Community Participation in Tourism Planning at Majete Wildlife Reserve, Malawi

The community participation framework for protected area-based tourism planning by Bello et al. (2016) has seven major participatory planning elements, namely timing of involvement, resource accessibility, representativeness, independence, influence and power, transparency, and the decision-making structure. The participatory tourism planning approach in this framework aims to achieve local community empowerment, sustainable protected area tourism development and biodiversity conservation, as shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1

Bello et al. (2016) argue that the timing of involvement of local people is critical in any participatory development process. Local communities should be involved early enough during the planning process (Gray 1989; Bramwell, Sharman 1999; Nkemngu 2014). Furthermore, participants should have access to financial, informational, human and material resources to facilitate their effective participation in the planning process (Paul 1987; Pearce 1991; Rowe, Frewer 2000; Tosun 2000; Hall 2008). In the context of participatory tourism planning, Bello et al. (2016) indicate that local communities need to be represented by legitimate individuals who are identified by the local people. The other planning element in the framework is the independence of the local community representatives. As argued by Rowe and Frewer (2000: 13), the representatives “should be independent of any affiliation to the sponsoring body”.

The framework further advances the need for local people to gain influence over aspects of the tourism planning process. This is achieved when the local communities are empowered and regarded as partners in the process. Power arrangements are critical in the analysis of the political dimensions of tourism issues at community level (Nunkoo, Gursoy 2016). The tourism planning process is also expected to be transparent enough to ensure that the local people that surround the protected areas see how the process is progressing and how decisions are being made. Such transparency would reduce any possible suspicions about the motives of the planning authorities or other stakeholders (Bello et al. 2016). Lastly, to facilitate effective local community participation in the planning processes, appropriate mechanisms in structuring the decision-making process should be applied (Rowe, Frewer 2000). As such, Bello et al. (2016) recommend that the planning authorities should be open regarding the underlying reasons behind the decisions made during the planning process.

Any protected area needs a management plan that outlines how it should be protected, used, developed and managed (Eagles et al. 2002; Dudley, Stolton 2018). The protected area management plan addresses a number of issues pertaining to the desired state of the protected area. In Malawi, protected area-based tourism is mainly planned within the framework of the protected area general management plan. Comprehensive planning for protected areas in Malawi started in the early 1980s, with the preparation of the Principal Master Plan for National Parks and Wildlife Management in 1983 (Clarke 1983a). Other protected area master plans for the southern, central and northern regions, with sections for specific national parks and wildlife reserves, were also drawn up in 1983 (Clarke 1983b). These protected area master plans have formed the basis for specific protected area management plans that have been developed over time.

The other protected area tourism planning is done within the national tourism planning framework, and this is a more site-specific planning with tourism developments of national interest proposed at a particular site within a protected area (Malawi Government 2001, 2005; Department of Tourism 2006). Malawi has four wildlife reserves, namely Majete, Mwabvi, Nkhotakota and Vwaza Marsh, and five national parks, namely Kasungu, Lengwe, Nyika, Liwonde and Lake Malawi (Table 1 and Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Majete Wildlife Reserve is located in the southern region of Malawi (Fig. 2). Part of the reserve, i.e., the area around Majete Hill, was first proclaimed a ‘non-hunting controlled area’ in 1951 (Hayes 1972). The reserve, covering an area of 520 km², was proclaimed as a protected area in 1955 and was extended by 184 km² in 1969 to include some dry-season water sources, such as the Shire River, for wildlife (Department of National Parks and Wildlife [DNPW] 2000). The reserve was then declared in its present state by the Proclamation of Alteration of Boundaries in 1976. The reserve now covers an area of 704 km² (DNPW 2000). The major part of the reserve lies within the Chikwawa District (about 90%), while the extreme northern section lies within the Mwanza District (DNPW 2000). The reserve also borders the Neno and Blantyre districts.

Majete Wildlife Reserve is under the management of the conservation organisation African Parks. The reserve is government-owned and was under the management of the DNPW until 2003, when African Parks was given a 25-year full management responsibility. The reserve is the first in Malawi to be managed under the Public–Private Partnership model. Though African Parks is a not-for-profit organisation, the management of Majete is based on a business model with a focus on making the reserve self-sufficient in its operations. In this regard, the General Management Plan for the reserve is a business plan that reflects the model of protected area management for African Parks.

