The third panel of the 3rd Marine Biodiversity Conference highlighted the main constraints Mozambique faces in achieving its conservation targets by 2030: a shortage of qualified human resources and sustainable financing. National experts and managers emphasized the “urgent” need for innovative mechanisms and a massive capacity boost to implement international commitments.
Ana Paula, the national focal point for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), reminded that “Mozambique has been a CBD signatory since 1994. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted at COP15, sets 23 targets to be achieved by 2030, aiming to live in harmony with nature by 2050.”
She explained that several of these targets have direct implications for the marine environment, including the well-known 30×30 goal (protect 30% of the planet by 2030), the restoration of at least 30% of degraded ecosystems, minimizing the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification, and promoting sustainable fishing and aquaculture. Nationally, Mozambique committed with the High Ambition Coalition to protect 30% of its territory (land and marine) by 2030.
Eugénio Manhiça, from the National Authority for Conservation Areas (ANAC), identified the lack of specialized staff as the first major obstacle. “While we have a considerable number of technicians for terrestrial areas, in the marine component, the shortage of qualified and specialized personnel is a major challenge,” he said. He warned of an impending capacity crisis: “Within five years, most of our experienced staff will retire. Finding a platform to retain this knowledge and ensure continuity is a challenge.”
In addition, the lack of knowledge and adoption of efficient technologies to monitor the vast network of conservation areas was another critical point highlighted. Financing was described as the “Achilles’ heel” of conservation. Eugénio Manhiça cited a 2014 study estimating the national system’s financial needs at 803 million meticais (US$12.5 million) per year, largely dependent on external funds. Management costs per square kilometer were estimated between 15,968 and 19,161 meticais (US$250–300).
“We have a network that demands enormous financial resources for management,” he explained, noting that most funds still come from the State Budget and external financing, with limited use of innovative and sustainable revenue sources. Socioeconomic pressure on protected areas was another central issue. A study referenced by Manhiça indicates that around 1.2 to 1.4 million people live within or on the periphery of these areas, directly depending on the natural resources that conservation seeks to protect, creating potential ongoing conflicts.
In contrast, Sean Nazeralli from Biofund presented three financing opportunities at different levels. First, at the community level, he proposed creating community enterprises to sustainably and profitably exploit resources such as fish, charcoal, or non-timber forest products, giving communities ownership, management, and benefit from these resources. Second, at the conservation area level, he advocated expanding co-management models, such as the successful examples in Gorongosa and Bazaruto National Parks, which attract private sector financing and technical know-how, easing the burden on the State. Third, at the national level, he suggested exploring “debt-for-nature” mechanisms.
Text: Nário Sixpene
