Eastern and Southern Africa regional assessment - International ...

7 downloads 60811 Views 8MB Size Report
incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools and international standards. IUCN provides a ...... Regional Inter-Agency Coordination and Support Office. RISDP . ..... Figure 6: Agro-ecological zones in Africa (Seo et al., 2009)). Desert.
Regional Assessment on Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Biodiversity in Eastern and Southern Africa

About IUCN IUCN is a membership Union uniquely composed of both government and civil society organisations. It provides public, private and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and tools that enable human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place together. Created in 1948, IUCN is now the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing the knowledge, resources and reach of 1,300 Member organisations and some 15,000 experts. It is a leading provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis. Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools and international standards. IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders including governments, NGOs, scientists, businesses, local communities, indigenous peoples organisations and others can work together to forge and implement solutions to environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development. Working with many partners and supporters, IUCN implements a large and diverse portfolio of conservation projects worldwide. Combining the latest science with the traditional knowledge of local communities, these projects work to reverse habitat loss, restore ecosystems and improve people’s well-being. www.iucn.org https://twitter.com/IUCN/

Acknowledgements This Regional Assessment was carried out through the project, “Resilience through Investing in Ecosystems knowledge, innovation and transformation of risk management (RELIEF-Kit)” led by the IUCN Global Ecosystem Management Programme and implemented by IUCN ESARO in eastern and southern Africa, with financial support from the Japan Biodiversity Fund (JBF) under the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Regional Assessment on Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Biodiversity in Eastern and Southern Africa

The designation of any geographical entities in this booklet, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. Published by:

IUCN, Eastern and Southern Africa Office (ESARO)

Copyright:

© 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial uses is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation:

Dewald van Niekerk, Michael Murphree, Vicci Prinsloo, Wilfred Lunga, Leandri Kruger, PW Bredenkamp, Livhuwani Nemakonde, Christo Coetzee. 2016. Regional Assessment on Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Biodiversity in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN, ESARO. viii + 60pp.

Cover photos credits: (from top left, read left to right, to bottom right) 1. Midori Paxton (Namibia) 2. Kontra Plan (Madagascar) 3. Earth Rangers (Edwin Kisio - Kenya) 4. Trip Advisor (South Africa) 5. Zimbabwe Park and Wildlife Management Authority (Zimbabwe) 6. Katrin von Enden (Uganda) 7. Piotr Naskrecki (Mozambique) 8. Raul Soler (Ethiopia) 9. The Freshwater Blog (Malawi Design & layout:

Gordon Arara (IUCN Publications Unit, Nairobi)

Available from:

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office P. O. Box 68200 - 00200 Nairobi, Kenya Tel +254 20 249 3561/65 +254 724 256804 +254 734 768770 https://www.iucn.org/regions/eastern-and-southern-africa

Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ 1 1. METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Literature Study................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Sampling.......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 3 2. THE PROGRESSION OF VULNERABILITY: A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS.................................................. 3 3. REGIONAL OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Demography..................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Africa’s Agro-Ecological Zones.......................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Biodiversity in Africa.......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Africa’s Disaster Risk Profile and Impacts........................................................................................ 10 3.5 Frequent Hazards in Africa.............................................................................................................. 12 3.6 Disaster Vulnerability....................................................................................................................... 16 4. POLICIES, FRAMEWORKS AND STRATEGIES...................................................................................... 17 4.1 Promotion of Eco-DRR in International Frameworks........................................................................ 18 4.2 Promotion of Eco-DRR in Regional Policies and Frameworks.......................................................... 18 4.3 Incorporation of Eco-DRR in National Policies and Frameworks...................................................... 20 4.3.1 Ethiopia............................................................................................................................. 21 4.3.2 Kenya................................................................................................................................ 22 4.3.3 Namibia............................................................................................................................. 23 4.3.4 Madagascar...................................................................................................................... 23 4.3.5 Malawi............................................................................................................................... 24 4.3.6 Mozambique..................................................................................................................... 25 4.3.7 South Africa....................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.8 Uganda............................................................................................................................. 28 4.3.9 Zambia.............................................................................................................................. 29 4.3.10 Zimbabwe......................................................................................................................... 29 5. ECO-DRR EXPERIENCES IN THE REGION............................................................................................ 30 5.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF ECO-DRR IN THE REGION........................................................................ 30 5.1.1 Use of Crop Wild Relatives (CWR) to increase food security under changing climatic conditions (Mauritius, Zambia and South Africa)................................................................. 31 5.1.2 Marine Protected Area management (Madagascar)............................................................ 32 5.1.3 Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB) in wetlands (South Africa).............................................. 33 5.1.4 Ecosystem-based adaptation action in the semi-arid Namakwa District (South Africa)....... 36 5.1.5 Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Management of the Mara River Basin (Kenya)............................................................................................. 37 5.1.6 Building resilience to climate change on Mt. Elgon (Kenya and Uganda)............................. 39 5.1.7 Adapting to climate change through the improvement of traditional crops and livestock farming (Namibia)................................................................................................ 41 5.1.8 Sustainable management of indigenous forests in Mwanza East, Malawi........................... 42 5.1.9 Participatory integrated water resources management (IWRM): The Berki Catchment (Ethiopia)......................................................................................................... 44 5.1.10 Climate adaptation for biodiversity, ecosystem services and livelihoods in rural Madagascar.......................................................................................... 45 6. CONTRIBUTORS TO ECO-DRR............................................................................................................. 47 6.1 The Role of Biodiversity in DRR in Southern and Eastern Africa....................................................... 47 6.2 Economic Case for Eco-DRR.......................................................................................................... 48 7. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS.................................................................................................. 52 8. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................... 52 9. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 54 iii