With regard to literacy levels, for the population aged ≥15 years, the literacy rate in Malawi was 75.5% in 2020 (National Statistical Office [NSO] 2020). In the case of the Chikwawa District, from where the local community participants for this study were selected, the literacy levels are below the national rate, at 66.9% (NSO 2020). The lower literacy levels in the case study district render the uptake of new initiatives, such as tourism development, among local communities difficult. The low understanding of the tourism industry and higher incidence of poverty lead to apathy among the local people in terms of involvement in most planning processes as most of the local people are preoccupied with activities related to their basic survival (Stone, Stone 2011).

The focus of this research is on the reserves’ 2013–2017 business plan. This plan served as a working document for the management and development of the reserve during the five-year period. The five-year plan formed the basis for the reserves’ annual business plans, which were formulated and rolled out each year to reflect various changes in the management of the reserve. These plans were produced by the management team of the reserve after involving various stakeholders to varied degrees. In acknowledging the need to make tourism the hub for economic activities, African Parks develops a separate tourism development strategy/plan for the reserve from the business plan for the reserve.

African Parks has developed a constituency for conservation and cultivated a working relationship with various stakeholders, including tour operators, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local district assemblies, DNPW and local communities through community-based organisations (African Parks 2013b). The agency interfaces with local communities through community-based organisations (CBOs), the Majete Wildlife Reserve Association (MWRA) and traditional leaders. A CBO is a village-level committee responsible for coordinating natural resource management and developmental activities on behalf of the villages under a Group Village Headman. The MWRA is a grouping of chairpersons of the 19 CBOs that surround the reserve. Traditional authorities surrounding the reserve, representatives from interested NGOs and government departments from Chikwawa, Mwanza, Blantyre and Neno district councils are co-opted members of the MWRA (MWRA minutes 2007). There is also a Joint Liaison Committee (JLC), which is composed of key stakeholders representing relevant government institutions, traditional authorities, NGOs, CBO representatives and African Parks (JLC minutes 2005).

African Parks conducts monthly meetings with CBOs, quarterly meetings with the MWRA and the JLC and annual general stakeholders’ meetings. At the CBO and MWRA levels, African Parks is mostly represented by junior officers, while very senior officers represent the agency at all the JLC meetings (MRWA minutes 2011–2012, JLC minutes 2011–2012). Various stakeholders are mainly asked to provide their input on tourism development and other management issues through these meetings. African Parks also carries out socioeconomic surveys in communities around the reserve in order to profile local people's livelihood. The information from such surveys assists African Parks in documenting the challenges being faced by the local communities, and the same data is used to support community development project proposals that are submitted to various donors by African Parks on behalf of the local communities.

The local communities around the reserve were represented in the planning processes by CBO leaders and traditional chiefs. In order to avoid traditional chiefs’ domination of the local community representation in the planning processes, they were not allowed to be part of an executive committee for a CBO. As explained by a participant from an NGO—the Coordinating Unit for the Rehabilitation of the Environment (CURE):

…the use of community organisations has been tried in development projects and you will find that most of them included the chief. But whenever the chief is active in these communities, there are always problems which arise. Firstly, he is the owner of the land and so when it comes to things of sharing benefits, he will share with his peers, children and so on…so, to circumvent that, normally we involve them but not as an active member. So, you can have a chair from the rest of the village with up to 10 committee members and then you say, okay fine, and then our Village Headman or Group Village Headman becomes our advisor

The CBO system has been endorsed by the local people and ensures that traditional chiefs do not interfere in the daily operations of the organisations that are established to represent local people in the planning processes. The community organisation eliminates the challenge of traditional chiefs’ domination in tourism development activities faced by local communities in developing countries. In order to avoid antagonism between the traditional power structures and the CBO structures, representatives of traditional chiefs are members of the JLC at Majete. As noted by Novelli and Scarth (2007), and Chiutsi and Saarinen (2019), such community organisations are more inclusive and are expected to facilitate transparent and effective participation while removing the mistrust some local people have towards being represented only by traditional chiefs in the planning process.

In addition to having direct interaction with African Parks’ education and extension officers in their respective villages, local communities are represented by CBO representatives at the MWRA and JLC meetings where tourism development issues are also discussed (MWRA minutes 2011–2012, JLC minutes 2007–2012). At the JLC meetings, the CBO representatives are also joined by traditional chiefs. There is a fair representation of the local communities, and this ensures that local people are accorded with the opportunity to contribute to the planning process and defend their interests. The tourism planning process needs to be representative of all affected interests (Dolds et al. 2018; Panichm et al. 2018; Strydom et al. 2018). As indicated by 96% of the respondents (n = 36) from the local communities, DNPW, African Parks and NGOs, the local people are happy with their representation in the planning processes. Only a few respondents were not content as they felt that some representatives were not committed to their roles as they were frequently absent from meetings.

