Navigating a global crisis: impacts, responses, resilience, and the missed opportunity of African protected areas during the COVID-19 pandemic

When the world shut down in March 2020, conservationists feared the worst for Africa’s protected areas. Tourism collapsed, economies stalled, and global attention shifted away from biodiversity. A new study published in Ecology and Society in 2025 offers a picture of what actually happened inside 50 protected areas across 17 Sub‑Saharan African countries and what it means for the future of conservation.

---

The pandemic shocked the conservation sector, especially in Africa. A 2025 report in Ecology and Society outlined the most significant disruptions to the sector, as well as what the sector was unable to do during this time, and what opportunities were lost. Protected area managers throughout Sub-Saharan Africa were the focus of this study. Over 50 managers from 17 different countries took part in the study. The report describes the challenges of the sector as it attempts to adapt and evolve to protect biodiversity, while highlighting the severe setbacks the sector experienced during the pandemic.

Shocks to the conservation sector have been labeled “event risks,” with the most recent of these (prior to COVID-19) being the global financial crisis. During periods of relative calm in conservation management, protected area managers have been able to address other activities, like staff training. COVID-19 was unlike anything protected area managers had previously experienced. As one manager stated, “drought, politics and terrorism are expected....but COVID, it affected everybody.” The conservation sector was among the hardest hit and least prepared sectors, as the goals and targets of protected area management require a long-term outlook.

Tourism declined first, and hardest, of all the sectors of the economy. International visits to Sub-Saharan Africa fell by 72% in the two years 2020 and 2021. These visiting tourists provided the major source of income for Protected Areas. The loss of tourism led to the loss of jobs, benefits and income for communities. In some cases, the absence of visitors improved anti-poaching efforts, since the rangers who guided and provided activities for tourists were reassigned to anti-poaching duties. One area reported that “all the scouts were back” on anti-poaching duty. The improvement was short-lived, since tourism and the jobs it provided were essential for the rangers’ reassignment to anti-poaching efforts. The absence of visitors during the pandemic allowed unchecked exploitation of protected resources and caused a huge economic dislocation for local communities who depended on tourism. It is important to note that COVID-19 happened with other stressors, like conflicts and natural disasters, which made the negative impact of the combined events greater.

This study analyzes how protected area managers have altered their responses to stress. The authors report 143 cases of various responses to stress since 2002. Stress response strategies have included changing patrols, budget reductions, and volunteerism. Overall, strategies have been stopgap and failed to address the root cause of the stress. There have been a few cases where protected areas have responded by increasing funding stream diversity and establishing cash reserves. Deep, structural changes that increase the resiliency of protected areas were rare. The authors identified only one case where a protected area revised its management approach to remove its prior reliance on the tourism industry.

Protected area managers reported historically low levels of financing, high levels of workload, low levels of control over management decisions and inadequate support as the main constraints to making changes to improve protected area management. Managers reported that most of their efforts were focused on “keeping the lights on” and little time was available for strategizing. As one manager stated “What we are doing is putting out fires”.

African protected areas showed no resilience during COVID-19 restrictions. While they were able to lessen the effect of the constraints and return to their previous status quo when the restrictions were removed, the study explained that this is not resilience. Resilience denotes that a system can absorb shock and stresses, and in the process, learn and adapt by adjusting and/or innovating to better suit the new environment. COVID-19 restrictions were first imposed in 2020, but many of the contained effects have not been resolved even up to 2022.

From the perspective of protected area conservation, COVID-19 gave the conservation fraternity an opportunity to rethink and revamp the conservation models and strategies. The study, however, observed that instead of reforming conservation strategies, COVID-19 exposed the lack of coordination and integration in transboundary conservation strategies and plans. The study, however, noted that there is need to review the integration and cooperation among conservation areas.

Survival of protected areas during COVID-19 shows that protective measures and budgetary allocations for protected areas are not in vain; however, are protected areas prepared to withstand other COVID-19 like events? Are there prospects for the conservation fraternity to reset and reform strategies to reinforce their system to cope with changing events?

References:

Boixeda, P. R., Corbera, E. & Loos, J. Navigating a global crisis: impacts, responses, resilience, and the missed opportunity of African protected areas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ecology and Society 30, (2025).