List of Figures Figure 1: The progression of vulnerability (aka the Pressure Model)..................................................................... 3 Figure 2: The progression of safety (aka the Pressure Release Model)................................................................ 4 Figure 3: Progression of biodiversity vulnerability................................................................................................ 5 Figure 4: Progression to biodiversity “safety”...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Population density distribution in Africa in 2011................................................................................... 6 Figure 6: Agro-ecological zones in Africa............................................................................................................ 7 Figure 7: El Niño and La Niña precipitation and temperature impacts................................................................. 7 Figure 8: Biodiversity in Africa............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 9: Projected loss of biodiversity with continued agricultural expansion, pollution, climate change and infrastructure development................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 10: Change in natural forest cover over time (1990–2015) for the countries assessed.............................. 9 Figure 11: The GEF Benefits Index (GBI) for each of the assessed countries..................................................... 10 Figure 12: Number of disasters that affected Eastern African and Southern Africa between 1990 and 2015..... 11 Figure 13: People affected by climate and weather related disasters 2000–2014............................................. 12 Figure 14: Climate hazards and environmental impacts in Africa....................................................................... 13 Figure 15: Global vulnerability and crisis assessment for 2013.......................................................................... 16 Figure 16: Socio-economic Resilience Index 2013........................................................................................... 17 Figure 17: Wetlands in South Africa.................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 18: The location and relief of the Mara River Basin in Kenya and Tanzania............................................. 38 Figure 19: Cumulative risks in the various river catchments of Mt. Elgon........................................................... 39 Figure 20: The projected impact of temperature on forest gain and forest loss on Mt. Elgon............................. 40 Figure 21: Change in land cover over time (1990–2010) in Malawi.................................................................... 43 Figure 22: Change in forest cover over time (2000–2013) in Ethiopia................................................................ 44 Figure 23: Change in forest cover over time (1990–2013) in Madagascar......................................................... 46 Figure 24: The use of biodiversity and natural resources is essential for human livelihoods in much of ESA...... 47 Figure 25: Water pump house destroyed by floods .......................................................................................... 49

List of Tables Table 1: Selection of countries based on selection criteria................................................................................... 2 Table 2: The number of specific disasters, number of people affected & the costs incurred (in US$) for each of the countries assessed.......................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Range of hazards / vulnerabilities in Eastern and Southern Africa in an Eco-DRR context.................... 15 Table 4: Legislative arrangements relative to Eco-DRR in South Africa.............................................................. 27 Table 5: The population projections for the Mara River Basin (2000–2030) (WWF, 2010)............................................ 39

iv

ABBREVIATIONS ACDS ����������African Centre for Disaster Studies ACP ������������African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States AEZ �������������Agro-ecological Zone ARSDRR �����African Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction AU ��������������The African Union BPR ������������Business Process Reengineering BSAP ����������Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans BSSA ����������Biodiversity Stewardship South Africa Programme CBA ������������Cost Benefit Analysis CBD ������������Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM ������Community Based Natural Resource Management CCA ������������Climate Change Adaptation CDM �����������Clean Development Mechanism CEA ������������Cost-Effective Analysis CEWARN ����Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism CFFU ����������Climate Change Facilitation Unit CLGRC ������� Comités Locais de Gestão de Risco de Calamidades CWR �����������Crop Wild Relatives CSA ������������Conservation South Africa DEA ������������Development and Environment Association DMMU ��������Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit DRM �����������Disaster Risk Management DRMFSS �����Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector DRR ������������Disaster Risk Reduction EAC ������������East African Community EbA �������������Ecosystem-Based Approach ECHO ���������European Commission Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Eco-DRR �����Ecosystems based disaster risk reduction EIA ��������������Environmental Impact Assessment ELD �������������Economics of Land Degradation EMA ������������Environment Management Agency EMCA ���������Environmental Management and Coordination Act ENSO ����������El Niño-Southern Oscillation ESA ������������Eastern and Southern Africa FANR ����������(SADC) Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources FEWSNET ���Famine Early Warning System Network GBI �������������GEF Benefits Index GFDRR �������Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GHA ������������Global Humanitarian Assistance GNDR ���������Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction HDI �������������Human Development Index HFA �������������Hyogo Framework of Action ICLEI �����������International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives ICPAC ���������IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre ICPALD �������IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development IGAD �����������Intergovernmental Authority for Development INDC �����������Intended Nationally Determined Contribution INGC �����������National Disaster Management Institute INWRMP �����Inland Water Resources Management Programme IPCC �����������Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISDR �����������United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction IUCN �����������The International Union for Conservation of Nature v

IWRM ����������Integrated Water Resources Management JRRA ����������Joint Regional Resilience Analysis KZN ������������KwaZulu-Natal MDG �����������Millennium Development Goal MPA ������������Marine Protected Area MRB �����������Mara River Basin NAPA ����������National Adaptation Programme of Action NBA ������������National Biodiversity Assessment NBSAP �������National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NCA ������������Natural Capital Accounting NCCRS �������National Climate Change Response Strategy NDMO ��������National Disaster Management Organisation NEAP ����������National Environmental Action Plan NEMA ���������National Environment Management Act NEP ������������National Environment Protection NEPAD ��������New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGOs ����������Non-Government Organisations NTFP ����������Non Timber Forest Products ODA ������������Official Development Assistance OECD ���������The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development OIE ��������������World Organisation for Animal Health PAA �������������Protected Areas Act PEDRR �������Partnership for Environmental and Disaster Risk Reduction PPCR ����������Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience RADAR �������Research Alliance for Disaster and Risk Reduction RDM �����������Robust decision making REC ������������Regional Economic Communities REDD+ ��������Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of forest stocks RIACSO ������Regional Inter-Agency Coordination and Support Office RISDP ���������(SADC) Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan ROA ������������Real options analysis SADC ����������Southern African Development Community SANBI ���������South African National Biodiversity Institute SARCOF �����Southern Africa Regional Climate Outlook Forum SDR ������������Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction SEA ������������Southern and Eastern Africa SREX ����������Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation TEEB ����������The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TEV �������������Total Economic Value approach UN ��������������United Nations UNDP ���������United Nations Development Programme UNEP ����������United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC �����United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNISDR ������United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction USAID ���������United States Agency for International Development VA ���������������Vulnerability assessment WAVES �������Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services WC �������������Western Cape WfW ������������Working for Wetlands WRI �������������World Risk Index WWF �����������World Wide Fund for Nature (known as the World Wildlife Fund in some countries)