It emerged from the study that the initial stages of the tourism planning process are initiated and designed by the management agency (African Parks 2013b). Furthermore, there is continuous engagement of local communities throughout the year discussing the progress being made by African Parks, and such engagement informs the annual business plan for the reserve. It was explained by one of the CBO leaders.

…as a CBO we carry out several activities including community meetings in our villages. We conduct such activities on our own and together with African Parks staff. We report issues from our CBO at Association meetings and issues which are not resolved are then taken to Joint Liaison Committee meetings. We do this throughout the year. Some of the issues being implemented come from these discussions which are on-going throughout the year

In any development planning process, local people should be involved as early as possible or as soon as practical in the process (Gray 1989; Bramwell, Sharman 1999; Rowe, Frewer 2000). The reserve has a planning system that allows continuous local community participation, thereby allowing timely involvement of local people in the processes that lead to the development of annual business plans for the reserve. It is necessary to subject any underlying assumptions and the agenda setting for tourism development in protected areas to public debate. Local communities need to have a fair understanding of the structure of the tourism industry, as well as its benefits and costs, before they can meaningfully participate in the planning process (Simmons 1994; Lekaota 2016; Chiutsi, Saarinen 2019). It is therefore vital for all key stakeholders in any planning process to be involved early enough since “failure to include them in the design stage only invites technical or political difficulties during implementation” (Gray 1989: 65).

The establishment of the CBOs was facilitated by the management agency. Though this is the case, the selection of representatives from these community structures is solely the responsibility of the local people. Furthermore, African Parks has no control over the appointment of traditional chiefs who are chosen per chieftaincy customs for a particular tribe. These traditional chiefs are—at some point—invited to participate in the planning processes. As explained by one CBO leader:

…we manage our CBOs on our own though we get some support from African Parks. Executive Committee members are elected by the people themselves. People choose those they feel will represent them well. At the association and the Joint Liaison Committee, it is the same; leaders are elected by local people

Haywood (1988), and Novelli and Scarth (2007) argue that local communities should be allowed to select their own representatives to participate in the tourism planning process. CBO leaders representing local communities in the tourism planning processes are elected by local people from the surrounding villages. During JLC meetings, local senior chiefs or Traditional Authorities (TAs) are also invited to take part. The identification of local community representatives to be involved in the tourism planning process is independent of any affiliation to the protected area management agency. But it was noted that African Parks still takes a leading role in coordinating the activities of the organisations and—at times—in providing financial support or assisting in the identification of potential sponsors for community projects (African Parks 2013a, 2013b). It was acknowledged by all participants from the management agency that the community organisations carry out most of their activities independently (mainly conservation-related activities) and only report to the agency on what they have been doing in their respective communities.

The study has revealed that local communities have very low understanding of tourism-related issues. As a result, their contributions during the planning processes are skewed towards the needs of the management agency. It was explained by a participant from the NGO Wildlife and Environment Society of Malawi (WESM).

The local people have very little understanding of tourism. In our programmes we have engaged the local communities surrounding Majete. These people would want to benefit from the parks but due to high poverty levels in these communities people accept to be engaged in any tourism-related income generating activity which has a sponsor. There are IGAs [Income Generating Activities] which are not doing well and we have come to an understanding that given a choice these people couldn’t have started those IGAs. It looks like the local people have very limited choices if any at all

The protected area management agency initiates the planning process and is responsible for the plan's implementation (African Parks 2013b). As a result, during the planning processes, the local communities are influenced to opt for recommendations that the management agency puts forward and that they will be in a position to implement. As explained by one tour operator, the focus of local communities in tourism development is mainly on the sharing of benefits such that the local people are mostly enticed to opt for protected area- or tourism-related income-generating activities which other stakeholders have promised to support. Due to limited capacity, the local communities have mainly been recipients in the whole process, as indicated by one CBO leader:

…you know I have to be honest; we lack the capacity as a community to be fully engaged in tourism or any income generating activities which we feel can benefit us more. We talk about such activities but at the end of the day we say yes to what we are told will get support from either some of these NGOs or the tour operators or government. That's how things are here

It was further explained by all participants from African Parks that, at Majete, they have had requests from the local communities for them to be engaged in tour guiding but this is failing to materialise as the communities lack the capacity. Though getting involved in tour guiding has been the wish of the local people, by the time of this research, no stakeholder had so far offered to initiate the process of training the local people in tour guiding. As recommended by Wells (1996), Choguill (1996), Novelli and Gebhardt (2007), Spenceley and Goodwin (2007), and Aslam and Bin Awang (2017), there is need for some external support from other stakeholders to build capacity of the local people to ensure their effective participation in tourism.

