A guide for planners and managers - IUCN

Negative lessons learned: High commercial risk
PART III
Case Histories of Marine Protected Areas
The regulatory environment is characterized by cumbersome bureaucratic requirements
with wide discretionary powers for government officials. This encourages rent-seeking
and delays operations, thus increasing investment insecurity and costs in general. This
is particularly the case for innovative and environmentally friendly project designs
that are generally not encouraged by existing regulations, e.g., concerning building
permits, etc.
To date, CHICOP is regarded as just another tourism venture by the Zanzibar
government and given no tax exemptions or other benefits for the conservation work.
The up to US$ 10,000 annually to be paid for land rent, government fees and licenses
represents a considerable burden on operational costs, compounded by the high and
complex tax regime.
The logistical requirements of building on an island and particularly the
innovative technology for water and energy provision, as well as the commitment to
not cause any degradation of the island environment have also added to the development
costs. A compost toilet, for example, which operates without any sewerage, costs about
five times the price of a normal flush toilet. Water, sand and timber for the building
operations, and even the firewood for cooking meals for the building workers and
staff had to be purchased and transported to the island at a high cost.
The drastically increased investment costs and continuing burden of government
taxes and fees have forced CHICOP to revise the price structure for tourist operations
and go up-market. A financial analysis conducted in 1998 has established that
overnight prices would have to be around US$300 per person per night for commercial
viability. Access to this market requires further investment in marketing rather than
in conservation.
As a consequence, Chumbe Island has now to be marketed primarily as an
exclusive private island. While it is a challenge to train park rangers and local staff
for the very demanding logistical and service expectations of that particular market,
there is also a potential conflict with the non-commercial project component providing
free education to local school children.
In addition, realistic price levels that reflect conservation costs are difficult to
realize as long as unmanaged and donor-managed wilderness areas can be accessed
at very low cost by the tourism industry (though still charging high prices). It can be
said that Chumbe Island may face ‘unfair competition’ from ‘cheap’ destinations
subsidized with donor funds.
As donor support in conservation is typically given as grants to government
institutions that sometimes lack commitment, competence and accountability, there
are few incentives to check wastage, misuse and mismanagement. This not only
wastes precious resources but also crowds out private initiatives which have to
269