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is a synthesised analysis of Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) for the RELIEF kit project. This project looks at how Eco-DRR is incorporated into the various biodiversity conservation efforts either directly or indirectly. It seeks to outline the economic case for EcoDRR and the development of underlying policy and legislation. Eco-DRR is defined as the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to reduce disaster risk, with the aim to achieve sustainable and resilient development (Estrella & Saalismaa, 2013). “Sustainable ecosystem management for disaster risk reduction is based on equitable stakeholder involvement in land management decisions, land-use-trade-offs and long-term goal setting” (Sudmeier-Rieux et al., 2013). From this, it would seem self-evident that maintaining healthy ecosystems is one of the best ways of reducing and mitigating the impact of disasters related to natural hazards such as droughts, floods, extreme climatic events, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis. Considerable evidence demonstrates that this is the case. However, incorporating this principle into policy, legislation and planning has proven more difficult, possibly due to the need for different sectors to integrate across sectorial or disciplinary boundaries. Achieving Eco-DRR is dependent on a high degree of cross-sectorial cooperation. This is an aspiration that is simple to state in the abstract but difficult to achieve in the institutional milieu of state bureaucracies and other operational regimes. This synthesis report addresses some of the current theoretical thought that examines the nexus of both DRR and ecosystem management with an emphasis on biodiversity conservation. The report explores the risk profile of Eastern and Southern Africa, demonstrating through case study analysis how Eco-DRR is evolving in many regional approaches and programmes. The case study examples may not necessarily come from traditional ecosystem approaches or traditional DRR approaches but ultimately embody the critical components of both. Nine countries were examined for this report, namely: Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. The report further analyses the development of policy frameworks at international, regional and local levels. From this, it is clear to see the significant acceptance of the role that biodiversity and ecosystems play in disaster risk reduction. However, Eco-DRR is seldom incorporated into cross-sectorial policies and programmes, resulting in a failure so far to incorporate Eco-DRR into mainstream development initiatives and funding streams. Part of the problem in making the case for Eco-DRR is an aspect of economics where much of the value is tied to offset costs that are extremely difficult to quantify. Key messages in this report are: • The disaster risk profile in ESA is a combination of natural and anthropogenic hazards. • Current trends indicate that disasters in ESA are likely to increase in both number and impact. • Failure to address biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation will increase impact and reduce the overall resilience of socio-ecological systems. • Eco-DRR is often being applied in ESA without being specifically identified as such. • The application of Eco-DRR needs to occur at different scales simultaneously. • Eco-DRR requires a multi-sectorial and multi-disciplinary approach. • Community-based DRR approaches work and are cost effective. • Suitable and effective policies need to be developed at global, regional and national levels. • International funding support for Eco-DRR will be required in ESA.

vii

Phot credit: Raul Soler (Ethiopia)

INTRODUCTION Policy makers are increasingly calling for ecosystem-based approaches (to climate change adaptation (EbA) which incorporate biodiversity and ecosystem services into an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change (CBD, 2010). Estrella and Saalismaa (2013) highlighted that the ecosystem-based approach has been recognised as an important strategy for ecologically based solutions to address disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). Eco-DRR is defined as the sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to reduce disaster risk, with the aim to achieve sustainable and resilient development (Estrella & Saalismaa, 2013). “Sustainable ecosystem management for disaster risk reduction is based on equitable stakeholder involvement in land management decisions, land-use-trade-offs and long-term goal setting” (Sudmeier-Rieux et al., 2013). Following on from this, it would seem self-evident that maintaining healthy ecosystems is one of the best ways of reducing and mitigating the impact of disasters related to natural hazards such as droughts, floods and tsunamis. Considerable evidence supports this principle. However, incorporating it into policy, legislation and planning has proven more difficult, possibly due to the need for different sectors to integrate across sectorial or disciplinary boundaries. Achieving Eco-DRR is dependent on a high degree of crosssectorial cooperation. The disaster risk profile for Southern and Eastern Africa is characterised by slow onset natural hazards such as droughts interspersed with quick onset natural hazards like floods, and anthropogenic events like political instability and economic collapse. All of this occurs in complex socio-ecological systems having a high degree of interaction and cause-effect relationship between different types of hazards and their impact on people and ecosystems. The increasingly visible effects of climate change add to the complexity. The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), highlights the importance of linking disasters, climate change and poverty (IPCC, 2012). African governments need to recognise that sustainable development must include policies and actions that integrate DRR into climate change adaptation (CCA) with a particular emphasis on environmental issues within ecological systems. More government agencies are now recognising that environmental and ecosystem protections (including a particular focus on the conservation of biodiversity and transboundary issues) and sustainable natural resources management are integral objectives of sustainable development. The experiences of disasters affecting critical ecological processes in countries like Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Mozambique have built stronger support for linking ecology, climate change and disaster risk reduction (CBD, 2010). Though previously overlooked, it is slowly being recognised that protecting ecosystem services can both save lives and livelihoods, can prevent or mitigate hazards, reduce exposure, strengthen resilience to disasters, and reduce vulnerability by supporting diversified livelihoods. Healthy and wellmanaged ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangroves, forests and wetlands, reduce disaster risk by acting as natural buffers or protective barriers (CBD, 2010). Climate change is a recognised threat to the well-being and livelihoods of humans and ecosystems across the globe (IPCC, 2012). Climate change leads to increases in climate hazards and in the vulnerability of communities to natural hazards, thus increasing disaster risk. Models project substantial warming in temperature extremes by the end of the 21st century, and it is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe (IPCC, 2012). It is reported with high confidence that increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather and climate related disasters (IPCC, 2012). Policy makers are increasingly calling for ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation, which “incorporates biodiversity and ecosystem services into an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change” (CBD, 2009). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as, “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”. This means that the higher the diversity of genes and species within an ecosystem, the higher the biodiversity of the environment, which results in an increase in natural sustainability and resilience within individual ecosystems (Reuchlin-Hugenholtz & McKenzie, 2015). However, due to both natural and anthropogenic events and hazards, the biodiversity of an ecosystem can be negatively affected through numerous external factors, including habitat loss, alteration of the environment, pollution, over-exploitation as well as global climate change (IPCC, 2012; UNEP, 2015). The conservation of an ecosystem’s biodiversity is thus crucial, especially to reduce risk. Applying an Eco-DRR approach will therefore promote both sustainable development and biodiversity and ecosystem conservation (UNEP, 2015). 1

1. METHODOLOGY 1.1 Literature study This study used a qualitative thematic analysis of existing sources of literature readily available from the Internet, with a systematic literature review methodology. This regional assessment was carried out as a desktop study that included scientific articles, policy documents, selected national examples and/or case studies and project documents. The systematic approach included: •

the gathering of relevant literature on the topic of Eco-DRR;



reading, analysing and synthesising the literature, seeking to identify and understand the linkages and relevance to Eco-DRR and related issues;



grouping the literature according to thematically identified themes;



developing criteria for the selection of case study countries;



selecting sample countries based on the set criteria;



investigating country specific case studies; and



writing up of findings.

1.2 Sampling The regional assessment covers nine countries that can be considered as particularly vulnerable (prone to hazards, low level of development and resilience, high biodiversity and ecosystems stressors). The criteria for selection of the countries included the level of disaster risk as measured by the World Risk Index (WRI), and the level of development as measured by the Human Development Index (HDI). Furthermore, countries were selected on their relative range of biodiversity in species, evidence of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation policies, presence of IUCN ecosystem-based adaptation projects, readily available country information, and existing case studies.

