutique presentable and attractive at all times
Description: Boutique products need to be diverse, attractive and presented optimally to promote boutique sales and maximize revenue generation
COMMISSIONS MAXIMIZED (OUTSOURCE REVENUE COMMISSIONS)
H.3.10 By 2027, all commissionable transactions (taxi’s, spa bookings etc.) will have been promoted optimally to advance commission payment acquisition
Commissionable transaction optimally promoted Annual Chumbe Business Assessment
Description: Commissionable transactions need to be managed efficiently and optimized where possible to promote maximal revenue generation
12. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) provide an at-a-glance view of the anticipated measurable
milestones and targets for progress under the various departmental pillars over the coming ten
years. These will be assessed utilizing the monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) mechanisms
described against the above objectives and outlined further in section 13.
181
Conservation KPI’s
YEARS & MILESTONES
TARGET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27
# active PSE observations conducted in CRS Compound 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650 3,650
# CRS boundary marker maintenance checks conducted Annual 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40
Minimum # Security staff on island to assist with PSE Annual 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
# Ranger reports submitted (filled on a daily basis) to Conservation & Education Manager
Compound 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650 3,650
# Occasional Observation (OccObs) forms completed & submitted to Conservation & Education Manager
Annual 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
# Summary ranger reports sent to Department of Fisheries Annual 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40
# scientific publications Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# presentations at conservation events and scientific conferences Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# Reef Health Monitoring (RHM) full suite of surveys conducted Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# water quality surveys conducted (in collaboration with SUZA) Annual - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 18
# WIO-SWWD (whale watching) annual events conducted Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# Coconut crab population surveys conduced Annual - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 3
Total av. Live Hard Coral Cover (LHCC) in CRS (in %) Annual ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50 ≥ 50
Total Fish Biomass in CRS (in kg/ha) Annual >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000 >1,000
Total sea urchin density in CRS (in m2) Annual ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1
Total fleshy algae cover in CRS (in %) Annual < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
# Coral colonies observed with Bleaching stress (in %) Annual < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
# individual corals showing evidence of disease in CRS (in %) Annual < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5
# COTS observed (in #/16ha) Annual < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
# of SST loggers inside the CRS Annual 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
# comprehensive research plans in place that are up-dated yearly (developed by April 2018)
Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
# Ranger conservation all team meetings Annual 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 60
182
Education KPI’s
YEARS & MILESTONES
TARGET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27
# EE school trips conducted to Chumbe Island Annual 16 17 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 190
# school children participating in EE schools trips to Chumbe Island (14 children/trip)
Compound 224 462 714 980 1,260 1,540 1,820 2,100 2,380 2,660 2,660
# teaching personnel (including local schools, Universities and NGO-Training Centers) participating in in EE schools trips to Chumbe Island (1 teacher/trip)
Compound 25 51 78 106 135 164 193 222 251 280 280
# peer education activities conducted (off island) Annual 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 18
# community EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with 6 ‘Non-Target’ communities (1 trip community/year)
Annual 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 30
# community EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with 6 ‘Target’ communities (1 trip per community/year)
Annual - 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 30
# fishers participating in EE community trips to Chumbe Island (15 fishers/trip)
Compound 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810 900 900
# EE University trips conducted to Chumbe Island with students from SUZA University
Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# EE University trips conducted to Chumbe Island with students from IMS Zanzibar (DSM University)
Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# EE University trips conducted to Chumbe Island with students from other national Universities
Annual 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50
# University students participating in EE trips to Chumbe Island (14 students/trip)
Compound 98 196 294 392 490 588 686 784 882 980 980
# EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with government departmental agencies
Annual 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20
# Government officers participating in EE trips to Chumbe Island (15 officers/trip)
Compound 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 300
# EE trips conducted to Chumbe Island with associated local NGO-Training Centers
Annual 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20
# NGO students participating in EE trips to Chumbe Island (14 students/trip)
Compound 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 280
# ‘International days’ recognized through event based activities on/off the island
Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
183
Ecotourism KPI’s
YEARS & MILESTONES
TARGET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27
# island based infrastructure (bungalows, education center,
relaxation areas, snorkel banda etc.) spotchecks for quality control Annual 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 3,650
# weekly Maintenance plans Annual 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 520
# Annual Maintenance plans Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# transfer boat (Nassor owned) spotchecks for quality control Annual 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 110
# chumbe boat maintenance periods Annual 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20
# Water Plans for Chumbe Annual 1 - - - - - - - - - 1
# Waste Audits to be conducted Annual - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2
Amount of non-organic waste items from the island that are either recycled, re-used or re-purposed
Annual 60% 70% 80% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
# times each composting toilet chamber is emptied on the island Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Percentage of guests express satisfaction with guest boat transfers Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Percentage of guests considering the ranger welcome / introduction to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Percentage of guests considering food & beverage on the island to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
# fire and safety trainings conducted annually for all staff Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# Maintenance full team meetings annually Annual 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
# Ranger full team meetings annually Annual 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
# F&B full team meetings annually Annual 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
Percentage of guests considering the snorkel activity to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
# reminder rangers trainings on marine-specific first aid per year Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Percentage of guests considering the forest trail activity to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Percentage of guests considering the lighthouse activity to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
184
Ecotourism KPI’s
YEARS & MILESTONES
TARGET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27
Percentage of guests considering the intertidal activity to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Percentage of guests considering the coconut crab activity to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Percentage of guests considering the Spa experience to be ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’ (> 8 on likert scale)
Annual 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
# staff appraisals per staff member Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# ZIPA reports submitted Annual 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40
# full account audits conducted Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# website ‘hits’ per year Annual 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 500,000
Average website bounce rate per year Annual <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% <20% <20%
Annual proportion of traffic route to website through social media Annual 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
# new followers on Instagram Compound 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,000
# new followers on Facebook Compound 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,000
# new followers on Twitter Compound 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,000
Proportion of ratings on Trip Advisor as “excellent” Annual 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
# new DMCs promoting Chumbe Annual - - - - 50 - - - - - 50
# social media promotions disseminated Annual - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45
# social media ‘news-bites’ disseminated Annual 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 189
# blog-posts written about Chumbe Annual 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
# mainstream media articles written about Chumbe Annual 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20
# ecotourism industry articles written about Chumbe Annual - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 5
# full island group-event bookings taken Annual - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16
# bookings enquiries translating into confirmed bookings Annual - 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Proportion of overnight bookings that are for “more than one night” Annual - 60% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Average low season occupancy rate Annual 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%
Average high season occupancy rate Annual 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%
# bar promotions Annual 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 100
# sundowner events Annual 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50
186
13. MONITORING, EVALUATION & LEARNING
Monitoring (M) progress, evaluating (E) achievements, and implementing an adaptive management
approach based on lessons learned (L) will be essential processes for achieving the various goals and
targets identified and achieving overall management effectiveness.
In the previous section, each strategic objective has been assigned an appropriate mechanism for
undertaking MEL, described further here:
13.1. MEL for Conservation Key MEL mechanisms being deployed for measuring the effectiveness of conservation activities are as
follows.
Compliance with MPA regulations (patrol, surveillance & enforcement)
Compliance monitoring is undertaken daily by the rangers,
documenting activities in the coral reef sanctuary, using a
template format. Key metrics measured are related to #
Incidents observed in the CRS. And for each incident:
Time (Morning, Afternoon, Night)
Location (North, Middle, South)
# People
Type of Vessel (Boat, Dhow, Yacht, Wakojani, Ngalawa, Canoe, Snorkel, Other)
Activity (Fishing, Anchored, Passing, Research, Help required, Tourism/guests). And if found fishing: Fishing Gear (Trap, Line, Spear gun, Net, Collecting)
Response taken
These reports enable an immediate term assessment of
compliance levels and responsive management (such as
follow up with any fishers encroaching in the CRS) to be
implemented immediately when required. The reports also
enable trends in compliance to be evaluated and assessed
overtime.
PROTOCOL: Marine Rangers Reports
UNDERTAKEN: Daily
RESPONSE PERIOD: Daily
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED:
Quarterly (for submission to fisheries
department)
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Conservation Status Report
187
Compliance with Forest Reserve regulations (patrol, surveillance & enforcement)
Routine PSE activities in the CFR are intended to ensure
the reserve is effectively managed and all attempted
encroachments are deterred.
Key metrics measured are related to # Incidents observed
in the CFR. And for each incident:
Time (Morning, Afternoon, Night)
Location (North, Middle, South)
# People
Activity (Cutting, Felling, Hunting, Littering, Other non-permitted actions)
Response taken
This monitoring will complement the CRS data recording.
PROTOCOL: Forest Rangers Reports (to be
developed as per objective A.2.2).
UNDERTAKEN: Daily
RESPONSE PERIOD: Daily
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED:
Quarterly
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Conservation Status Report
Biophysical health of the CRS
Conducted annually, in-house biophysical monitoring is
undertaken by the ranger team, and the metrics assessed
include:
Total fish biomass [kg/ha]
using Underwater Visual Census (UVC) techniques
Live hard coral cover (LHHC) [ %]
Urchin Density [ind/m2]
Fleshy algae cover [% cover]
Bleaching incidence [% of colonies]
Disease prevalence [% cover]
COT density [ind/ha]
All the above using a combination of quadrat measures (CHICOP protocol 2006) and Point Intercept Transects (PIT)
Beyond the regular monitoring of the above, additional
responsive monitoring will be undertaken for bleaching
and COT incidence as needs arise.
Additional Sea Surface Temperature (SST) loggers will
monitor changes in SST daily
PROTOCOL(S): Reef Health Monitoring
(RHM) protocol (to be refined and
developed as per objective B.1.1)
expanded from, and including:
Existing CHICOP 2006 protocol
Bleaching Response protocol
COT removal protocol
UNDERTAKEN: Annually (& in response to
any impact changes detected through
daily observation)
RESPONSE PERIOD: Annual (or immediate
term in response to changes detected
through daily observation)
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED: Annual
RHM report
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Conservation Status Report
188
Water Quality of the CRS
In collaboration with SUZA, MEL for water quality will be
undertaken and will assess elements (such as) pH levels,
salinity and nutrient levels within the CRS.
PROTOCOL: Water Quality protocol (to be
developed as per objective B.1.6).
UNDERTAKEN: Twice per year
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Conservation Status Report
Marine Megafauna of the CRS
Occasional Observation (OccObs) record keeping is
intended to capture the occurrence of marine megafauna
within the CRS (i.e. sightings of sharks, turtles, dolphins
and other megafauna species).
Undertaken by the Chumbe Rangers, this monitoring
enables a systematic capture of observational data related
to visiting and transient megafauna within the CRS.
PROTOCOL: Occasional Observation
(OccObs) forms (to be developed as per
objective B.1.7)
UNDERTAKEN: Responsive (when
observations occur)
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED:
Monthly
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Conservation Status Report
Whale migration
Annual whale monitoring data is submitted annually as
part of the regional SWWD initiative.
Sightings are recorded using an 11-point log sheet and are
focused on sightings of humpback whales seen in the seas
of Tanzania, Kenya and Mozambique.
PROTOCOL: Synchronized Whale Watching
Day (SWWD) data sheets.
UNDERTAKEN: Annually
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED:
Annually (SWWD submissions)
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Conservation Status Report
189
Status of endangered forest species
The Aders Duiker monitoring protocol will be designed and
developed in order to confirm the existing current number
of Ader’s duiker present on island, and monitor the
population over time. Metrics anticipated will include:
# recorded visible sightings of Aders Duikers
# recorded evidence sightings (scent marks, feaces) of Aders Duikers
# Camera trap recordings
The Coconut Crab monitoring protocol will be developed
based upon best practice approaches previously utilized
(mark, release, recapture) and focused upon estimating
population size and density on the island.
PROTOCOL(S): Aders duiker monitoring
protocol (to be developed as per objective
B.2.1), and Coconut Crab monitoring
protocol (to be developed as per objective
B.2.3).
UNDERTAKEN: Aders duiker monitoring to
be determined (based on new protocol).
Coconut crab monitoring every three
years.
RESPONSE PERIOD: In line with monitoring
schedule.
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Relevant Conservation Status Reports.