The reserve's annual business plans have a budget, and only developments or activities that African Parks has finances for—or would be in a position to secure funding for—are included in these plans (African Parks 2013a, 2013b). In this regard, the protected area management agency has an upper hand in influencing local people during tourism planning due to the control that the former has on finances and the better understanding of tourism development issues. As indicated by Botes and Van Rensburg (2000), and Chiutsi and Saarinen (2017), when involving local communities in development-related processes, professionals mostly disempower local people by telling them what to do. In most cases, local communities are not given the opportunity to choose options freely but are given preconceived proposals, and consultations only take place to legitimise the decisions of agencies initiating or sponsoring the process (Hawkins 1993; Garlick 1999; Botes, Rensburg 2000; Rowe, Frewer 2000; Dube 2018). As such, the local communities around the reserve are mostly not consulted with the intent of getting their recommendations but just to show that there was some public involvement in the processes.

The local communities indicate that there is no transparency with regard to most management decisions, including issues of tourism development associated with the protected areas. A CBO leader explains as follows:

…African Parks is doing a very good job here but the flow of information to us is at most times erratic. There is some secrecy on how some issues are being handled. We wished some lodges were developed in other parts of the reserve and not just around one area, near African Parks Headquarters for more villages to benefit. You see we first had Thawale Lodge then the campsite now another lodge, Mkulumadzi has also been developed around the same area. Why this is being done, nobody is explaining that to us. This is making our friends around that area benefit more than us

In any community-based tourism planning process, it is essential for the participation process to be transparent to ensure that local communities are aware of what is going on and how decisions are being made (McCool 2009; Grybovych, Hafermann 2010; Nkemngu 2014). Transparency builds good relationships and mutual respect among stakeholders because such local communities need to be consulted and updated frequently on the progress of the tourism planning process (McCool 2009). From the interviews with local people around the reserve, it was noted that the local communities are not aware of the planned number of tourism establishments within the reserve and lack information on how tourism concessions are managed. In most cases, local people just notice things being done, not knowing how and when decisions were made. Seventy-five percent of the local community respondents (12 out of 16) appreciate the role of tourism and favour more tourism developments. The other local community respondents indicated that the management agency had not provided any reason to them on why there are limited tourism establishments within the reserve.

It further emerged that local communities expect that the protected area management agency would be releasing information on most aspects about management of the reserve, including tourism development, park finances and how decisions are made. The lack of transparency is forcing the local people to feel that resources from donors meant for community tourism development or other community projects are being used for other activities. Though the local leadership is aware that the audit reports for African Parks are public documents and available to the public, the audit reports are in English and too technical for most local people to understand (JLC minutes 2012; African Parks 2013a). As noted by Tosun (2000) and Marzuki et al. (2012), inadequate or incomprehensible information and low education levels among the local people can hinder local communities’ effective participation in tourism planning processes. It should be noted that not all information pertaining to protected area management, such as law enforcement, can be released to the public. But when there is that need to withhold information for sensitivity, security or other reasons, local communities need to be informed of the nature of the information being withheld and the reasons (Rowe, Frewer 2000).

African Parks commits financial resources for the development of the reserve's business plan (African Parks 2013a). Any planning process needs real commitment from the sponsor by ensuring that appropriate finances are available throughout the process (Rowe, Frewer 2000). As explained by participants from African Parks, their agency organises and finances all JLC meetings and annual stakeholder meetings.

The study has also revealed that local communities around the reserve do not have access to tourism experts during the planning process. It has emerged that African Parks does not have trained tourism planning experts at Majete and mainly relies on conservation education and extension officers when engaging local people in their respective villages during the tourism planning process. These conservation education and extension officers mainly focus on environmental education and very little is done to educate local communities on their roles in tourism planning and development associated with the reserve. Some work on building local communities’ capacity in tourism is done by a few NGOs, which—at times—run programmes to train local people on the available tourism opportunities that can be exploited by the local communities. But the challenge is that there are few NGOs working on wildlife management and tourism, as indicated by a participant from CURE:

…as NGOs we are very minimal working in that area [protected area-based tourism] and we need to improve in terms of awareness, institution should start doing that (…). So, most environmental NGOs will be talking more on agroforestry, food security, but those who are working in the wildlife sector are very few

The limited access to tourism information has made local communities less informed on tourism issues, thereby negatively affecting their effective participation in the tourism planning process. As argued by Jamal and Stronza (2009: 171), “…an informed public is a valuable ally for protected area administrators with respect to gathering support for policy, appreciating the purpose and mandate of the protected area as visitors, and assuming stewardship roles”. Murphy (1994), Nkemngu (2014) and Chami (2018) also argue that for a tourist destination to achieve the goal of sustainable development, there is need for cooperation among various groups such as NGOs, industry actors and the government. The lack of NGOs working in the tourism sector in Malawi to provide some civic education on tourism issues resonates with Dieke's (2007) observation that in most sub-Saharan African countries, there are few NGOs working in the tourism sector.