Table 1: Selection of countries based on selection criteria Countries

Selection criteria WRI

HDI

Biodiversity

Ethiopia

High

Low

High

Kenya

High

Low

Madagascar

High

Malawi

DRR/CCAI policies

IUCN EbA

Information available

Case studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Low

Medium

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Mozambique

High

Low

High

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Namibia

Medium

Medium

Medium

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

South Africa

Low

Medium

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uganda

High

Low

High

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Zimbabwe

High

Low

High

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

2

1.3 Data analysis Qualitative content analysis was used as the central data analysis technique. The data collection and analysis were developed together in an iterative process. The main aim of the data analysis was to examine, categorise and to find patterns in the data. Being a qualitative study the “lens” of analysis was fixed on aspects within ecosystem management that could contribute to disaster risk reduction and thus fit the definition of Eco-DRR. However, the researchers were mindful in the analysis to also consider aspects that do not necessarily seem like pure Eco-DRR, but that, according to the theoretical understanding of disaster risk, can be related directly back to Eco-DRR. Consequently, case study analyses were also undertaken to help understand the complex social phenomena associated with disaster risk and Eco-DRR. The case study method allows the researchers to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events, such as the contribution of biodiversity protection to disaster risk reduction, for example. In fact, case studies seem to be the preferred strategy when “how” or “why” questions are being posed, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context (Yin, 2003).

2. THE PROGRESSION OF VULNERABILITY: A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS One of the most cited models for understanding the underlying aspects which lead to natural hazards culminating in disaster can be found in the work of Blaikie et al. (1994), and later revised by Wisner et al. (2004) and Wisner, Gaillard and Kelman (2012). The so-called Pressure and Release Models (PAR) aim to provide a theoretical grounding for understanding how the complexity in systems leads to the creation of disaster risk. The models provide an ideal entry point towards understanding Eco-DRR.

The progression of vulnerabilty

Root causes

Dynamic pressures Societal deficiencies, thus lack of

Social and economic structures

• Distribution of power • Distribution of wealth • Distribution of resources

Idealogies • • • •

Nationalism Militarism Neoliberism Consumerism

History and culture

• Colonial and post-colonial heritages • War and post-war fragility • Traditions and religion

• Local institutions • Training and scientific knowledge • Local investments • Local markets • Media freedom • Ethical standards in public life

Fragile livelihoods and unsafe locations

Disaster risk

Natural resources

Hazards Climatological

• Lack of arable land and water • Lack of biodiversity resources

• Coastal storm • Flood • Drought • Thunderstorm and tornado • Extreme heat and cold • Climate change

Physical resources

• Dangerous locations • Unprotected buildings and infrastructure

Geomorphological and geological • Landslide • Earthquake • Tsunami • Volcano • Soil erosion and contamination

Human resources Macro-forces

• Rapid population change and displacement • Rapid urbanisation • Fluctuations of the world economic market • On-going armed conflict • Government debt repayment schedules • Poor governance and corruption • Land grabbing • Deforestation, mining and overfishing • Decline in soil productivity • Decline of biodiversity

• Fragile health • Limited skills and formal education

Social resources

• Marginalised groups and individuals • Limited social networks

Disaster risk = Hazard x Vulnerability

Economic resources

• Poor access to the market • Low income levels • Limited access to formal credit

Political resources

• Lack of disaster preparedness • Poor social protection

Biological and ecological

• Human epidamic • Plant disease, pests, invasive species and erosion of biodiversity • Livestock plague • Wildlife

Accentuation of some (not all) hazards

Figure 1: The progression of vulnerability (aka the Pressure Model) (Wisner et al., 2012:12)

3

Astronomical

• Hazards from space

The Pressure and Release Model postulates that disaster risk is not just created. It is rather the culmination of a variety of factors within the social domain that leads humans and the environments on which they depend to a point where hazardous events exploit weaknesses. The model explains this dynamic interaction and progression as an almost linear phenomenon. However, this conceptual model does not assume linearity in all cases. Scholars argue that disaster risk is foremost created in “macro” environments that form the root causes. These root causes provide fertile ground for a set of dynamic pressures that emanates from the root causes. These in turn can lead to unsafe locations/conditions and fragile livelihoods. Linking the “progression of vulnerability” to hazardous events provides a good conceptual model of how disaster risk is created. Disaster risk is thus not just a linear, nor onceoff event, but a phenomenon that increases due to a prevailing set of conditions that accentuates certain hazards. The second part of the Pressure Release Model is shown in Figure 2 below.

The progression of safety

Address root causes

Reduce dynamic pressures Development of

Favour

• Equitable distribution of power • Equitable distribution of wealth • Equitable distribution of resources

Challenge

• Nationalism • Militarism • Neoliberism • Consumerism

Consider

• Colonial and postcolonial heritages • War and post-war fragility • Traditions and religion

• Local institutions • Training and scientific knowledge • Local investments • Local markets • Media freedom • Ethical standards in public life

Public actions

• Health programmes • Urban development plans • Retain and redeploy combatants • Agrarian reform • Social protection programmes • Environmental management programmes

Address macro-forces

• World market regulation • National/local buffers against price fluctuations • Rescheduling of government debt repayment • Good governance and transparency

Achieve safe locations and sustainable livelihoods

Disaster risk reduction

Natural resources

Climatological

• Access to land and water • Protection of biodiversity resources

• • • •

Coastal storm Flood Drought Thunderstorm and tornado • Extreme heat and cold • Climate change

Physical resources

• Safe locations • Resistant buildings and infrastructure

Geomorphological and geological

Human resources

• Good health • Diverse skills and high level of education

Social resources

• No loss of life • No/few injuries

• Social inclusion programmes • Extended social networks

• No/limited damages

Economic resources

• Livelihood security

• Easy access to the market • Sufficient and durable income levels • Access to micro-credit

Hazard prevention and mitigation

Political resources

• Disaster preparedness training programmes • Vulnerability and risk mapping • Employment insurance • Retirement schemes • Health insurance

• • • • •

Landslide Earthquake Tsunami Volcano Soil erosion and contamination

Biological and ecological

• Human epidamic • Plant disease, pests, invasive species and erosion of biodiversity • Livestock plague • Wildlife

Astronomical

• Hazards from space

Accentuation of some (not all) hazards

Figure 2: The progression of safety (aka the Pressure Release Model) (Wisner et al., 2012) The Pressure and Release Model depicts how sustainable livelihoods and safe locations can be achieved by focusing on addressing the root causes and dynamic pressures that lead to vulnerability conditions (Figure 1). In turn, giving attention to hazard prevention and mitigation leads to disaster risk reduction. These models have been adapted (see Figure 3 and Figure 4 below) to illustrate how the progression of loss of biodiversity can create conditions that heighten disaster risk. Therefore, in addressing the root causes, dynamic pressures and fragile conditions the argument can be made that the loss of biodiversity can be halted and reduced. An understanding of the loss of biodiversity also allows for the identification and implementation of EcoDRR interventions at various stages. Thus, the prevention of the loss of biodiversity contributes to disaster risk reduction, and the focus on the loss of biodiversity as a disaster risk issue can support conserving biodiversity. In terms of Eco-DRR, these root causes could be geopolitical dynamics between countries, traditionalism and/or ideologies in the use and application of natural resources, shared water resources, history, culture, distribution of species, topography and geography. Root causes are the deeply rooted elements that highlight failed development and human impacts on the environment. The model further shows the interactions, overlaps and links between environmental management, development, sustainability and disaster risk reduction. Similarly, vulnerability of biodiversity can be reduced through a disaster risk reduction focus. Figure 4 shows how biodiversity “safety” can be achieved through an Eco-DRR approach. 4