Terrestrial invasive species
Invasive species monitoring and management systems will
be established through the new invasive species protocol,
and will include assessment and management mechanisms
for:
Indian House Crows (based on existing observation / response shooting procedures)
Rats (based on chew stick indicators monitored weekly)
Rhino beetles
Casuarina
PROTOCOL(S): Invasive species protocol to
be developed (as per objective B.2.6)
UNDERTAKEN: to be determined based on
above protocol
RESPONSE PERIOD: to be determined
based on above protocol
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Conservation Status Report
CONSERVATION STATUS REPORT
This assessment reviews achievements against all the conservation related objectives in this
management plan. Conducted annually, the conservation status report should present the results of
the various analyses undertaken, identify challenges and achievements of the year, and identify key
activities that need to be undertaken the following year.
Anticipated to be developed during the annual maintenance period, this assessment is due by July 01st
annually, and is submitted to the Director and Alternative Director. The findings should also provide
the foundation for discussion and presentation at the annual Advisory Committee Meeting, and be
available for sharing to wider stakeholders.
190
13.2. MEL for Education Key MEL mechanisms being deployed for measuring the effectiveness of education activities are as follows:
Schools programme impact based assessment
Using an adapted Kirkpatricks model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 1994, 2005, 2007), CHICOPs pre and post
questionnaire process for determining impact is based on a
three step process:
(1) Reaction (‘happy sheets’) – a measure of satisfaction; i.e. what
the students thought and felt about the experience.
(2) Learning – a measure of the resultant increase in knowledge
or capability. Evaluation here assesses what has actually been
learned and absorbed as knowledge.
(3) Behaviour – a measure of the extent of behavior and
capability improvement and its resultant implementation /
application. Evaluation here measures the transfer of what has
been learned back into the students’ school life and post-visit
activities.
PROTOCOL: Pre / Post questionnaires –
using an adapted Kirkpatrick model
UNDERTAKEN: Per school visit
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Education Status Report
Teacher training impact based assessment
Also utilizing an adapted Kirkpatrick model, these
assessments will be augmented with small focus group
discussions (FGDs) with teacher trainee groups each
season.
.
PROTOCOL: Focus group discussions and
Pre/Post Questionnaires (to be reviewed
and updated)
UNDERTAKEN: Per teacher training
activities
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Education Status Report
Peer, non-target & wider stakeholder impact based assessments
All remaining peer, non-target and wider stakeholder
excursion based educational programmes will be assessed
using randomly selected pre/post questionnaires in line
with the adapted Kirkpatrick model; though randomized
and not conducted per excursion to reduce monitoring
burden, and in recognition of the fact that some wider
stakeholder, peer and non-target excursions are focused at
a highly introductory level, with only knowledge (k) based
metrics anticipated to be affected in any way in the
immediate term.
PROTOCOL: Pre/post questionnaires (to
be developed)
UNDERTAKEN: Randomized, with at least
three sets per season
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Education Status Report
191
EDUCATION STATUS REPORT
This assessment reviews achievements against all the education related objectives in this
management plan. Conducted annually, the education status report should present the results of the
various analyses undertaken, identify challenges and achievements of the year, and identify key
activities that need to be undertaken the following year.
Anticipated to be developed during the annual maintenance period, this assessment is due by July 01st
annually, and is submitted to the Director and Alternative Director. The findings should also provide
the foundation for discussion and presentation at the annual Advisory Committee Meeting, and be
available for sharing to wider stakeholders.
13.3. MEL for Ecotourism Key MEL mechanisms being deployed for measuring the effectiveness of the ecotourism activities are as
follows:
Maintenance plans
Maintenance plans are agreed between the Project
Manager and Technical Manager. During periods when the
island is operational, these plans are brief and agreed
weekly, to address immediate infrastructure and technical
concerns. Prior to Maintenance period (island closed) the
Annual Maintenance plan is developed to map out
activities to be completed during the closed period. All
objectives in the previous section are to be reviewed at
this period to ensure incorporation in this plan where
relevant.
.
PROTOCOL(S): Various manuals exist to
support island infrastructure
maintenance, including:
Greywater management protocol
Solar freezer protocol
Solar panels protocol
Invertor management
Charge controllers
UNDERTAKEN: Weekly (when island
open), and annually (before closed
maintenance period)
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED: Annual
Chumbe business assessment (see below)
Daily spot check templates
Daily spot check templates are utilized on the island for
checking daily standards for key areas, such as the
bungalows, the kitchen area, the public toilet area, and the
relaxation areas for visitors.
PROTOCOL(S): Daily spot check templates
UNDERTAKEN: Daily
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED: Annual
Chumbe business assessment (see below)
192
Weekly spot check templates
Weekly spot checks are needed for other infrastructural
conditions, such as the boats.
.
PROTOCOL(S): Weekly spot check
templates for relevant areas
UNDERTAKEN: Weekly
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED: Annual
Chumbe business assessment (see below)
Monthly spot check templates
Monthly spot checks are conducted for other
considerations, such as cleaning product inventory, forest
trail safety, snorkel equipment safety and standards etc.
.
PROTOCOL(S): Monthly spot check
templates for relevant areas
UNDERTAKEN: Monthly
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED: Annual
Chumbe business assessment (see below)
Boat maintenance schedule
Conducted twice a year (or more often when required),
this schedule includes a checklist of all factors on the boats
to review, check, ensure are in optimally functioning
condition, and repair if / where necessary.
PROTOCOL(S): Schedule checklist
UNDERTAKEN: Twice per year
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED: Annual
Chumbe business assessment (see below)
Guest experience questionnaires
Targeted at overnight guests, these questionnaires are
available in the bungalows, and management actively
encourage guests to complete them. They are intended to
provide feedback to assess the level of achievements in
service delivery and high quality activity deliverables, as
well as provide guests with a chance to share any other
general observations, suggestions for improvements etc.
.
PROTOCOL(S): Guest experience
questionnaire (to be revised/ created)
UNDERTAKEN: Shared with all overnight
guests
REPORT OF FINDINGS PRODUCED: Annual
Chumbe business assessment (see below)
FULL TREND ANALYSIS PRODUCED:
Annually – Chumbe business assessment
(see below)
193
ANNUAL CHUMBE BUSINESS ASSESSMENT
This assessment reviews achievements against all the ecotourism related objectives in this
management plan. Conducted annually, the Chumbe business assessment should present the results
of the various analyses undertaken, identify challenges and achievements of the year, and identify key
activities that need to be undertaken the following year.
Anticipated to be developed during the annual maintenance period, this assessment is due by July 01st
annually, and is submitted to the Director and Alternative Director. The findings should also provide
the foundation for discussion and presentation at the annual Advisory Committee Meeting.
The sandbar at the north end of Chumbe is exposed at low tide © Markus Meissl
194
APPENDIX ONE: Standard Operating Procedures Appendix includes SOPs for:
A. Sustainable Operations B. Sustainable Procurement C. Health, Safety & Emergency
A. SOP: Sustainable Operations
Aims
Committed to sustainable conservation and education through eco-tourism
Committed to facilitate research and monitoring systems in support of the above.
Committed to community development and well-being through environmental education.
Committed to prioritizing and working closely with local communities.
Committed to involving all stakeholders in the development of the project.
Committed to minimizing the environmental impacts of all operations and to promote environmentally friendly design and technology within the project.
Committed to ethical operations with not for profit objectives.
Committed to cooperation with National and International conservation and ecotourism organisations to publicise the project and exchange experiences.
PART I. GENERAL
Office administration
Paper is printed and photocopied on both sides.
Re-use paper only used on one side, e.g. as scrap notepaper, or to print on.
Encouragement of the sale of fair trade, ethical and eco-friendly goods are promoted in the Island boutique.
All non re-usable material that is not biodegradable to be separated and disposed of to the ‘municipality’.
Turn off electric lights and use natural light whenever possible.
Electrical air conditioning is not used and all other electrical items are switched off when not being used.
Large, refillable water tanks are used to provide drinking water in the office which avoids additional plastic waste
Staffing
Local community members are given high priority for employment opportunities
The importance of gender empowerment is recognised
All staff are trained on ethical environmental concerns
Training and work experience are prioritised for staff skill development
All laws protecting staff rights are adhered to and respected
All staff have a voice within the company and mechanisms are created so that voice is heard and answered from all sectors
Clients
All tourists are requested to follow the rules and regulations whilst on island.
These rules are displayed and explained during the briefing by the staff to the guests when they arrive.
Only 18 clients to be accommodated on the island at any one time.
All of our clients are issued with a feedback form to complete during their stay. Guest comments are followed up and solved immediately.
195
PART II. SPECIFIC FOR CHUMBE ISLAND
Environmental concerns
Emissions of carbon dioxide to be minimised, for example by reducing the use of fossil fuels by regulating boat trips and size of engines used and limiting use of cars to essential trips
Large water purifiers are provided for drinking water to the staff. Large, refillable water tanks are used to provide drinking water to the guests which avoids additional plastic waste
All biodegradable raw fruits, vegetables and plant matter to be composted on island
Sensitizing local communities of the benefits of conserving the environment
Use of locally made biodegradable soap with the bungalow greywater systems to minimise pollution and eutrophication
Design and maintenance
Composting toilets installed to completely avoid sewage (black water) and waste of water for flushing toilets.
Grey water system introduced for the guest kitchen waste water in order to minimise marine eutrophication.
Solar powered electricity to be used.
Bungalows and education centre provided with rain water collection tanks and roofs designed for maximum rainwater collection and storage.
Usage of water in bungalows is conserved and controlled manually, e.g. through water-saving showerheads.
Keep all equipment regularly serviced and in good condition. For example boat engines to minimise oil leakage.
Restrictions and general rules of the island
Turn off lights & water if not needed where possible to save energy.
Laundry to be done off the Island since water on the island is a precious commodity and washing soaps would pollute the environment.
Environmentally friendly cleaning products to be used to reduce pollution.
Special bins to be placed on the Island for non-biodegradeable waste and regular collections of rubbish from the beach are organised among the Island Team
Guests are encouraged to use “reef safe” sunscreen which is available on the island
Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and Forest Reserve rules.
No destructive or extractive activities permitted in the CRS or CFR
Scuba diving in the CRS permitted only for approved researchers and film crews
Off-track exploration of the CFR permitted only for approved researchers
The rules to be regularly reviewed by the management at least twice a year (Conservation Evaluation Meetings).
196
B. SOP: Sustainable Procurement Aims
Committed to sourcing goods in a sustainable manner
Committed to only acquiring and utilizing sustainably produced products
Committed to transporting and managing procurement processes in a sustainable manner
PART I. PROCUREMENT OF CONSUMABLES
All consumable produce (food stuffs) should be sourced from a sustainable vendor
Consumable product purchasing should target local communities where possible
Consumables should be organically produced, and locally grown / developed where possible
Seafood product purchasing must follow the Chumbe Sustainable Seafood Policy in Part III.
PART II. SUPPLIES MANAGEMENT
All supplies to be sent to the island in re-usable locally made bags. Plastic is avoided.
Re-using bags to buy supplies for the Island.
Supplies to be bought in local markets, produce from outside the local community is avoided wherever possible and economical.
Dish soaps and products for the kitchen are to be biodegradable
Non recyclable packaging to be minimized as much as possible
Measures to recycle, reuse and reduce are prioritised
Outsource transportation transfers and other services to local contractors wherever possible and economical.
PART III. SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD PURCHASING POLICY
The Chumbe sustainable seafood purchasing policy ensure’s Chumbe only purchases sustainably sourced marine products from local fishermen, and avoid
species that are overfished or have been caught using destructive fishing techniques. Species are categorized by:
Green – Good choices Yellow – Choices with caution Red – Avoid
199
C. SOP: Health, Safety & Emergencies
Aim
CHICOP provides a safe work environment for all staff
Chumbe is a safe place for visitors
Both staff and visitor health and safety is considered in all actions and activities as paramount importance
PART I. HEALTH & SAFETY IN THE OFFICE
First aid kit is provided in the office
Gas stoves are located in open environment to avoid fire.
First Aid training to certificate standard is sponsored by the company
All staff are insured when at work
PART II. HEALTH & SAFETY ON THE ISLAND
All island-based staff to learn how to swim.
Life jackets are available on boats crossing to the island.
GPS and mobile phones are available on boats and a text message is sent to management when the boat departs the island and returns from Mbweni.