Collaborative outcomes in any planning process depend on mutual understanding and access to information regarding the issues under discussion (Gray 1989). Local communities need to have summaries of pertinent facts about tourism presented to them in the simplest way possible, bearing in mind their literacy levels. Of the local community respondents, 88% (14 out of 16) explained that most of the visual and audio educational material presented to the surrounding communities mainly focuses on environmental conservation. Though the main purpose of the designation of the protected areas is conservation, the management agency acknowledged the need for local communities to benefit from the reserve through tourism. In this regard, tourism development becomes critical in the management agency's efforts to create a supportive constituency for conservation as tourism is one of the economic activities allowed in the reserve to provide benefits to the surrounding local communities.

The other resource that has critically affected local communities’ participation in the tourism planning process is time. It was explained by a villager from Majete that:

…most of the people around here are not consistent in attending to protected area management activities due to lack of time. People prioritise attending to their household activities such as farming

Most of the local people are preoccupied with subsistence farming and other activities, which they perceive would bring food for their families. Local people need to have enough income to attend to such planning activities without harming their ability to provide for their families (Rowe, Frewer 2000; Tosun 2000; Irvin, Stansbury 2004; Hall 2008). Thus, the inconsistent attendance at tourism planning meetings puts local communities at a disadvantage as they miss out information needed for effective decision-making. As a result, other stakeholders—mostly tour operators, who consistently attend planning activities and are already well informed about the benefits of tourism, and the management agency—have an advantage in terms of influencing the decision-making process to their benefit.

The study revealed that African Parks is responsible for making final decisions on all tourism planning issues. All the stakeholders are aware that the management agency has powers to make final decisions on all issues on tourism development. Other stakeholders are engaged in the planning process, where recommendations pertaining to some aspects of tourism development are made. The Nominal Group Technique is mainly used at Majete during the planning processes in order to enhance stakeholder participation. The process assists stakeholders to reach a consensus on various contentious issues when making recommendations.

The participation of local communities in tourism development processes can maximise the socioeconomic benefits of tourism for the communities if the local people are significantly involved in the decision-making processes (Scheyvens 1999; Sène-Harper, Séye 2019). African Parks claims to be focusing on creating opportunities for the local communities to participate in decision-making during the tourism planning process and in the sharing of benefits. In its efforts to develop supportive local communities, African Parks allows the local people—through their CBO representatives—to make decisions on how benefits are shared. It is only in the sharing of tourism benefits that local communities have decision-making powers through the MWRA, but with some oversight being provided by the management agency. It was explained by all the participants from African Parks that the agency provides the oversight to ensure accountability and transparency in the handling of finances mainly from the community campsite, which is the major source of tourism income for the local communities.

During quarterly JLC meetings, African Parks presents progress reports which are subject to discussion. It is in this forum that the local communities make strides in their participation in the decision-making process because most of the unresolved issues between the MWRA and the management agency are discussed at this forum (JLC minutes 2012–2013). One CBO leader explained that the challenge being faced by local community representatives is that JLC meetings are short and issues affecting local people are not given much time during the discussions.

The local communities understand that not all their issues on tourism development can be implemented, but their need is to have an improved flow of information regarding the rationale on which African Parks bases its final decisions regarding tourism development. It was argued by a CBO representative that

…things would be much better if the bosses of African Parks, not the extension officers can be coming to our local villages to explain some of the issues as they do at JLC meetings. This will assist in clearing some misunderstandings and misconceptions in our villages thinking that African Parks has solutions to all our problems. At times, we as leaders are not believed when we convey some of the decisions

The interface between African Parks and local communities at village level is facilitated by CBOs as well as the education and extension officers from African Parks. It is at these village community meetings that all interested villagers have the opportunity to interact with management agency representatives. Unfortunately, these community meetings are mostly attended by junior officers who do not have immediate solutions and answers to issues raised by local people. Most of the outstanding issues are further discussed at the MWRA or JLC meetings held quarterly, and the resolutions are mainly reported back to the communities by CBO representatives. But local community participants recommended that the senior management of African Parks should be directly engaging people at village level.