The progression of biodiversty vulnerabilty Dynamic pressures

Root causes

Fragile livelihoods and unsafe locations

Disaster risk

Hazards

Socio-economic dynamics • • • •

Distribution of power Poverty Population growth Tenure of natural resources

Natural aspects • • • • •

Natural resource distribution Topography Land productivity Land systems change Biochemical flows

Idealogies

• Consumerism • Neo-colonialism • Geo-politics and human made boundaries

History and culture

• Colonial and post-colonial heritages • War and post-war fragility • Traditions and religion

Development

• Urbanisation • Change in land use patterns

Hydrometrological

Societal deficiencies

• Flooding • Drought • Coastal storms • Extreme heat • Cyclones

• Lack of education and scientific knowledge • Exploitation of natural resources

Policy and governance • Governance and different scales • Policies and legislation

Macro-forces • • • • • •

Loss of ecosystem services Issue with land tenure Decline in soil productivity Deforestation Food security Animal distribution and density • Overgrazing • Access to, and anthropogenic use of freshwater • Exploitation

• Alien invasive species • Species migration • Rapid loss of species

Disaster risk = Hazard x Vulnerability

Geomorphological and geological • Landslide • Tsunami • Soil erosion and contamination

Biological and ecological

• Ocean acidification • Plant and animal diseases • Zoonotic diseases • Wildlife

Anthropogenic

• Pollution • Climate change

Accentuation of some (not all) hazards

Figure 3: Progression of biodiversity vulnerability (adapted from: Wisner et al., 2012)

The progression of biodiversity safety

Address root causes

Reduce dynamic pressures

Achieve stable ecosystems and reduce biodiversity impacts

Disaster risk reduction

Hazard prevention and mitigation Climatological • • • • •

Favour

• Equitable distribution of power • Equitable distribution of wealth • Equitable distribution of resources

Challenge

• Consumerism • Neo-colonisation • Geo-politics and human made boundaries

Consider

• Colonial and postcolonial heritages • War and post-war fragility • Traditions and religion

Focus on

• Encouraging rural node development • Change in land use patterns • Urban/rural population distribution

Development of

• Local institutions • Training and knowledge • Scientific knowledge

Public actions

• Good governance and transparency • Implement policies and legislation • Monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation

Flooding Drought Coastal storms Extreme heat Climate change

Geomorphological and geological • Landslide • Tsunami • Soil erosion and contamination

Natural resources

• Control/reduce/eliminate alien invasive species • Species vulnerability assessments • Protection of endagered and threatened species

Address macro-forces

• Enhanced biodiversity • Resilient ecosystems

• Protection of ecosystem services • Address land ownership • Enhance soil productivity • Food security • Better wildlife and livestock management • Integrated water resources • Conservation

Biological and ecological

• Ocean acidification • Plant and animal diseases • Zoonotic diseases • Wildlife

Astronomical

• Pollution • Climate change

Accentuation of some (not all) hazards

Figure 4: Progression to biodiversity “safety” (adapted from Wisner et al., 2012) 5

3. REGIONAL OVERVIEW Disasters present a broad range of human, social, financial, economic and environmental impacts, with potentially long-lasting, multi-generational effects. In addition to inflicting direct damages to lives, buildings, infrastructure and the environment, they produce indirect damages with the potential for cascading and systemic effects such as business interruption, loss of employment and output, decreased tax revenues that reduce economic growth potential, impaired institutional capacities, a rise in poverty levels, loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation. Disasters can thus have widespread impacts, inflicting physical harm and damage to populations and assets, and impairing economic activity, with potential knock-on regional and global effects. The African continent takes up approximately 22% of the planet’s total land mass and is the only continent with an almost even geographical distribution within the northern and southern hemispheres. This gives Africa a significant varied hazard profile that affects diverse habitats. As far as climate change predictions go, Africa is considered to be the world’s most vulnerable region, with recurring drought, water scarcity issues, crop failures and disease burden (Lopez-Carr et al., 2012). Some of the most prominent regional environmental issues affecting the continent include deforestation and desertification, water scarcity, pollution, threats to biodiversity, spread of alien invasive species, land and coastal degradation, poaching, and the impact of anthropogenic activities such as mining (UNEP, 2010). Furthermore, Africa experiences a range of natural hazards and resulting disasters such as cyclones, drought, floods, wildfires, landslides and the potential of earthquakes. Similar to Asia and South America, the above challenges are closely linked to demographic distribution and areas of population growth.

3.1 Demography Current estimates by the UN suggest that the 2015 population figure in Africa is approximately 1.18 billion people (UN, 2015) (Figure 5). Projections are that the population will more than double towards 2050. Youth below 15 years of age constitutes 50% of the inhabitants (UNPF, 2014) of Africa. This population is largely concentrated on the coasts, around large lakes such as those in the Great Rift Valley, along rivers and interior highlands. Africa also has ten of the poorest countries in the world (UN, 2015). To gain a broader understanding of the human impact on their surroundings, as well as the potential impact of hazards on humans and the systems on which they depend, it is imperative to consider where people live in relation to environmental factors such as biodiversity and disaster risk profiles. Figures 5, 6 and 7 illustrate this relationship.