All staff to be trained to be competent in health and safety procedures in both marine & terrestrial environment.
Staff cooks to go for a compulsory, annual medical check.
First aid box & equipment to be provided on the Island.
First aid training to be provided up to certificate level.
PART III: EMERGENCY PROCEDURES – FIRE
ALERT EVERYONE
EXTINGUISH THE FIRE
SOUND THE ALARM: many strokes on the “bell” while shouting ‘fire/motoooo!’
200
On Island
Assignments for each department
Guiding rangers - alarm and evacuate all the guests and their luggage from their bungalows
Waiters - alarm and evacuate the staff house including managers house
All other departments (maintenance, staff kitchen, guest kitchen, boat rangers) - help to extinguish the fire and gather at the meeting point (guest beach)
Meeting point (where all guests and staff meet up) - Guest beach
Fire extinguishers on the island are located:
In the snorkel hut (powder, hand held tanks) to use if there is a fire in the snorkel hut, since there is petrol in there, use the powder!!
In the guest kitchen (CO2, small hand held tanks) to use if there is a fire in the kitchen or electricity fire (i.e office or maintenance shed)
Outside guest bungalows (water, small hand held tanks) to use if there is a fire in the bungalows
In office
Fire extinguishers in the office are located:
In the main office downstairs (regular)
kitchen (1 x regular, 1 x Carbon dioxide extinguisher)
laundry room area (regular)
conservation and education floor (regular)
top apartment (regular)
PART IV: EMERGENCY PROCEDURES – MARINE / SNORKELING ACCIDENTS
Emergency Plan for Rangers – actions to take for the following marine / snorkel related accidents:
Sunburn / dehydration Lots of water to drink. No coffee or tea. Aloe Vera cream / gel. Rets
Jellyfish sting / burn Apply vinegar as soon as possible. If very painful apply ice.
201
Poisonous fish (stingray,
lionfish, catfish, stonefish)
Heat treat immediately. Make sure the injured body part if well covered with hot water (45c) and keep refilling hot water
until pain subsides (may be up to 4 hours)
If open cut, treat as below
If you suspect the client has an allergic reaction (serious swelling, dizziness, nausea, difficulties breathing etc.) alert the office
and send patient to Unguja as soon as possible
Open wound (cut on coral
rag/ rock)
Get victim back to education center as soon as possible trying to avoid getting dirt or sand in the wound. Clean the wound
with freshwater and then antiseptic liquid before applying a plaster and pressure bandage if needed. If heavy bleeding – bring
patient to Unguja as soon as possible and alert the office
Near drowning Immediate EFR (rescue breathing and addition of emergency oxygen) by trained ranger / staff. Alert the office and send
patient to Unguja as soon as possible. Time is critical.
203
APPENDIX THREE: Coral Genera Diversity in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary ORDER FAMILY GENUS SOURCE
Helioporacea Helioporidae Heliopora coerulea WCS
Scleractinia Mussidae Acanthastrea MP, WCS
Scleractinia Acroporidae Acropora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Poritidae Alveopora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Acroporidae Astreopora MP, WCS
Scleractinia Scleractinia incertae sedis* Blastomussa MP, HER
Scleractinia Faviidae Caulastrea MP, HER
Scleractinia Agariciidae Coeloseris MP, HER
Scleractinia Siderastreidae Coscinaria MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Fungiidae Cycloseris MP, HER
Scleractinia Faviidae Cyphastrea MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Dendrophylliidae Dendrophyllia MP, HER
Scleractinia Faviidae Diploastrea MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Pectiniidae Echinophyllia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Echinopora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Euphylliidae Euphyllia HER, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Favia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Favites MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Fungiidae Fungia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Oculinidae Galaxea astreata MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Oculinidae Galaxea fascicularis MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Agariciidae Gardineroseris MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Goniastrea MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Poritidae Goniopora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Caryophylliidae Gyrosmilia MP
Scleractinia Fungiidae Halomitra MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Fungiidae Herpolitha MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Dendrophylliidae Heteropsammia MP, HER
Sources: Author Year
MP Surveys conducted as part of 1st Edition Management Plan
G. Castle & R. Mileto
2006
HER PhD study in progress Herran 2014
WCS Wildlife Conservation Soceity (WCS) monitoring
Tim McClanahan 2016
204
ORDER FAMILY GENUS SOURCE
Scleractinia Merulinidae Hydnophora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Leptastrea MP, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Leptoria MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Agariciidae Leptoseris MP, HER
Scleractinia Lobophyllidae Lobophyllia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Merulinidae Merulina MP, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Montastrea MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Acroporidae Montipora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Pectiniidae Mycedium MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Oulophyllia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Pectiniidae Oxypora MP, WCS
Scleractinia Agariciidae Pachyseris MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Agariciidae Pavona MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Pectiniidae Pectinia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Caryophylliidae Physogyra MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Faviidae Platygyra MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Caryophylliidae Plerogyra MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Scleractinia incertae sedis* Plesiastrea HR, WCS
Scleractinia Pocilloporidae Pocillopora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Fungiidae Podabacia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Poritidae Porites branching MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Poritidae Porites massive MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Siderastreidae Psammocora MP
Scleractinia Mussidae Scolymia MP
Scleractinia Pocilloporidae Seriatopora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Astrocoeniidae Stephanocoenia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Pocilloporidae Stylophora MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Mussidae Symphyllia MP, HER, WCS
Scleractinia Dendrophylliidae Tubastrea MP
Scleractinia Dendrophylliidae Turbinaria MP, HER, WCS
Anthomedusae Milleporidae Millepora MP, HER, WCS * incertae sedis is "of uncertain placement", a term used for a taxonomic group where its broader relationships are unknown or undefined
205
APPENDIX FOUR: Reef Fish Species in the Chumbe Reef Sanctuary
Class: Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish)
Sub-class: Elasmobranchii
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
1 Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus melanopterus
Black tip reef shark Near Threatened unknown 2011 Leyendecker & database
2 Ginglymostomatidae Nebrius ferrugineus Indian Ocean nurse shark Vulnerable Elisa Alonso 2014 Leyendecker, 2016
3 Torpedinidae Hypnos monopterygius Numbfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
4 Torpedinidae Torpedo fuscomaculata Black-spotted torpedo ray Data Deficient Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker, 2013
5 Torpedinidae Torpedo sinuspersici Marbled electric ray Data Deficient Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker, 2016
6 Dasyatididae Himantura jenkinsii Jenkin's whipray Vulnerable Jerker Lokrantz 2004 Hendriksson
7 Dasyatididae Himantura undulata Leopard whipray Vulnerable Jerker Lokrantz 2004 no
8 Dasyatididae Neotrygon kuhlii Kuhl's blue-spotted stingray
Data Deficient Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
9 Dasyatididae Taeniura lymma Blue-spotted stingray Near Threatened Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker & database
10 Dasyatididae Taeniura meyeni Black-bloched stingray Vulnerable Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
11 Dasyatididae Urogymnus asperrimus Porcupine stingray Vulnerable Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
Class: Osteichthyes (Bony fish)
Sub-class: Actinopterygii
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
12 Muraenidae Echidna nebulosa Snowflake moray Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
13 Muraenidae Echidna polyzona Ringed moray Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
14 Muraenidae Gymnomuraena zebra Zebra moray Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Rorvik, 2017
15 Muraenidae Gymnothorax flavimarginatus
Yellow-edged moray Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
206
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
16 Muraenidae Gymnothorax griseus Geometric moray Not assessed Lokrantz & Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
17 Muraenidae Gymnothorax javanicus Giant moray Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
18 Muraenidae Gymnothorax meleagris Whitemouth moray Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
19 Muraenidae Gymnothorax pictus Peppered moray Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
20 Muraenidae Gymnothorax zonipectis Barredfin moray Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
21 Muraenidae Rhinomuraena quaesita Ribbon eel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
22 Muraenidae Scuticaria tigrina Leopard moray Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
23 Muraenidae Uropterygius marmoratus Marbled reef eel Not assessed Markus Meissl 2013 Markus Meissl
24 Congridae Conger cinereus Moustache conger Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
25 Congridae Gorgasia sillneri Garden eel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
26 Ophichthidae Myrichthys colubrinus Banded snake eel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
27 Bothidae Bothus pantherinus Panther flounder Not assessed Markus Meissl 2013 Markus Meissl
28 Soleidae Pardachirus marmoratus Finnless sole Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
29 Plotosidae Plotosus lineatus Striped catfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
30 Synodontidae Saurida gracilis Graceful lizardfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
31 Synodontidae Synodus dermatogenys Sand lizardfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
32 Synodontidae Synodus indicus Indian lizardfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
33 Synodontidae Synodus variegatus Variegated lizardfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
34 Belonidae Strongylura leiura Banded needlefish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
35 Belonidae Tylosurus crocodilus Crocodile needlefish Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
36 Hemirhamphidae Hemiramphus far Spotted halfbeak Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
37 Holocentridae Myripristis hexagona Doubletooth soldierfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
38 Holocentridae Myripristis murdjan Blotcheye soldier Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
39 Holocentridae Myripristis violacea Lattice soldierfish Least Concern Jerker Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
40 Holocentridae Myripristis vittata White-tipped soldier Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
41 Holocentridae Neoniphon opercularis Clearfin/Blackfin squirrel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
42 Holocentridae Neoniphon sammara Bloodspot/Spotfin squirrel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
43 Holocentridae Plectrypops lima Rough scale soldier Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
44 Holocentridae Sargocentron caudimaculatum
Tailspot squirrel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Santamaria Perez 2016
45 Holocentridae Sargocentron diadema Crown squirrel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
46 Holocentridae Sargocentron melanospilos
Blackspot squirrelfish Least Concern Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
207
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
47 Holocentridae Sargocentron spiniferum Long-jawed squirrel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Santamaria Perez 2016
48 Dactyloperidae Dactyloptena orientalis Oriental Flying Gunard Not assessed Ulli Kloiber 2013 Ulli Kloiber
49 Clupeidae Herklotsichthys quadrimaculatus
Bluestripe herring Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
50 Engraulidae Stolephorus indicus Indian anchovy Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
51 Atherinopsidae Atherina boyeri Big eye sand smelt Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
52 Carapidae Encheliophis homei Silver Pearlfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
53 Aulostomidae Aulostomus chinensis Trumpetfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
54 Fistulariidae Fistularia commersonii Flutemouth Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
55 Solenostomidae Solenostomus cyanopterus
Seagrass ghost pipefish Not assessed Frida Landshammer
2006 Frida Landshammer
56 Syngnathidae Corythoichthys flavofasciatus
Network pipefish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
57 Syngnathidae Corythoichthys intestinalis Scribbled pipefish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
58 Syngnathidae Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatus
Double-ended pipefish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Olivia McGrath
59 Syngnathidae Hippocampus histrix Thorny seahorse Vulnerable Kerstin Erler 2017 Kerstin Erler
60 Centriscidae Aeoliscus punctulatus Speckled shrimpfish Data Deficient Olivia McGrath 2014 Olivia McGrath
61 Scorpaenidae Dendrochirus zebra Zebra turkeyfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
62 Scorpaenidae Inimicus filamentosus Indian Ocean walkman Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
63 Scorpaenidae Paracentropogon longispinis
Wispy waspfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
64 Scorpaenidae Pterois antennata Antenna lionfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
65 Scorpaenidae Pterois miles Indian lionfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
66 Scorpaenidae Pterois mombasae Frilfin turkeyfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
67 Scorpaenidae Pterois radiata Clearfin lionfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
68 Scorpaenidae Scorpaenodes guamensis Guam scorpionfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
69 Scorpaenidae Scorpaenodes minor Minor scorpion Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
70 Scorpaenidae Scorpaenopsis barbata Bearded scorpionfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
71 Scorpaenidae Scorpaenopsis diabolus Devil Scorpionfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
72 Scorpaenidae Scorpaenopsis oxycephala Tassled scorpion Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
73 Scorpaenidae Scorpaenopsis venosa Raggy Scorpion Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
74 Scorpaenidae Sebastapistes ballieui Spotfin scorpionfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
208
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
75 Scorpaenidae Sebastapistes cyanostigma
Yellowspotted scorpionfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
76 Scorpaenidae Sebastapistes strongia Barchin scorpionfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
77 Scorpaenidae Taenianotus triacanthus Leaf scorpionfish Not assessed Frida Landshammer
2006 Frida Landshammer
78 Tetrarogidae Ablabys binotatus Redskin waspfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
79 Platycephalidae Papilloculiceps longiceps Indian Ocean crocodilefish Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
80 Platycephalidae Sunagocia otaitensis Fringelip flathead Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
