Every figure below is the live value Canopy published for the week of 31 August 2026. Nothing here is illustrative.
| Akagera National ParkRwanda · 1,122 km² · African Parks with the Rwanda Development Board | Gorongosa National ParkMozambique · 4,067 km² · Gorongosa Project | |
|---|---|---|
| Is the park working? | Performance · PACE4.29Highest of the 200 rated. | Performance · PACE4.20Second of the 200 rated. |
| Can money work there? | Risk · C-RISK3.79Ready with structuring. No gate tripped. | Risk · C-RISK2.80Selective, early. capped by the sovereign-distress gate, whatever the rest of the score says. |
| How much is required? | Need · C-FIN$1.5M / yrAcross Rwanda’s 2,245 km² of protected area. Range $0.8M to $4.0M. | Need · C-FIN$237.3M / yrAcross Mozambique’s 231,982 km². Range $87.0M to $415.5M. |
| And what reaches it? | Need · C-FIN$0 / yr$24.8M is tracked in headline terms, but no deal carries a documented tenor, so none of it can be annualised. | Need · C-FIN$0 / yr$6.4M tracked in headline terms, same reason. |
| What just moved? | Change · C-WATCH3 of 7 flaggedFire high, on day 2 of a continuous run. Buffer land-use high. Biomass elevated. | Change · C-WATCH0 of 5 flaggedFire is elevated but below the alerting bar. Nothing standing. |
The park score does not separate them. A 0.09 gap should not carry a decision. PACE has been reliability-tested once, on 20 parks, and the composite came back at 0.86 with a 95% interval running from 0.61 to 0.97. That is a wide interval on a small sample, so the score is repeatable but its precision is not pinned down, and two parks this close should be treated as the same park until something else separates them.
The country separates them, in one specific way. Mozambique is not rated lower because its conservation is worse. Its readiness call is capped by the sovereign-distress gate, which limits the tier a country can reach whatever its other slices say. That is a financing constraint, not a conservation one, and it points at the instrument rather than the park.
The need is a country figure, not a park one. Mozambique protects 231,982 km² against Rwanda’s 2,245. The 158-fold difference in annual need is mostly that, and it says nothing about either park’s own budget.
The ground reading runs the other way. The park in the calmer country is the one with pressure on it this week: Akagera has fire and buffer land-use both reading high, Gorongosa has nothing flagged. A country-level read would have got this backwards.
Which park to fund. Canopy does not make that call. What the four readings do is separate the questions: at Akagera the open question is on the ground and this week, at Gorongosa it is the structure of the instrument and the sovereign behind it. Those need different diligence, not a ranking.
That Gorongosa is quiet. It carries five satellite feeds to Akagera’s seven, so part of "0 of 5" is simply fewer things being watched. Absence of a flag is not evidence of absence.
That nothing funds these parks. Both annualisable figures read $0 because neither country has a deal with a documented tenor Canopy can annualise, not because no money arrives. The headline sums, $24.8M and $6.4M, are real and tracked; they just cannot be turned into a per-year number honestly.
What the satellites saw. A flag is screening evidence. It says where to look, not what happened.
Park detail: Akagera · Gorongosa. Country detail: Rwanda · Mozambique. Models: PACE, C-RISK, C-FIN, C-WATCH. Those pages need a login; this one does not.