Pop. Density 2000 0.1 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 1000 - 2500 2500 - 5000 5000 - 10000 10000 - 25000 25000 - 50000 50000 -1000000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 Km

Figure 5: Population density distribution in Africa in 2011 (UN, 2015)

3.2 Africa’s agro-ecological zones Agro-ecological zones (AEZs) are rain-fed areas that have similar climatic conditions. AEZs are influenced by elements such as topography, temperature, rainfall, latitude, elevation and the like. The resulting AEZ classifications for Africa have three dimensions: major climate zone (tropics or subtropics); moisture zones (water availability); and highland/lowland (warm or cool based on elevation). Figure 6 depicts sixteen different agro-ecological zones across the continent (Seo et al., 2009). The Sahara desert occupies the most land area in the north, with similar desert zones in the eastern and southern areas of the continent. Eastern Africa is composed of desert, lowland dry savannah, and some high elevation humid forest, and dry savannah located around Mount Kilimanjaro and the highlands of Kenya. Southern Africa consists mostly of lowland or mid-elevation moist savannah, and lowland or mid-elevation dry savannah (Seo et al., 2009). 6

The division of Africa into these different zones also explains a lot about the expected climatic conditions and thus hydrometeorological risk drivers that can be expected. The major impact of climatic changes associated with, for instance ENSO and La Niña, is also noticeable within these different AEZs. It is clear that in both the projected La Niña and El Niño precipitation and temperature impact, the general trends tend to follow the AEZs. Seeing that the AEZs are the bread baskets of Africa, any changes to these systems will have a significant impact on the food security of the people of Africa, as well as a significant effect on the ecological systems on which the populace depends. Similarly, these zones follow a similar pattern for the continent’s biodiversity.

Legend Desert High Dry Savannah High Humid Forest High Moist Savannah High Semi-Arid High Sub-Humid Low Dry Savannah

3.3 Biodiversity in Africa

Low Humid Forest Low Moist Savannah Low Semi-Arid Low Sub-Humid Mid Dry Savannah

Africa has a broad variety and abundance of biodiversity that is currently in a better state than in many parts of the world. Biodiversity can be considered according to the genetic variation within populations, the number, relative abundance and uniqueness of species, and the variety, extent and condition of ecosystems (Scholes et al., 2006). Figure 8 depicts key biodiversity aspects on the continent. El Niño precipitation impact

La Niña precipitation impact

Mid Humid Forest Mid Moist Savannah Mid-Semi Arid Mid Sub-Humid

0 2.5 5

10 Decimal Degrees

Figure 6: Agro-ecological zones in Africa (Seo et al., 2009))

drier tendency wetter mixed (seasonal reversal)

El Niño precipitation impact

La Niña precipitation impact

drier tendency wetter

warmer tendency colder mixed (seasonal reversal)

warmer tendency colder mixed (seasonal reversal)

Figure 7: El Niño and La Niña precipitation and temperature impacts (adapted from Met Office, 2016) 7

WWF eco-regions

Plant species ricnhness

WWF Biomes number of vascular plant species per 10 000km2

boreal forest/taigas deserts and xeric shrublands

< 20

flooded grasslands mangroves

20 - 200

Mediterranean scrub

200 - 500 500 - 1 000

montane grasslands

1 000 - 1 500

temperate coniferous forests

1 500 - 2 000

tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests

2 000 - 3 000

tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannahs, shrublands and woodlands

3 000 - 4 000

tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests

4 000 -5 000

water

> 5 000

Source: Eco-regions are large units of land or water that contain a distinct assemblage of species, habitats and processes, whose boundaries depict the original extent of natural communities before major land use change. Olhson and Dinerstein 2006, WWF undated: Map redrawn by UNEP/DEWA/GRID 2006.

Source: Plant species richness per 10 000km2 (Mutke and Barthlott 2005). Colours indicate the major biomes as defined by the WWF. Biomes represent groups of eco-regions with similar vegetation types.

Number of threatened bird species Mammal species richness

number of threatened bird species per quarter-degree cell

number of mammal species per 3 113 km2 hexagonal cell

16 - 25

8-9

0 - 30

118 - 134

15 - 16

7-8

31 - 51

135 - 150

14 - 15

6-7

52 - 74

151 - 168

13 -14

5-6

75 - 96

169 - 194

12 -13

4-5

97 - 117

195 - 257

11 - 12

3-4

10 -11

2-3

9 - 10

1-2

Source: Data fron IUCN — The World Conservation Union — Species Survival Commission; University of Virginia, Virginia; Center for Applied Biodiversity and Science at Conservation International (CI — CABS). Instituto de Ecologia Applicata (IEA); Zoological Society of London; and The African Mammals Databank (AMD).

Source: Number of threatened bird species per quarter-degree grid cell (BirdLife International 2004).

Figure 8: Biodiversity in Africa (taken from Scholes et al., 2006) The most populated areas (around the tropics/equator, and the Southern Cape, Mediterranean north and eastern Madagascar) enjoy the widest distribution and abundance of species. Topographic and climatic conditions still dictate the distribution of humans and other species in Africa. The centres of biodiversity are located in the following eco-regions: • Mt Cameroon and Bioko montane forests, overlapping with the Cross-Sanaga-Bioko coastal forests; • the Cameroon highlands’ forests; • the Eastern Arc forests and the northern Zanzibar-Inhambane coastal forest mosaic; • the Guinea montane forests and the western Guinea forests; • the Drakensberg montane grasslands and forests; and • the Albertine Rift montane forests and the upper Guinea lowland rain forests (Scholes et al., 2006). Considering the correlation between biodiversity, the possible impacts of climate change, the AEZs in Africa, and population distribution and growth, it would be safe to argue that it is (and will be) these very regions that will be most threatened by future hazards, with the resulting loss in natural, human, economic, and physical capital. Figure 9 shows the impacts on worldwide biodiversity in the year 2000 with the expected loss of biodiversity by the year 2050, with continued development and climate change. 8

Biodiversity as a ratio of species abundance before human impacts High impacts

0 - 25

High-medium impacts

25 - 50

Medium-low impacts

50 - 75

Low impacts Mean species abundance (%)

75 - 100%

2000

2050

Figure 9: Projected loss of biodiversity with continued agricultural expansion, pollution, climate change and infrastructure development (Practical Action & Christian Aid, 2009) From a specifically regional perspective, it is important to look at the patterns of land use and environmental change and/or biodiversity loss that have occurred over time. With respect to the countries assessed for this report, the following reflects the change in actual natural forest cover from 1990 to 2015 (data from EM-DAT, 2016).

Mozambique

Zimbabwe

Malawi

Madagascar

Ethiopia

Uganda

Namibia

Kenya

South Africa

Figure 10: Change in natural forest cover over time (1990–2015) for the countries assessed (data from EM-DAT, 2016) 9

Uganda: 3.44% Mozambique: 8.46% South Africa: 24.29%

Malawi: 4.06% Zimbabwe: 2.13% Ethiopia: 8.82%

Namibia: 6.08%

Kenya: 10.25%

Madagascar: 32.47%

Figure 11: The GEF Benefits Index (GBI for each of the assessed countries It is evident that Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Uganda have experienced a steady decline in natural forest cover during this time period, with Zimbabwe suffering the biggest loss, from 57% to 36% cover in just 25 years. Biodiversity is distributed unevenly throughout the world, and across different ecosystems (Global Environment Facility, 2016a). A composite index of relative biodiversity potential has been developed and is referred to as the GEF Benefits Index (GBI) for biodiversity. It reflects the relative biodiversity potential for each country and is based on the species represented in each country, their threat status, and the diversity of habitat types in each country (Knoema, 2016). The GBI is a measure of each country’s potential to generate global environmental benefits in a specific focal area. The GBI for Biodiversity strives to measure the potential global benefits that can arise from biodiversity related activities in a country (Global Environment Facility, 2016b). Madagascar and South Africa have relatively high GBI values, especially when compared to Zimbabwe and Uganda, meaning that they have higher biodiversity potential.