81 Serranidae Aethaloperca rogaa Redmouth grouper Data Deficient Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
82 Serranidae Anyperodon leucogrammicus
White-lined rockcod Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
83 Serranidae Cephalopholis argus Peacock grouper Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
84 Serranidae Cephalopholis boenak Chocolate hind Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
85 Serranidae Cephalopholis leopardus Leopard hind Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
86 Serranidae Cephalopholis miniata Coral grouper Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
87 Serranidae Cephalopholis sexmaculata
Sixspot grouper Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
88 Serranidae Dermatolepis striolata Smooth grouper Data Deficient Aaron Critchley 2016 Leyendecker
89 Serranidae Epinephelus chlorostigma Brownspotted grouper Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
90 Serranidae Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Brown marbled grouper Near Threatened Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
91 Serranidae Epinephelus lanceolatus Giant grouper Vulnerable Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
92 Serranidae Epinephelus malabaricus Malabar grouper Near Threatened Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
93 Serranidae Epinephelus melanostigma
Blackspot grouper Data Deficient Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
94 Serranidae Epinephelus merra Honeycomb grouper Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
95 Serranidae Epinephelus ongus Specklefin grouper Least Concern Leyendecker 2014 Leyendecker
96 Serranidae Epinephelus spilotoceps Foursaddle grouper Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
97 Serranidae Plectropomus laevis Blacksaddle grouper Vulnerable Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
98 Serranidae Plectropomus pessuliferus Leopard grouper Near Threatened Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
99 Serranidae Plectropomus punctatus Marbled coral grouper Data Deficient Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
100 Serranidae Variola albimarginata Whitemargin lyretail grouper
Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
101 Serranidae Variola louti Lyretail grouper Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
209
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
102 Anthiidae Pseudanthias cooperi Red-bar anthias Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
103 Anthiidae Pseudanthias squamipinnis
Lyre-tail fairy basslet/Sea goldie
Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
104 Anthiidae Serranus tigrinus Harlequin bass Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
105 Grammistidae Belonoperca chabanaudi Chabanaud's soapfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
106 Grammistidae Grammistes sexlineatus Six-stripe soapfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
107 Priacanthidae Priacanthus blochii Bloch's bigeye Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
108 Priacanthidae Priacanthus hamrur Zaiaer's bigeye Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
109 Apogonidae Apogonichthyoides taeniatus
Twobelt cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
110 Apogonidae Archamia bilineata Cardinalfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
111 Apogonidae Archamia bleekeri Gon's cardinalfish Not assessed Aaron Critchley 2016 Critchley 2016
112 Apogonidae Archamia fucata Orange-lined cardinalfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
113 Apogonidae Archamia mozambiquensis
Mozambique cardinalfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
114 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus arabicus Tiger cardinalfish Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
115 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus artus Yellow-lined cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
116 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus macrodon Largetoothed cardinalfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
117 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus pygmaios Cardinalfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
118 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus
Five-lined cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
119 Apogonidae Nectamia bandanensis Bigeye cardinalfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
120 Apogonidae Nectamia fuscus Samoan cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
121 Apogonidae Ostorhinchus apogonides Goldbelly cardinalfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
122 Apogonidae Ostorhinchus aureus Sun cardinalfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
123 Apogonidae Ostorhinchus cooki Blackbanded cardinalfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
124 Apogonidae Ostorhinchus cyanosoma Yellow-striped cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
125 Apogonidae Ostorhinchus nigrofasciatus
Blackstripe cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
126 Apogonidae Pristiapogon kallopterus Iridescent cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
210
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
127 Apogonidae Pristiapogon exostigma Narrowstripe cardinalfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
128 Apogonidae Rhabdamia gracilis Slender cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
129 Apogonidae Siphamia tubifer Tubifer cardinalfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
130 Apogonidae Zoramia fragilis White streak cardinal Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
131 Apogonidae Zoramia leptacantha Threadfin cardinalfish Not assessed Olivia McGrath 2014 Olivia McGrath
132 Haemulidae Diagramma pictum Painted sweetlip Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
133 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus flavomaculatus
Gold-spotted sweetlip Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
134 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus gaterinus Black-spotted sweetlip Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
135 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus gibbosus Brown sweetlip Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
136 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus obscurus Giant sweetlip Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
137 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus picus Spotted sweetlip Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
138 Pomacentridae Plectorhinchus plagiodesmus
Barred rubberlip Not assessed Tyler, Elisabeth 2002 Tyler 2002
139 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus playfairi Whitebanded sweetlip Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
140 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus schotaf Grey sweetlip Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
141 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus sordidus Black sweetlip Not assessed Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
142 Haemulidae Plectorhinchus vittatus Oriental sweetlip Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
143 Lutjanidae Aprion virescens Big jobfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
144 Lutjanidae Lutjanus bohar Twinspot snapper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
145 Lutjanidae Lutjanus ehrenbergi Ehrenberg's snapper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
146 Lutjanidae Lutjanus fulviflamma Dory snapper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
147 Lutjanidae Lutjanus gibbus Humpback snapper Not assessed Dorenbosch 2003 no
148 Lutjanidae Lutjanus lutjanus Bigeye snapper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
149 Lutjanidae Lutjanus monostigma Onespot snapper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
150 Lutjanidae Lutjanus rivulatus Scribbled snapper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
151 Lutjanidae Macolor niger Black snapper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
152 Lethrinidae Gnathodentex aureolineatus
Yellowspot emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
153 Lethrinidae Gymnocranius grandoculis
Blue lined large eye bream Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
154 Lethrinidae Lethrinus amboinensis Ambon emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
155 Lethrinidae Lethrinus borbonicus Snubnose emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
211
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
156 Lethrinidae Lethrinus conchyliatus Red axel emperor Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
157 Lethrinidae Lethrinus erythracanthus Orange-fin emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
158 Lethrinidae Lethrinus harak Blackspot emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
159 Lethrinidae Lethrinus lentjan Pink-ear emperor Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
160 Lethrinidae Lethrinus mahsena Sky emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
161 Lethrinidae Lethrinus microdon Small-tooth emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
162 Lethrinidae Lethrinus miniatus Sweetlip emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
163 Lethrinidae Lethrinus nebulosus Spangled emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
164 Lethrinidae Lethrinus obsoletus Orange-stripe emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
165 Lethrinidae Lethrinus olivaceus Longface emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
166 Lethrinidae Lethrinus rubrioperculatus Redgill emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
167 Lethrinidae Lethrinus variegatus Slender emperor Not assessed Dorenbosch 2003 no
168 Lethrinidae Lethrinus xanthochilus Yellowlip emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
169 Lethrinidae Monotaxis grandoculis Bigeye emperor Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
170 Nemipteridae Scolopsis bimaculata Thumbprint spinecheek Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
171 Nemipteridae Scolopsis frenata Bridled spinecheek Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
172 Nemipteridae Scolopsis ghanam Dotted spinecheek Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
173 Nemipteridae Scolopsis trilineata Threelined monocle bream Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
174 Sparoidae Acanthopagrus latus Yellowfin seabream Data Deficient Markus Meissl 2013 Leyendecker
175 Caesionidae Caesio caerulaurea Scissortail fusilier Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
176 Caesionidae Caesio lunaris Lunar fusilier Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
177 Caesionidae Caesio teres Yellowback fusilier Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
178 Caesionidae Caesio xanthalytos Goldsash fusilier Not assessed Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker
179 Caesionidae Caesio xanthonota Yellowtop fusilier Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
180 Caesionidae Pterocaesio capricornis Southern fusilier Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
181 Caesionidae Pterocaesio chrysozona Goldband fusilier Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
182 Caesionidae Pterocaesio pisang Banana fusilier Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 Critchley
183 Caesionidae Pterocaesio tile Bluestreak fusilier Not assessed Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker
184 Kyphosidae Kyphosus cinerascens Snubnose rudderfish Least Concern Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
185 Kyphosidae Kyphosus vaigiensis Brassy chub Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
186 Ephippidae Platax orbicularis Circular batfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
187 Ephippidae Platax pinnatus Shaded batfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
212
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
188 Ephippidae Platax teira Longfin batfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
189 Ephippidae Tripterodon orbis African spadefish Not assessed Kim Nesbitt 2014 Kim Nesbitt
190 Mullidae Mulloidichthys flavolineatus
Yellowstripe goatfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
191 Mullidae Mulloidichthys vanicolensis
Yellowfin goatfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
192 Mullidae Parupeneus barberinus Blackstripe goatfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
193 Mullidae Parupeneus ciliatus White-lined goatfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
194 Mullidae Parupeneus cyclostomus Yellow saddle goatfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
195 Mullidae Parupeneus macronemus Longbarbel goatfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
196 Mullidae Parupeneus pleurostigma Sidespot goatfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
197 Mullidae Parupeneus rubescens Ruby goatfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
198 Mullidae Upeneus tragula Freckled goatfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
199 Pomacanthidae Centropyge acanthops African dwarf-angelfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
200 Pomacanthidae Centropyge bispinosa Two-spined angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
201 Pomacanthidae Centropyge multispinis Multispined angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
202 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus asfur Yellowband angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
203 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus chrysurus Earspot angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
204 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus imperator Emperor angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
205 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus maculosus Yellowbar angelfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
206 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus semicirculatus
Semicircle angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
207 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus xanthometopon
Blueface angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
208 Pomacanthidae Pygoplites diacanthus Regal angel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
209 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon auriga Threadfin butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
210 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon bennetti Bennet's butterfly Data Deficient Suzanne Mildner 1994 Ulli Kloiber
211 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon falcula Sickle butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
212 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon guttatissimus Spotted butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
213 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon kleinii White-spotted butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
214 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon lineolatus Lined butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
215 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon lunula Racoon butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
216 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon melannotus Black-backed butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
213
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
217 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon meyeri Meyer's butterflyfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
218 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon speculum Ovalspot butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
219 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon trifascialis Chevronned butterfly Near Threatened Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
220 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon trifasciatus Redfin/melon butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
221 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon vagabundus Vagabond butterflyfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
222 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon xanthocephalus
Yellowhead butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
