CHUMBE ISLAND

3rd Ten Year Management Plan

2017 - 2027

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.

28

Fisher fixing net © C.U.B

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.

Figure 5: Organochart of CHICOP

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.

46

Figure 16: Map showing the key habitats and boundaries of Chumbe

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).

75

.

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) © CHICOP

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.

77

Indian Ocean humpback dolphin (Sousa plumbea) © P. Verhoag

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).

90

Paradise Flycatcher (Terpsiphone viridis)

on Chumbe © Jimmy Livefjord

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.

144

Chumbe beach and Education Center © CHICOP

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.

154

Rangers conducting seagrass monitoring on Chumbe © Ulli Kloiber

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.

159

School children heading to the boat for their first time snorkeling © CHICOP

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

185

Relaxation areas in the Education Center © Jimmy Livefjord

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

197

198

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.

202

APPENDIX TWO: Rangers Report Template

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

230

APPENDIX NINE: Snorkeling Code of Conduct

On Chumbe we follow the GREEN FINS CODE OF CONDUCT

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

241