3.4 Africa’s disaster risk profile and impacts The disaster risk profile of Africa is rooted in its tumultuous history and geographical features. In Africa, disasters have increased over the past 15 years, despite concerted disaster management efforts. Over the past four decades, Sub-Saharan Africa has experienced more than 1,000 disasters. They are a major threat to development, putting recent economic development gains at risk (World Bank, 2013). Africa’s disaster profile is characterised by extreme hydro-meteorological events that will likely increase in frequency and magnitude due to climate change. Sub-Saharan Africa’s disaster profile is closely linked to the vulnerability of its population and economy and their low capacities to cope with natural hazards (World Bank, 2013). Most African countries have limited resources to truly integrate in disaster risk reduction strategies and usually have the minimal funds available for relief and recovery efforts after a major disaster. Any disaster therefore has the potential to become a setback for economic growth as well as ecological stability. Table 2 shows, for the time period 1990 – 2015, the disasters that affected the countries assessed, the number of lives affected, and the cost of these disasters. In many areas, the economy is based on rain-fed agriculture, which is highly susceptible to climate variability. The majority of disasters in Africa are hydro-meteorological in nature, with droughts still affecting the largest number of people on the continent and floods occurring frequently along the major river systems and in many urban areas. Cyclones mainly affect the southern part of Africa, for example Madagascar and Mozambique. Geological hazards are not as common within the continent, with the exception of the Rift Valley and areas exposed to decades of mining activity (such as in South Africa). Climate change will also trigger a higher magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events (Brickett et al., 1999; Ngecu & Mathu, 1999). 10

Storm

-

4

-

-

50,912,948

148,338,000

South Africa

4

2

25

-

1

22

9

18,657,666

4,971,765,000

Zimbabwe

7

-

11

-

-

3

-

18,857,139

347,700,000

Madagascar

5

-

6

2

-

39

-

10,148,791

948,881,000

Mozambique

9

-

24

-

1

16

1

17,452,037

757,150,000

Ethiopia

10

-

43

1

2

-

1

51,945,962

33,900,000

Malawi

7

-

29

-

-

3

-

25,614,785

421,789,000

Uganda

6

-

18

-

4

4

-

4,942,590

5,771,000

Namibia

7

-

13

-

-

-

-

2,225,150

135,490,000

Total damage (US$)

Landslide

44

Total number of people affected

Insect Infestation

-

Kenya

Wildfire

Flood

10

Drought

Extreme Temperature

Table 2: The number of specific disasters, number of people affected & the costs incurred (in US$) for each of the countries assessed (data from EM-DAT, 2016)

Figure 12 illustrates the difference in the number of disasters to have occurred in the eastern African region compared to those in the southern African region. It is clear that Eastern Africa is more prone to disasters, with a total of 38 happening in one year (2007) alone, compared to a high of 10 in one year for Southern Africa.

Southern Africa

Total Disasters

Eastern Africa

Year

Figure 12: Number of disasters that affected Eastern African and Southern Africa between 1990 and 2015 (compiled from data from EM-DAT, 2016) 11

Although the mortality rate due to disasters is decreasing, the number of people affected and the economic impact of disasters on the continent are increasing. Disaster risk reduction is a cross-cutting issue, closely aligned with aspects such as climate change adaptation and emergency preparedness and prevention. Since 2005, the amount of funding for disaster risk reduction in Africa has increased, either as direct allocations or in related sectors, such as development, protection of biodiversity and conservation. Much of the funds contributing to disaster risk reduction within other sectors are People affected by climate change “masked” and not recorded as “disaster risk and weather-related reduction funding” of “disaster risk reduction disasters (‘000) projects” (Van Niekerk et al., 2013). However, the increase in disaster losses is still prevalent 0 - 10 on the continent. These losses can be ascribed 11 - 100 101 - 500 to increases in vulnerability and exposure, which 501 - 1,000 can be linked to an upwards development profile 1,001 - 2,500 in Africa, fuelled by massive urban migration. 2,501 - 5,000 Urban growth areas on the continent make for 5,001 - 10,000 a complex environment in which disaster risk 10,001 - 20,000 > 20,000 must be managed. Over the years 2000–2009, approximately 2.2
 billion people worldwide were affected by 4,484 natural disasters. These Figure 13: People affected by climate and weather related disasters killed close to 840,000 people and cost disasters 2000–2014 (IFPRI, 2015) at least US$ 891 billion in economic damage. In March 2012, the Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) programme published “Disaster risk reduction: Spending where it should count” (Kellett & Sparks, 2012), which examined the levels of donor investment in DRR. The report found that despite the rhetoric, just 1% (US$ 3.7 billion) of total Official Development Assistance (ODA) had been spent on disaster risk reduction in 40 of the world’s poorest and most disaster-affected countries. Many of these countries are in Africa. In Africa almost all known hazards are present – droughts, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, surface collapse, wildfires and epidemics. Conflict and civil unrest also pose multi-fold challenges to Africa. As far as climate change predictions go, Africa is considered to be the world’s most vulnerable region with recurring drought, water scarcity issues, crop failures and disease burden (Lopez-Carr et al., 2012). In many areas the economy is based on rainfed agriculture i.e. only 5% of agricultural land is irrigated (African Development Bank Group, 2011), which is highly susceptible to a varying climate (World Bank, 2015). The impact of droughts and floods on these agricultural systems and the dependent and vulnerable populations can be devastating.