223 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon zanzibarensis Zanzibar butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
224 Chaetodontidae Forcipiger longirostris Longnose butterfly Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
225 Chaetodontidae Heniochus acuminatus Longfin bannerfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
226 Chaetodontidae Heniochus monoceros Masked bannerfish Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
227 Cirrhitidae Cirrhitichthys oxycephalus Spotted hawkfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
228 Cirrhitidae Paracirrhites arcatus Arc-eye hawkfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
229 Cirrhitidae Paracirrhites forsteri Freckled/ blackside hawkfish
Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
230 Pempheridae Parapriacanthus ransonneti
Slender sweeper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
231 Pempheridae Pempheris oualensis Copper sweeper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
232 Pempheridae Pempheris schwenkii Schwenk's sweeper Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
233 Pempheridae Pempheris vanicolensis Cave sweeper Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
234 Pomacentridae Abudefduf notatus Dusky damsel/ Yellowtail sergeant
Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
235 Pomacentridae Abudefduf septemfasciatus
7-bar or banded sergeant Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
236 Pomacentridae Abudefduf sexfasciatus Scissortail sergeant Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
237 Pomacentridae Abudefduf sordidus Spot sergeant Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
238 Pomacentridae Abudefduf sparoides False-eye damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
239 Pomacentridae Abudefduf vaigiensis Sergeant major Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
240 Pomacentridae Amblyglyphidodon indicus Maldives damselfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
241 Pomacentridae Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster
White-belly damsel Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
242 Pomacentridae Amphiprion akallopisos Skunk clown Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
243 Pomacentridae Amphiprion allardi Allard's anemonefish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
214
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
244 Pomacentridae Chromis agilis Agile chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
245 Pomacentridae Chromis atripectoralis Black-axil chromis Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
246 Pomacentridae Chromis caerulea Blue puller Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
247 Pomacentridae Chromis dimidiata Chocolate dip chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
248 Pomacentridae Chromis lepidolepis Scaly chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
249 Pomacentridae Chromis leucura White-tail chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
250 Pomacentridae Chromis nigroanalis Kenyan chromis Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
251 Pomacentridae Chromis nigrura Blacktail chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
252 Pomacentridae Chromis opercularis Doublebar chromis Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
253 Pomacentridae Chromis pembae Yellow edge chromis Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
254 Pomacentridae Chromis ternatensis Golden chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
255 Pomacentridae Chromis viridis Blue-green chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
256 Pomacentridae Chromis weberi Weber's chromis Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
257 Pomacentridae Chromis xutha Buff chromis Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
258 Pomacentridae Chrysiptera annulata Footballer damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
259 Pomacentridae Chrysiptera biocellata Twinspot damselfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
260 Pomacentridae Chrysiptera brownriggii Surge damselfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
261 Pomacentridae Chrysiptera glauca Grey demoiselle Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
262 Pomacentridae Chrysiptera rollandi Rollands demoiselle Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
263 Pomacentridae Chrysiptera unimaculata Onespot damsel Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
264 Pomacentridae Dascyllus aruanus Zebra humbug Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
265 Pomacentridae Dascyllus carneus Indian dascyllus Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
266 Pomacentridae Dascyllus trimaculatus Domino dascyllus Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
267 Pomacentridae Neoglyphidodon melas Bowtie damselfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
268 Pomacentridae Neopomacentrus azysron Yellowtail damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
269 Pomacentridae Neopomacentrus cyanomos
Regal demoiselle Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
270 Pomacentridae Plectroglyphidodon dickii Narrowbar damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
271 Pomacentridae Plectroglyphidodon imparipennis
Stop-start/bright-eye damsel
Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
272 Pomacentridae Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus
Johnston damselfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
215
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
273 Pomacentridae Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus
Jewel damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
274 Pomacentridae Plectroglyphidodon leucozonus
Sash damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
275 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus aquilus Dark damsel Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
276 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus baenschi East africa's damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Elizabeth Tyler
277 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus caeruleus Careulean damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
278 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus indicus Indian damsel Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
279 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus leptus Slender damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
280 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus pavo Sapphire damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
281 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus similis Similar damsel Not assessed Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
282 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus sulfureus Sulfur damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
283 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus trichrourus Yellowtail damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
284 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus trilineatus Three-line damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
285 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus tripunctatus Threespot damsel Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
286 Pomacentridae Pomacentrus vaiuli Princess damsel Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
287 Pomacentridae Stegastes albifasciatus Whitebanded gregory Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
288 Pomacentridae Stegastes fasciolatus Pacific gregory Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
289 Pomacentridae Stegastes nigricans Black damsel Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
290 Gerreidae Gerres oyena Common mojarra Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
291 Labridae Anampses caeruleopunctatus
Blue-spotted wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
292 Labridae Anampses lineatus Lined wrasse Data Deficient Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
293 Labridae Anampses melanurus White-spotted wrasse Data Deficient Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
294 Labridae Anampses meleagrides Chequered wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
295 Labridae Anampses twistii Yellow-breasted wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
296 Labridae Bodianus anthioides Lyretail hogfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Critchley
297 Labridae Bodianus axillaris Axilspot hogfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
298 Labridae Bodianus bilunulatus Saddleback hogfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
299 Labridae Bodianus diana Dianaa's hogfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
300 Labridae Cheilinus chlorourus Floral wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
301 Labridae Cheilinus fasciatus Redbreasted wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
216
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
302 Labridae Cheilinus oxycephalus Snooty wrasse Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
303 Labridae Cheilinus trilobatus Tripletail maori wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
304 Labridae Cheilinus undulatus Humphead wrasse Endangered Tyler 2004 no
305 Labridae Cheilio inermis Cigar wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
306 Labridae Cirrhilabrus exquisitus Exquisite wrasse Data Deficient Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
307 Labridae Coris aygula Clown coris Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
308 Labridae Coris batuensis Batu coris Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
309 Labridae Coris caudimacula Spottail coris Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
310 Labridae Coris cuvieri African coris Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
311 Labridae Coris formosa Indian sand wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
312 Labridae Coris gaimard Yellowtail coris Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
313 Labridae Coris pictoides Blackstripe coris Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
314 Labridae Epibulus insidiator Slingjaw wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
315 Labridae Gomphosus caeruleus Indian ocean bird wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
316 Labridae Halichoeres hortulanus Checkerboard wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
317 Labridae Halichoeres iridis Rainbow wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
318 Labridae Halichoeres leucoxanthus Whitebelly wrasse Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
319 Labridae Halichoeres marginatus Dusky wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
320 Labridae Halichoeres nebulosus Nebulosus wrasse Least Concern Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
321 Labridae Halichoeres scapularis Zigzag wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
322 Labridae Halichoeres zeylonicus Goldstripe wrasse Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
323 Labridae Hemigymnus fasciatus Blackedge thicklip Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
324 Labridae Hemigymnus melapterus Thicklip wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
325 Labridae Hologymnosus annulatus Ring wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
326 Labridae Hologymnosus doliatus Longface wrasse Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
327 Labridae Labrichthys unilineatus Tubelip wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
328 Labridae Labroides bicolor Bicolor cleaner wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
329 Labridae Labroides dimidiatus Cleaner wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
330 Labridae Larabicus quadrilineatus Four-line wrasse Data Deficient Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
331 Labridae Macropharyngodon bipartitus
Vermiculate wrasse Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
332 Labridae Novaculichthys taeniourus Rockmover wrasse Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
333 Labridae Oxycheilinus arenatus Speckled maori wrasse Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 no
217
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
334 Labridae Oxycheilinus digramma Bandcheek wrasse Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
335 Labridae Oxycheilinus mentalis Mental wrasse Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
336 Labridae Oxycheilinus orientalis Oriental maori wrasse Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
337 Labridae Pseudocheilinus evanidus Striated wrasse Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
338 Labridae Pseudocheilinus hexataenia
Six-line wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
339 Labridae Pseudodax moluccans Chiseltooth wrasse Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
340 Labridae Pteragogus flagellifer Cocktail wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
341 Labridae Pteragogus pelycus Sideburn wrasse Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 no
342 Labridae Stethojulis albovittata Blue-lined wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
343 Labridae Stethojulis bandanensis Red-shoulder wrasse Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 no
344 Labridae Stethojulis interrupta Cutribbon wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
345 Labridae Stethojulis strigiventer Three-ribbon wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
346 Labridae Thalassoma amblycephalum
Twotone wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
347 Labridae Thalassoma hardwicke 6-bar wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
348 Labridae Thalassoma hebraicum Goldbar wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
349 Labridae Thalassoma jansenii Jansen's wrasse Least Concern Leyendecker 2014 Leyendecker
350 Labridae Thalassoma lunare Crescent wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
351 Labridae Thalassoma purpureum Surge wrasse Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
352 Scaridae Calotomus carolinus Stareye parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
353 Scaridae Cetoscarus bicolor Bicolor parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
354 Scaridae Chlorurus atrilunula Black crescent parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
355 Scaridae Chlorurus japanensis Pale bullethead parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
356 Scaridae Chlorurus sordidus Bullethead parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
357 Scaridae Chlorurus strongylocephalus
Indian ocean steephead parrotfish
Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
358 Scaridae Hipposcarus harid Indian longnose parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
359 Scaridae Leptoscarus vaigiensis Seagrass parrotfish Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
360 Scaridae Scarus falcipinnis Sicklefin parrotfish Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
361 Scaridae Scarus ferrugineus Rusty parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
362 Scaridae Scarus frenatus Bridled parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
363 Scaridae Scarus ghobban Blue-barred parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
218
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
364 Scaridae Scarus globiceps Violet-lined parrotfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
365 Scaridae Scarus niger Swarthy parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
366 Scaridae Scarus psittacus Palenose parrotfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 Critchley
367 Scaridae Scarus rubroviolaceus Redlip parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
368 Scaridae Scarus russelii Russel's parrotfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
369 Scaridae Scarus scaber Dusky-capped parrotfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
370 Scaridae Scarus schlegeli Yellowband parrotfish Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
371 Scaridae Scarus tricolor Tricolor parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
372 Scaridae Scarus viridifucatus Greenlip parrotfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
373 Scaridae Sparisoma rubripinne Redfin parrotfish Least Concern Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
374 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda Least Concern Dorenbosch 2003 no
375 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena flavicauda Yellowtail barracuda Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
376 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena forsteri Blackspot barracuda Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
377 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena qenie Blackfin barracuda Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
378 Pinguipedidae Parapercis hexophtalma Speckled sandperch Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
379 Blenniidae Aspidontus taeniatus "Cleaner wrasse mimic" Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
380 Blenniidae Blenniella chrysospilos Red spotted blenny Least Concern Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
381 Blenniidae Cirripectes castaneus Chest-nut eyelash blenny Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
382 Blenniidae Cirripectes stigmaticus Redstreaked blenny Least Concern Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
383 Blenniidae Exallias brevis Leopard blenny Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
384 Blenniidae Istiblennius lineatus Lined rockskipper Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
385 Blenniidae Meiacanthus mossambicus
Mozambique fangblenny Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
386 Blenniidae Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos
Bluestriped fangblenny Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
387 Blenniidae Plagiotremus tapeinosoma
Scale-eating fangblenny Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
388 Gobiidae Amblyeleotris steinitzi Steinitz' prawn-goby Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
389 Gobiidae Amblyeleotris sungami Magnus' prawn-goby Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
390 Gobiidae Amblyeleotris wheeleri Burgundy partner goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
391 Gobiidae Cryptocentrus caeruleopunctatus
Harlequin prawn-goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
392 Gobiidae Cryptocentrus lutheri Luther's prawn goby Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
219
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
393 Gobiidae Cryptocentrus octofasciatus
Blue-speckled goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
394 Gobiidae Cryptocentrus strigilliceps Target prawn-goby Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
395 Gobiidae Eviota guttata Spotted dwarfgoby Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
396 Gobiidae Exyrias belissimus Mud reef-goby Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
397 Gobiidae Fusigobius neophytus White spotted sand goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
398 Gobiidae Gnatholepis cauerensis Gladiator goby Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
399 Gobiidae Gobiodon citrinus Citron goby Not assessed Tyler 2004 no
400 Gobiidae Istigobius decoratus Decorator goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
401 Gobiidae Koumansetta hectori Hector's goby Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 no
402 Gobiidae Lotilia graciliosa Whitecap goby Not assessed no reference found
403 Gobiidae Valenciennea helsdingenii Two stripe goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
404 Gobiidae Valenciennea strigata Blue-streak goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
405 Microdesmidae Ptereleotris evides Scissortail dart goby Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
406 Acanthuridae Acanthurus auranticavus Orange socket surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
407 Acanthuridae Acanthurus bariene Roundspot surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
408 Acanthuridae Acanthurus blochii Ringtail surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
409 Acanthuridae Acanthurus dussumieri Eyestripe surgeonfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Critchley
410 Acanthuridae Acanthurus leucosternon Powderblue surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
411 Acanthuridae Acanthurus lineatus Lined surgeonfish Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
412 Acanthuridae Acanthurus mata Elongate surgeonfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
413 Acanthuridae Acanthurus nigricauda Epaulette surgeonfish Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
414 Acanthuridae Acanthurus nigrofuscus Dusky surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
415 Acanthuridae Acanthurus nubilus Bluelined surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
416 Acanthuridae Acanthurus tennenti Circled-spine surgeonfish Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
417 Acanthuridae Acanthurus thompsoni Black&White surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Critchley
418 Acanthuridae Acanthurus triostegus Convict surgeonfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
419 Acanthuridae Acanthurus xanthopterus Yellofin surgeonfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
420 Acanthuridae Ctenochaetus binotatus Yellowstripe surgeon Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
421 Acanthuridae Ctenochaetus striatus Lined bristletooth Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
422 Acanthuridae Ctenochaetus truncatus Indian goldring bristletooth Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
423 Acanthuridae Naso annulatus White margin unicorn Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker 2016
220
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
424 Acanthuridae Naso brevirostris Spotted unicornfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
425 Acanthuridae Naso caeruleacauda Bluetail unicornfish Least Concern Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
426 Acanthuridae Naso elegans Orangespine unicornfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
427 Acanthuridae Naso fageni Horseface unicornfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
428 Acanthuridae Naso hexacanthus Blacktongue unicorn Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
429 Acanthuridae Naso unicornis Bluespine unicorn Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
430 Acanthuridae Naso vlamingii Bignose unicornfish Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 no
431 Acanthuridae Zebrasoma desjardinii Sailfin tang Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
432 Acanthuridae Zebrasoma scopas Brushtail tang Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
433 Zanclidae Zanclus cornutus Moorish idol Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
434 Siganidae Siganus argenteus Fork-tailed rabbit Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
435 Siganidae Siganus stellatus Starry rabbit Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
436 Siganidae Siganus sutor African white-spotted rabbit
Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
437 Carangidae Carangoides ferdau Striped/blue trevally Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
438 Carangidae Carangoides orthogrammus
Gold-fleck trevally Not assessed Suzanne Mildner no
439 Carangidae Carangoides plagiotaenia Barcheek trevally Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
440 Carangidae Caranx melampygus Bluefin trevally Not assessed Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
441 Carangidae Caranx sexfasciatus Bigeye trevally Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 not from Chumbe
442 Carangidae Elagatis bipinnulata Rainbow runner Least Concern Omari Nyange 1994 no
443 Carangidae Gnathanodon speciosus Golden Pilot Jack Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Ulli Kloiber
444 Carangidae Scomberoides lysan Leatherback trevally Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
445 Carangidae Scomberoides tol Needlescaled queenfish Not assessed unknown no
446 Carangidae Selar boops Oxeye scad Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
447 Carangidae Seriola dumerili Greater amberjack Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
448 Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates Striped remora Suzanne Mildner 1994 Kloiber 2006
449 Balistidae Balistapus undulatus Orange-striped triggerfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
450 Balistidae Balistoides conspicillum Clown triggerfish Not assessed Ulli Kloiber 2014 Ulli Kloiber
451 Balistidae Balistoides viridescens Titan triggerfish Not assessed Tyler 2004 Leyendecker
452 Balistidae Melichthys indicus Indian triggerfish Not assessed Leyendecker 2013 Leyendecker
453 Balistidae Melichthys niger Black triggerfish Least Concern Lokrantz 2010 Leyendecker
454 Balistidae Sufflamen chrysopterum Halfmoon triggerfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
221
FAMILY GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME IUCN status 2016 Recorder
Year recorded
Photo ID by
455 Balistidae Sufflamen fraenatum Bridled triggerfish Least Concern Tyler 2004 no
456 Monacanthidae Aluterus scriptus Scribbled filefish Least Concern Lokrantz 2004 Leyendecker
457 Monacanthidae Amanses scopas Black brush-sided/ broom filefish
Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
458 Monacanthidae Cantherhines dumerilii White-spotted filefish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
459 Monacanthidae Cantherhines pardalis Honeycomb filefish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
460 Monacanthidae Oxymonacanthus longirostris
Longnose filefish Vulnerable Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
461 Monacanthidae Paraluteres prionurus Blacksaddle filefish, False puffer
Least Concern Leyendecker 2015 Leyendecker
462 Monacanthidae Pervagor janthinosoma Earspot filefish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
463 Ostraciidae Ostracion cubicus Cube boxfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Hendriksson
464 Ostraciidae Ostracion meleagris Whitespotted boxfish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
465 Diodontidae Diodon hystrix Common porcupinefish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
466 Diodontidae Diodon liturosus Masked porcupinefish Not assessed Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
467 Tetraodontidae Arothron hispidus Whitespotted pufferfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
468 Tetraodontidae Arothron mappa Map puffer Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
469 Tetraodontidae Arothron meleagris Guineafowl puffer Least Concern Leyendecker 2016 Leyendecker 2016
470 Tetraodontidae Arothron nigropunctatus Blackspotted puffer Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
471 Tetraodontidae Arothron stellatus Giant pufferfish Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 no
472 Tetraodontidae Canthigaster bennetti Bennet's toby Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
473 Tetraodontidae Canthigaster solandri Solander's toby Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
474 Tetraodontidae Canthigaster valentini Black-saddled toby Least Concern Suzanne Mildner 1994 Leyendecker
222
APPENDIX FIVE: Preliminary Macroalgae inventory
Nr. Phylum GENERA (spp. where ID'd) Source
1 Chlorophyta Avrainvillea obscura KE, TB
2 Chlorophyta Boodlea composita KE, TB
3 Chlorophyta Caulerpa spp. TB
4 Chlorophyta Chaetomorpha crassa TB
5 Chlorophyta Cladophoropsis sundanensis TB
6 Chlorophyta Codium geppiorum TB
7 Chlorophyta Dictyospheria cavernosa TB, TM
8 Chlorophyta Halimeda spp. UK, TM
9 Chlorophyta Ulva pulchra TB
10 Cyanophyta Lyngbya sp. KE
11 Phaeophyta Dictyota TM
12 Phaeophyta Cystoseira myrica TB
13 Phaeophyta Padina sp. TB
14 Phaeophyta Sargassum sp. TB, TM
15 Phaeophyta Sarconema filiforme TB
16 Phaeophyta Turbinaria sp. KE, TM
17 Rhodophyta Amphiroa TM
18 Rhodophyta Dasya elongata TB
19 Rhodophyta Dictyurus purpurascens TB
20 Rhodophyta Gelidiella acerosa TB
21 Rhodophyta Hypnea TM
22 Rhodophyta Jania TM
23 Rhodophyta Leveillea jungermanniodes TB
24 Rhodophyta Polysiphonia denudata TB
25 Rhodophyta Sarconema filiforme TB
26 Rhodophyta Sporolithon sp. TB
27 Rhodophyta Corallinaceae TB
Sources: Author Year
JR Macroalgae abundance, Chumbe Island Janna Rearick 2000 KE Fauna and Flora of Chumbe Island's seagrass Beds Kari Edwards 2001 TB Algal zonation on Chumbe Island Tara Businski 2001 UK Chumbe Conservation Manager Ulli Kloiber 2012 TM Wildlife Conservation Soceity (WCS) monitoring Tim McClanahan 1997-2015
223
APPENDIX SIX: Vascular Plants in the Chumbe Forest Reserve
Nr. GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME Source
1 Acalypha fruticosa Shrub hear AG
2 Acridocarpus zanzibaricus Climber yello AG
3 Acylobotrys petersiana Rubber vine AG
4 Adansonia digitata Baobab AG, KU
5 Adenia gummifera Green liane AG
6 Allophylus parvilei no common name / TBD AG
7 Asparagus africanus no common name / TBD AG
8 Boerhavia repens no common name / TBD AG
9 Cassytha filiformis Love vine AG
10 Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarina/Australian Beefwood AG, KU
11 Cissus rotundifolia Arabian wax leave AG, IL
12 Chlorophytum gallabatense no common name / TBD AG
13 Cledendron globrium no common name / TBD AG
14 Cledendron sp no common name / TBD AG
15 Climatis sp no common name / TBD AG
16 Cocos nucifera Coconut Palm AG, KU
17 Cyphostemma adenocaula no common name / TBD AG
18 Diospyros consolatae no common name / TBD AG
19 Drypetes natalensis no common name / TBD AG
20 Ehretia amoena no common name / TBD AG
21 Euclea natalensis no common name / TBD AG
22 Euclea schimperi no common name / TBD AG
23 Eugenia capensis no common name / TBD AG
24 Euclea fruticosa no common name / TBD AG
25 Euphorbia nyikea no common name / TBD AG, KU
26 Euphorbia tirucalli Milk bush AG, KU
27 Ficus elastica no common name / TBD AG
28 Ficus lutea no common name / TBD AG, BS
29 Ficus scassellatii no common name / TBD AG
30 Flacourtia indica Batoka plum AG
31 Flueggea virosa White-berry bush AG, BS
32 Grewia bicolor no common name / TBD AG
33 Grewia mollis no common name / TBD AG
34 Guettarda speciosa no common name / TBD AG
35 Ipomoea pes-caprae Beach morning glory AG, KK
36 Lannea schweinfurthii no common name / TBD AG
37 Laptina platyphyla no common name / TBD AG
38 Lecaniodiscus fraxinifolius no common name / TBD AG
39 Macphersonia gracilis no common name / TBD AG, KK
40 Maytenus mossambicensis Red forest spike-thorn AG, BS
224
Nr. GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME Source
41 Mimusops fruticosa no common name / TBD AG
42 Monodora grandidieri no common name / TBD AG
43 Mondia ocunuta no common name / TBD AG
44 Monanthotaxis fornicata no common name / TBD AG
45 Mystroxylon aethiopicum Milk bush AG, KU
46 Ochna thomasiana Mikey Mouse Plant AG
47 Ocimum sp. Mosquito bush AG, BS
48 Panadanus kirkii Screw pine AG, KU
49 Polysphaeria parvifolia no common name / TBD AG, BS
50 Pseuderanthemum hildebrandtii
no common name / TBD AG
51 Psiadia arabica no common name / TBD AG, BS
52 Psycotria bibebectrum no common name / TBD AG
53 Rhoicissus revoilii no common name / TBD AG, BS
54 Rhus longipes no common name / TBD AG
55 Rhus natalensis Climber trifolia AG
56 Salacia elegans no common name / TBD AG
57 Sansevieria kirkii Mother in law tongue AG, KU, EK
58 Scadoxus multiflorus Fireball lily AG, KU
59 Sorindeia madagascariensis no common name / TBD AG
60 Sideroxylon inerme Milkwood Tree AG
61 Strychnos spinosa no common name / TBD AG
62 Suregada zanzibariensis Woodland suregada AG, BS
63 Synaptolepis kirkii no common name / TBD AG, BS
64 Tamarindus indica Tamarind AG, KU
65 Tarenna graveolens no common name / TBD AG
66 Terminalia boivinii no common name / TBD AG, BS
67 Terminalia catappa Indian Almond AG, KU
68 Terminalia fatrea no common name / TBD AG
69 Turraea floribunda no common name / TBD AG
70 Tradescantia spathacea Boat lily EK
71 Thylachium africanum no common name / TBD AG
72 Uvariodendron kirkii no common name / TBD AG, SG
Sources:
BS Bayliss J & Stubblefied LK, 1993: Preliminary Results of a Biological Survey of Chumbe
KU Köhler U, 1995: Preliminary list of plants on Chumbe Island
IL Iles D.B., 1995: Chumbe Island Nature Trail.
KK Koehler P and Koehler U, draft: Forest Reserve Chumbe Island
CM Castle G. & Mileto R, 1995: Personal observations.
SG Sarah Graham, 2003: Distribution of Uvariodendron kirkii on Chumbe Island.
AG Antony D. Gill ingham, 2010: Chumbe Island Coral Park Forest Monitoring Programme
EK Enock Kayagambe, Conservation & Education Assistant, field observations 2016
225
APPENDIX SEVEN: Bird diversity in the Chumbe Forest Reserve
Nr. Family GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME Status on Chumbe
IUCN status 2016 Recorded by
1 Accipitridae Accipiter tachiro African Goshawk V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
2 Accipitridae Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
3 Accipitridae Gypohierax angolensis Palm-nut vulger C Least concern Carius (2016)
4 Accipitridae Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish Eagle RB Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
5 Acrocephalidae Acrocephalus baeticatus African Reed Warbler RBC Not assessed Dudley Isles (1995)
6 Acrocephalidae Hippolais pallida Eastern Olivaceous Warbler
V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
7 Alcedinidae Ceryle rudis Pied Kingfisher RC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
8 Alcedinidae Halcyon senegaloides Mangrove Kingfisher RBC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
9 Alcedinidae Ispidina picta African Pygmy Kingfisher MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
10 Apodidae Apus affinis Little Swift RB C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
11 Apodidae Apus apus European Swift MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
12 Apodidae Cypsiurus balasiensis Palm Swift MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
13 Ardeidae Ardea cinerea Grey Heron MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
14 Ardeidae Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
15 Ardeidae Butorides striata Green-backed Heron MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
16 Ardeidae Egretta dimorpha Dimorphic Egret RBC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
17 Ardeidae Egretta garzetta Little Egret V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
18 Burhinidae Burhinus vermiculatus Water Thick-knee MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
19 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus europaeus Eurasian Nightjar V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
20 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus fossii Square-tailed (Gabon) Nightjar
U Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
21 Charadriidae Charadrius hiaticula Ringed Plover MC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
226
Nr. Family GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME Status on Chumbe
IUCN status 2016 Recorded by
22 Charadriidae Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
23 Charadriidae Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
24 Charadriidae Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover MC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
25 Columbidae Streptopelia capicola Ring-necked Dove V Least concern Heather Skillings (2000)
26 Columbidae Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove RBC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
27 Coraciidae Coracias caudatus Lilac-breasted Roller V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
28 Corvidae Corvus splendens Indian house Crow MC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
29 Cuculidae Centropus superciliosus White-browed Coucal RBC Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
30 Cuculidae Chrysococcyx caprius Didric Cuckoo V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
31 Dicruridae Dicrurus adsimilis Drongo V Least concern Alyssa Robb (2004)
32 Dromadidae Dromas ardeola Crab Plover V Least concern Mileto& Castle (1995)
33 Falconidae Falco cuvierii African Hobby TBD Least concern Dudley Iles (1995)
34 Falconidae Falco subbuteo European Hobby TBD Least concern Bayliss&Stubblefied (1993)
35 Haematopodidae Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher V Near threatened Dudley Isles (1995)
36 Hirundinidae Hirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped Swallow V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
37 Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
38 Hirundinidae Riparia riparia Sand Martin V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
39 Laniidae Lanius collurio Red-backed Shrike V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
40 Laridae Larus hemprichii Sooty Gull MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
41 Meropidae Merops nubicus Northern Carmine Bee-eater
V Least concern Koehler P & Koehler U (2014)
42 Meropidae Merops persicus Blue-cheeked bee-eater M U Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
43 Monarchidae Terpsiphone viridis Paradise Flycatcher RB C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
44 Monarchidae Trochocercus cyanomelas Crested Flycatcher V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
45 Muscicapidae Cossypha natalensis Red-capped Robin Chat RB C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
46 Muscicapidae Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher M C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
47 Nectariniidae Cinnyris bifasciatus Purple-banded Sunbird RB C Not assessed Dudley Isles (1995)
227
Nr. Family GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME Status on Chumbe
IUCN status 2016 Recorded by
48 Nectariniidae Cyanomitra verreauxii zanzibarica
Zanzibar Mouse-coloured Sunbird
RBC Not assessed Dudley Isles (1995)
49 Nectariniidae Hedydipna collaris Collared Sunbird V Not assessed Koehler P & Koehler U (2014)
50 Oriolidae Oriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden Oriole V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
51 Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax africanus Long-tailed Cormorant V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
52 Phylloscopidae Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
53 Ploceidae Euplectes hordacea Black-winged Red Bishop V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
54 Pycnonotidae Andropadus importunus insularis
Sombre Greenbul RB C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
55 Scolopacidae Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper M C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
56 Scolopacidae Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
57 Scolopacidae Calidris alba Sanderling V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
58 Scolopacidae Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper V Near threatened Dudley Isles (1995)
59 Scolopacidae Calidris minuta Little Stint V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
60 Scolopacidae Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew M Near threatened Mileto & Castle (1995)
61 Scolopacidae Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
62 Scolopacidae Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank MU Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
63 Scolopacidae Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper UM Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
64 Stercorariidae Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic Skua V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
65 Stercorariidae Stercorarius pomarinus PomarineSkua V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
66 Sternidae Anous stolidus Brown Noddy M U Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
67 Sternidae Sterna anaethetus Bridled Tern V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
68 Sternidae Sterna bengalensis Lesser Crested Tern M C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
69 Sternidae Sterna bergii Greater Crested Tern M C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
70 Sternidae Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern B U Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
71 Sternidae Sterna fuscata Sooty Tern M U Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
72 Sternidae Sterna hirundo Common Tern V Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
228
Nr. Family GENUS/SPECIES COMMON NAME Status on Chumbe
IUCN status 2016 Recorded by
73 Sternidae Sterna saundersi Saunder's Tern M C Least concern Dudley Isles (1995)
74 Strigidae Strix woodfordi African Wood Owl U Not assessed Dudley Isles (1995)
75 Sulidae Sula dactylatra Masked Booby M U Least conscern Dudley Isles (1995)
76 Trogonidae Apaloderma narina Narina Trogon V Least conscern Dick Persson (2009)
77 Viduidae Vidua paradisaea Eastern Paradise Whydah V Least conscern Dudley Isles (1995)
Status:
R = Resident all year C = Commonly seen V = Vagrant (1 or 2 records only)
B = Known to breed M = Migrant U = Uncommonly see
229
APPENDIX EIGHT: Butterfly diversity in the Chumbe Forest Reserve
Family Nr Genus/Species Common name
Acraeidae 1 Acraea natalica Natal Acraea
2 Acraea zetes Large-spotted Acraea
3 Coeliades forestan Striped Policeman
Hesperiidae 4 Gegenes sp. Grizzled Skipper
5 Bicyclus safitza Common Bush Brown
Nymphalidae 6 Byblia anvatara Spotted joker
7 Danaus chrysippus African Monarch
8 Euphaedra neophron Gold-banded Forester
9 Hypolimnas misippus Danaid Eggfly
10 Junonia hierta Yellow Pansy
11 Junonia natalica Brown Pansy
12 Junonia oenone Blue Pansy
13 Neptis saclava Small-spotted Sailer
14 Phalantha phalantha Common Leopard
15 Pseudoacraea lucretica False Acraea
16 Vanessa cardui Painted Lady
17 Papilio demodocus Citrus Swallowtail
Papilionidae 18 Papilio nireus Green-banded Swallowtail
19 Belenois aurota Brown-veined White
Pieridae 20 Belenois creona African Common White
21 Belenois thysa False Dotted Border
22 Catopsilia florella African Migrant
23 Colotis ione Purple-tip
24 Colotis sp. Black-barred Red Tip
25 Colotis sp. Salmon Colotis
26 Eurema hecabe Common Grass Yellow
231
APPENDIX TEN: Chumbe Awards (1998-2017)
*** TOURISM FOR TOMORROW, GLOBAL WINNER 1999 ***
British Airways, Global
*** EXPO 2000 PROJECT AROUND THE WORLD, 2000 ***
Selected to represent Tanzania at the EXPO 2000 World Exibition, Hannover, Germany
*** UN GLOBAL 500 LAUREATE 2000 AWARD, 2000 ***
Outstanding Environmental Achievement Award of the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), Global
*** AGA KHAN AWARD – FINALIST, 2001 ***
Award for Architecture, Global
*** CONDENAST ECOTOURISM DESTINATION AWARD - WORLD WINNER, 2001 ***
Award of the Condenast Traveler Magazine, Global
*** GREEN HOTELIER OF THE YEAR, 2001 ***
Independent Environmental Award from the International Hotel and Restaurant Association
(IH&RA), United Kingdom
*** MOST ROMANTIC ECO-LODGE AWARD OF THE YEAR, 2003 ***
Harpers & Queen Magazine, Special November Supplement, Global
232
*** RESPONSIBLE TOURISM AWARD 2004 ***
Winner in the category ´Best Marine & Beach Destination, Global
***TODO AWARD 2004***
Winner for Socially Responsible Tourism, Germany
*** AGA KHAN AWARD – FINALIST, 2004 ***
Award for Architecture, Global
*** FINALIST, WORLD LEGACY AWARD, 2004 ***
For ‘Nature Travel’ category, Conservation International and National Geographic Traveler, Global
*** BEST WEBSITE FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM PRODUCTS, 2005 ***
Awards from the Federal German Ministry of Development and Cooperation, Germany
*** SMITHSONIAN, TOURISM CARES FOR TOMORROW AWARD, 2005 ***
Finalist. Smithsonian, USA
*** RESPONSIBLE TRAVEL, TOURISM AWARD, 2006 ***
Best in the Marine Environment, Global
*** ISLAND HOT 100 (BLUE LIST) AWARD, 2007 ***
Second place. Islands Magazine, Global
*** AWARD FOR INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN PROMOTING ECOTOURISM, 2008 ***
National Geographic Society’s Center for Sustainable Destinations (CSD) and Ashoka’s Change
makers, Global
233
*** ECOTROPHEA ENVIRONMENT AWARD, 2008 ***
Finalist Deutscher ReiseVerband, Germany
*** AWARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION & AWARENESS RAISING IN ZANIBAR, 2009 ***
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment, Zanzibar
*** COMMENDATION AWARD WINNER IN EDUCATING AFRICA ‘TEACH A MAN TO FISH’, 2009 ***
Pan-African Awards for Entrepreneurship in Education
*** BBC WORLD CHALLENGE, 2010 ***
Finalist
*** TRIP ADVISOR CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE, 2011 ***
Tanzania
*** VOTED IN THE TOP 25 BEST ECO-LODGE’S IN THE WORLD, 2012 ***
National Geographic, Global
*** SARAFI AWARDS, 2012 ***
Runner up for Best Ecological Safari Property in Africa
*** ENERGY GLOBE NATIONAL AWARD 2012 ***
National Winner, Tanzania
*** TRIP ADVISOR TRAVELER'S CHOICE WINNER, 2012 ***
All Inclusive hotels Africa, Trip Advisor
234
*** TRIP ADVISOR CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE, 2012 ***
Tanzania
*** SUSTAINIA 100 GLOBAL SOLUTION, RIO +10, 2012 ***
Honored as a global sustainable solution to an Eco Lodge with a Tiny Carbon Footprint, Global
*** WORLD RESPONSIBLE TOURISM AWARDS, 2013 ***
Highly Commended for best in Water Conservation, Global
*** TRIP ADVISOR TRAVELER'S CHOICE WINNER, 2013 ***
Ranked #1 for service in Tanzania
*** TRIP ADVISOR CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE, 2013 ***
Tanzania
*** GREEN AFRICA AWARD, 2013 ***
GAA, Africa
*** TRIP ADVISOR TRAVELER'S CHOICE WINNER, 2014 ***
Ranked #1 for service in Tanzania
*** TRIP ADVISOR CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE, 2014 ***
Tanzania
*** SKAL SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AWARDS, 2015 ***
Winner in Marine Category
235
*** GOLD WINNER WORLD RESPONSIBLE TOURISM AWARDS, 2015 ***
Gold Winner Beach Category, Africa
*** TRIP ADVISOR TRAVELER'S CHOICE WINNER, 2015 ***
Ranked #1 for service in Tanzania and #3 for Romance in Tanzania
*** TRIP ADVISOR CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE, 2015 ***
Tanzania
*** BOOKING.COM GUEST REVIEW AWARD 2016***
Africa
*** TRIP ADVISOR TRAVELER'S CHOICE 2016 WINNER ***
Ranked #3 for service in Zanzibar and #2 for Romance in Tanzania, Trip Advisor
*** TRIP ADVISOR CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE, 2016 ***
Tanzania
236
References
Adame, M. and C. Gabriela (2007) Ocean circulation of the Zanzibar channel: a modeling approach. IMS,
Zanzibar pp.8.
Aplin, M.D. (1998) The report of the botanical survey of food plants of the Aders duiker, (Cephalophus adersi)
for its proposed reintroduction on Chumbe Island Nature Reserve, Zanzibar, East Africa. WWF project, AT104.
Bakun A. (2006) Fronts and eddies as key structures in the habitat of marine fish larvae: opportunity, adaptive
response and competitive advantage, Scientia Marina, 2006 vol. 70S2, pp.105-122.
Barr, A. and Rasmussan, B. (2001) A study of starfish, Chumbe Island. SIT Study, Zanzibar Coastal Ecology and
Natural Resource Management.
Bandeira, S.O. and M. Björk (2001) Seagrass research in the eastern Africa region: Emphasis on diversity,
ecology and ecophysiology. South African Journal of Botany 67(3), pp.420-425.
Boehm, E. (2016) Inspektion und Optimierung einer Pflanzenkläranlage zur Behandlung von Grauwasser.
Einsatzbericht TZ-CHICOP 3 / Nr.: 21543655
Braulik, G.T., Findlay, K., Cerchio, S. and R. Baldwin (2015) Assessment of the Conservation Status of the Indian
Ocean Humpback Dolphin (Sousa plumbea) Using the IUCN Red List Criteria. In: Thomas A. Jefferson and
Barbara E. Curry, editors, Advances in Marine Biology, Vol. 72,Oxford: Academic Press, 2015, pp. 119-141.
Bronstein, O. and Y. Loya (2011) Daytime spawning of Porites rus on the coral reefs of Chumbe Island in
Zanzibar, Western Indian Ocean (WIO). Coral Reefs 30(2), pp.441-441.
Businski, T. (2001) Algal Zonation on Chumbe Island. SIT project
CHICOP (2005) Chumbe Island Excursions: Narrative and Financial Report. SADC REEP (WESSA).
Cowen R.K., Paris C.B., Olson D.B. and J.L. Fortuna (2003) The role of long distance dispersal versus local
retention in replenishing marine populations. Gulf Caribb Res 14:129–138.
Daniels, C. (2004c) Terrestrial science report for DCCFF. CHICOP.
Dudley, N. (Ed) (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories . Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN. x + 86pp.
Eldredge, L.G. (1996) "Birgus latro". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2.3 (2.3). International Union
for Conservation of Nature.
English, S., Wilkinson, C. and V.Baker (1997) Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources, 2nd edn. Australian
Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
Eriksson, B. H., de la Torre-Castro, M., Eklöf, J. and N. Jiddawi (2010) Resource degradation of the sea
cucumber fishery in Zanzibar, Tanzania: a need for management reform. Aquatic Living Resources 2(4), pp.387-
398.
Eylem, E. (2015) Spatial distribution of herbivorous fish across fringing back-reef systems around Zanzibar.
Master Thesis. Tanzania.
237
Finnie, D. (2001) Aders Duiker (Cephalophus adersi) Species Recovery Plan (Revised). DCCFF, Forestry Technical
Paper.
Fujita, R. and K. Karr (2012) Primer for Ecosystem Threshold Analysis. Produced by Research and Development
Team, Oceans Program, Environmental Defense Fund.
Gillingham, A.D. (2010) Chumbe Island Coral Park Forest Monitoring Programme. A manual prepared for
Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd.
Gillingham, A.D. (2011) An investigation into the connection between environmental gradients and variations
in vegetation composition within the Seasonally Dry Tropical Forest of Chumbe Island, Zanzibar. BSc (Hons)
Geography and Environmnetal Managament, University of the West of England.
Gombos, M., Atkinson,S., Green, A. and K. Flower (eds.) (2013) Designing Effective Locally Managed Areas in
Tropical Marine Environments: A Booklet to Help Sustain Community Benefits through Management for
Fisheries, Ecosystems, and Climate Change. Jakarta, Indonesia: USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership.
Graham, S. (2003) Distribution of Uvariodendron kirkii on Chumbe Island. SIT Project.
Haji, S.H. (2010) Water Balance Assessment in Unguja Island, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Master Thesis. International
Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, The Netherlands.
Hamner, W. M. and J.L. Largier (2012) Oceanography of the planktonic stages of aggregation spawning reef
fishes. In Y. Sadovy de Mitcheson & P. L. Colin (Eds.), Reef fish spawning aggregations: Biology, research and
management (pp. 159–190). London: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1980-4
Harries, H.C. (1983) The coconut palm, the robber crab and Charles Darwin. Principes. 27 (3): 131–137.
Hayford, J. and M. Perlman (2006) Chumbe Seagrass Distribution and Composition. School for International
Training. Unpublished report.
Helber, B., Wolff,M., Christopher A.M., Richter,C., Rohde, S. and J. Peter (2016) Schupp: Chemical ecology of
Western Indian Ocean reef sponges. Poster presentation In SUTAS conference, Zanzibar
Holland, K.M., Lowe, C.G. and B.M. Wetherbee (1996) Movements and dispersal patterns of blue trevally
(Carunx melampygus) in a fisheries conservation zone. In Fisheries Research 25 (1996) pp.279-292
Jacobsen, K. and L. Esherick (2007) A survey of the cockle A. antiquata, Chumbe Island. SIT Study, Zanzibar
Coastal Ecology and Natural Resource Management.
Kanga, E.M. (1999) Survey of Ader’s Duiker Cephalophus adersi in Jozani Forest Reserve, and in Ukongoroni,
Charawe, Jambiani, Mtende, Kiwengwa and Michamvi Community forests, Zanzibar. A Report for JCBCP and
CNR Zanzibar.
Kaunda-Arara, B. & Rose, G. A. (2004) Long-distance movements of coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs 23, 410–412.
Kayagambe, E.B., Kloiber, U. & S. Masuka (2012) Perceived impact of Chumbe Island Coral Park on artisanal
fishing communities. Internal report & Recommendations: CHICOP, Conservation & Education
Kirkpatrick, D.L., & J.D. Kirkpatrick (1994) Evaluating Training Programs, Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Kirkpatrick, D.L., & J.D. Kirkpatrick (2005) Transferring Learning to Behavior, Berrett-Koehler Publishers
238
Kirkpatrick, D.L., & J.D. Kirkpatrick (2007) Implementing the Four Levels, Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Kloiber, U. (2012) Final Report on Roseate Terns (Sterna dougallii) breeding colony on Chumbe Island. CHICOP.
Knudby, Anders, and L. Nordlund (2011) Remote sensing of seagrasses in a patchy multi-species environment."
International Journal of Remote Sensing 32(8), pp.2227-2244.
Lokrantz, J., Nystrom, M., Norstrom, A.V., Folke, C. and J.E. Cinner (2009) Impacts of artisanal fishing on key
functional groups and the potential vulnerability of coral reefs. Environmental Conservation 36(04), pp.327-
337.
Marshall, E. (2009) Sponges on Chumbe Island. SIT Study, Zanzibar Coastal Ecology and Natural Resource
Management.
Marshall, P. and H. Schuttenberg (2006) A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching. GBRMPA.
Mayorga-Adame, C.G. (2007) Ocean circulation of the Zanzibar channel: a modeling approach. IMS, Zanzibar 8
(2007).
Maypa, A. (2012) Mechanisms by which Marine Protected Areas Enhance Fisheries Benefits of Neighboring
Areas. Doctoral Dissertation: Unversity of Hawai’i at Manoa
McClanahan, T. R., Graham, N. a. J., MacNeil, M.A., Muthiga, N.A., Cinner, J.E., Bruggemann, J. H. and S.K.
Wilson (2011) Critical thresholds and tangible targets for ecosystem-based management of coral reef fisheries.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pp.4-7.
McClanahan, T.R. (ed) (2008) Manual and Field Guide for Monitoring Coral Reef Ecosystems, Fisheries, and
Stakeholders. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY.
Meyer, C.G., Holland, K.N., Wetherbee, B.M. and C.G. Lowe (2000) Movement patterns, habitat tilization,
home range size and site fidelity of whitesaddle goatfish, Parupeneus porphyreus, in a marine reserve. Env Biol
Fish 59: 235–242.
Mohammed, Mohammed S., Muhando, C. A. and H. Machano (2000) Assessment of coral reef degradation in
Tanzania: Results of coral reef monitoring 1999. Coral reef degradation in the Indian Ocean.
Muhando, C. A. (2001) The 1998 coral bleaching and mortality event in Tanzania: implications for coral reef
research and management. Marine Science Development in Tanzania and Eastern Africa: Proc. 20th
Anniversary Conference on Advances in Marine Science in Tanzania. Institute of Marine Science/Western
Indian Ocean Marine Science Association, Zanzibar.
Muhando, C. A. and F. Lanshammar (2008). Ecological effects of the crown-of-thorns starfish removal
programme on Chumbe Island Coral Park, Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Muir, Catharine, and S. Sense (2005) The status of marine turtles in the United Republic of Tanzania, East
Africa. Report commissioned by the National Tanzania Turtle Committee. 40pp.
Mustelin, J., Klein, R.G., Assaid, B., Sitari, T., Khamis, M., Mzee, A. and T. Haji (2010) Understanding current and
future vulnerability in coastal settings: community perceptions and preferences for adaptation in Zanzibar,
Tanzania. Population and Environment 31(5), pp.371-398.
239
Muzuka, A., Dubi, A., Muhando, C.A. and Y.W. Shaghude (2010) Impact of hydrographic parameters and
seasonal variation in sediment fluxes on coral status at Chumbe and Bawe reefs, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 89(2), pp.137-144.
Nordlund, L., Erlandsson, J., de la Torre-Castro, M. and N, Jiddawi (2010) Changes in an East African social-
ecological seagrass system: invertebrate harvesting affecting species composition and local livelihood. Aquatic
Living Resources, 23(4), pp.399-416.
Nowak, K., Perkin, A. and T. Jones (2009) Update on habitat loss and conservation status of the endangered
Zanzibar red colobus on Uzi and Vundwe Islands. Unpublished report for Department of Commercial Crops,
Fruits and Forestry, Zanzibar.
O’Bryan, M. (2005) Narrative and Financial Report: Education Phase 4. Report to ICRAN, UNEP-WCMC.CHICOP.
Orwa., C., Mutua, A., Kindt, R. , Jamnadass, R. and S. Anthony (2009) Agroforestree Database: A tree reference
and selection guide version 4.0.
Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. & L.M. Watson (2004) How is your MPA Doing? IUCN, Protected Areas Programme,
WWF; United States, NOAA. Gland : IUCN, 2004. xv, 215p: ill.
Rearick, J. (2000) Macroalgae abundance, Chumbe Island. SIT project.
Riedmiller, S. (1991) Environmental Education in Zanzibar: Proposals for Action. Dept. of Environment, Finnida,
Zanzibar.
Richmond, M. D.(ed) (2011) A Field Guide to the Seashorses of Eastern Africa and the Western Indian Ocean
Islands. Sida/WIOMSA. 464pp. ISBN 9987-8977-9-7
Samaki Consultants Ltd. (2010) Whales ahoy! Humpback whale sightings for Tanzania and beyond. In
Newsletter No. 3 2010 Summary. Samaki Consultants, pp.6
Santilli, R. (2012). Revised butterfly species list for Chumbe Island Coral Park. Internal Report, CHICOP.
Sawicki, A. (2000) A study of invertebrates on Chumbe Island. SIT Study, Zanzibar Coastal Ecology and Natural
Resource Management.
Sheppard, A.L.S. (1984) The molluscan fauna of Chagos (Indian Ocean) and analysis of its broad distribution
patterns. Coral Reefs (3): 43–50.
Stolton, S. Shadie, P. and N. Dudley (2013). IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidance on Recognising Protected Areas
and Assigning Management Categories and Governance Types. Guidelines Series No. 21, Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN. ISBN: 978-2-8317-1636-7
Stubblefield, L.K. and J. Bayliss (1993) Preliminary results of a biological survey of Chumbe Island – Zanzibar.
Technical report of the Coastal Forest Research Program. 25 pp.
Swai, I.S. (1983) Wildlife Conservation Status in Zanzibar. MSc. Thesis, University of Dar es Salaam.
Thorkildsen, K. (2006) Socio-economic and ecological analysis of a privately managed Marine Protected Area:
Chumbe Island Coral Park, Zanzibar. Norwegian University of Life Sciences; Department of International
Environment and Development Studies
240
Tierney, J.E. and J.M. Russell (2007) Abrupt climate change in southeast tropical Africa influenced by Indian
monsoon variability and ITCZ migration. Geophysical Research Letters34:15. Website:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL029508/full
Torell, E., Mmochi, A. & K. Palmigiano (2006) Menai Bay Governance Baseline Coastal Resources Center,
University of Rhode Island. pp. 18
Tyler, E.H.M (2006) The effect of fully and partially protected marine reserves on coral reef fish populations in
Zanzibar, Tanzania. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
Wannas, K.O., Mahongo, S.B. and Y. W. Shaghude (2002) Biogenic assemblage and hydrodynamic settings of
the tidally dominated reef platform sediments of the Zanzibar Channel.
Williams, A.J., Mwinyi, A.A. & Ali, S.J. (1996) A population survey of three mini-antelope – Ader’s Duiker
(Cephalophus adersi), Zanzibar Blue Duiker (Cephalophus moniticola sundervalli), Suni (Neotragus moschatus
moschaatus) of Unguja Zanzibar. Forestry Technical Paper No. 27. Commission for Natural Resources, Zanzibar.
Woolven, T. (2012) Solid Waste Management Project Report. Chumbe Island Coral Park
Zvuloni, Assaf, V.W. Robert and Y. Loya (2010) Diversity partitioning of stony corals across multiple spatial
scales around Zanzibar Island, Tanzania. Plos One 5(3), pp.e9941.
Published by CHICOP August 2017
Support by SSIC
Back cover photo © Markus Meissl