3.5 Frequent hazards in Africa Droughts and floods are some of the more frequent and devastating hazards which undermine food and water security in Africa. The majority of hazards in Africa remain hydro-meteorological in nature, with droughts affecting the largest number of people (World Bank, 2015). Droughts and floods related to ENSO have had major human and economic costs in east and southern Africa. The ENSO floods in 1998 in east Africa resulted in human suffering and deaths, as well as extensive damage to infrastructure and crops in Kenya (Magadza, 2000). Floods in Mozambique in 2000 and in Kenya in 1997–1998 sparked major emergency relief as hundreds of people lost their lives and thousands were displaced from their homes (Brickett et al., 1999; Ngecu & Mathu, 1999). The cost in Kenya alone was estimated at US$ one billion (Ngecu & Mathu, 1999). The east African floods of 1998 and the Mozambique floods in early 2000 and 2001 caused considerable damage to property and infrastructure. The major infrastructure damage was road and rail network damage. Communications among human settlements in Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda were seriously disrupted, impeding movement of goods and persons in the region (Magadza, 2000). Furthermore, the El Niño induced drought in the southern Africa region since 2014 is seen as one of the worst in recorded history, with over 31 million people being food insecure (OCHA, 2016). 12

Megacities 10 - 20 million inhabitants 5 - 10 million inhabitants 1 - 5 million inhabitants (selected cities) Sparsely populated

Densely populated Moderatelypopulated

Africa Climate change hotspot Risk of desertification More precipitation Less precipitation Coral bleaching Sea-level rise concerns and affected major cities Negative agricultural changes Changes in ecosystems Depletion of fisheries Increasing frquency or intensity of cyclones Impact on mountain regions Melting of glaciers

Figure 14: Climate hazards and environmental impacts in Africa (IOM, 2015) Climate change is expected to increase the magnitude and frequency of these extreme weather events. Lowlying coastal areas will be threatened by sea-level rise and thus be inundated with water, suffer coastal erosion and experience more destructive storm surges. This will have a devastating effect on the populations living in and around these low-lying coastal areas. Figure 14 shows that these areas of potential devastation are quite densely populated. Climate variability and change, together with human-induced changes, may also affect important ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs, which would have additional negative consequences for the fisheries and tourism industries (Boko et al., 2007). The projected sea-level rise would increase flooding, particularly on the coasts of eastern Africa, have implications for health, and increase the high socio-economic and physical vulnerability of coastal cities. The cost of adaptation to sea-level rise could amount to at least 5–10% of gross domestic product (Boko et al., 2007). Many ESA countries have to contend with semi-arid conditions that make agriculture challenging, and climate change and variability are likely to further compromise agricultural production and therefore food security. Climate change could potentially shorten the growing season as well as force large regions of marginal agriculture out of production. In some countries, the projected drop in yield could be as much as 50% by 2020, and crop net revenues could fall by as much as 90% by 2100. Small-scale farmers will likely be most negatively affected, worsening food security in the continent (Boko et al., 2007). Geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides and surface collapse (e.g. sinkholes) also pose a serious threat to human life and property, sometimes causing major economic losses and disruption. These occur predominantly along the Rift Valley but are generally less pronounced than hydro-meteorological events (World Bank, 2015). 13

Terrorism, war and civil unrest are also critical issues facing the people of ESA today. The current security challenges are mainly governance related or intra-state conflicts, with more than half of all African countries having engaged in boundary-related conflicts (Ikome, 2012). The year 2014 was one of the more turbulent years in recent history with widespread protests, unrest, insurgencies and civil wars (Bugnaki, 2015). These conflicts result in large numbers of dead (since 2010 the number of deaths from political violence has increased significantly (Bugnacki, 2015)) and displaced individuals, and have a negative effect on development and the economies of those countries involved. Conflict tends to lead to interruptions in aid delivery and medical assistance, which can perpetuate the already negative impacts of disasters. The ongoing conflict in the Horn of Africa, South Sudan and the Great Lakes region has cost thousands of lives and displaced many more. Religion is often used as a tool to enable leaders to mobilise poor people against governments, and this could be extended to mobilise populations against globalisation and Westernisation (Cilliers et al., 2011). When areas are destabilised due to political unrest, development is hampered and food insecurity increases, which can have a devastating effect on the environment, human populations and economies. Given that the majority of households continue to be heavily reliant on the natural resource base, ecosystem-based approaches such as ECO-DRR may have the potential to reduce vulnerabilities to shocks arising from conflict. Furthermore, the ESA region faces the threat of the outbreak of diseases – with the HIV/AIDS pandemic and significant increases in malaria being two examples. Human health is already compromised by a variety of factors, and could be further negatively affected by climate change and climate variability. For example, climate change will likely alter the ecology of some disease vectors, resulting in the spatial and temporal transmission of such diseases (Boko et al., 2007). Malaria in southern Africa and the East African highlands is a good example. The majority of assessments of health to date have concentrated on malaria and debates continue on the attribution of malaria resurgence in some African areas. The vulnerabilities and impacts of future climate change on other infectious diseases such as dengue fever, meningitis and cholera, among others, is also cause for concern (Boko et al., 2007). From an Eco-DRR perspective, the emergence and prevalence of zoonotic disease transmission is an increasing worry. The role of disease in disasters and bio-diversity impact or loss is rising in importance. The ESA region has had a range of endemic diseases that people have adapted to and in some cases, such as trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness), the disease has protected ecosystems by limiting human activity. Disease eradication programmes like trypanosomiasis control or foot and mouth disease control (FMD) have had significant negative impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. The introduction of exotic diseases such as bovine tuberculosis (BTB) has harmed wildlife, domestic livestock and potentially humans. Other diseases such as swine fever, avian influenza, and the haemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola are highlighting the human, wildlife, livestock and ecosystem interface. This has resulted in the emergence of a new field of multi-disciplinary research now commonly called One Health. Increasingly the One Health practitioners are making the DRR case for disease management and control without using the term DRR. The OIE and IUCN make the point that wildlife diseases have implications beyond the conservation of species into the full range of human economic activity and ecosystem health (OIE/IUCN, 2014). 14

The Manhattan Principles on “One World, One Health” Recent outbreaks of West Nile Virus, Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever, SARS, Monkeypox, Mad Cow Disease and Avian Influenza demonstrate that human and animal health are intimately connected. A broader understanding of health and disease demands a unity of approach achievable only through a consilience of human, domestic animal and wildlife health – One Health. Phenomena such as species loss, habitat degradation, pollution, invasive alien species and global climate change are fundamentally altering life on our planet from terrestrial wilderness and ocean depths to the most densely populated cities. The rise of emerging and resurging infectious diseases threatens both humans (and their food supplies and economies), and the fauna and flora comprising the biodiversity that supports the planet’s living infrastructure. The earnestness and effectiveness of humankind’s environmental stewardship and our future health have never been more clearly linked. To win the disease battles of the 21st century while ensuring the biological integrity of the Earth for future generations requires interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches to disease prevention, surveillance, monitoring, control and mitigation as well as to environmental conservation more broadly. Cook, R.A., Karesh, W.B. & Osofsky, S.A. 2003. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA. https://www.wcs-ahead.org/ manhattan_principles.html

Africa is rapidly urbanising in a largely unplanned and uncontrolled manner that adds urban-industrial hazards to the threats faced by many “squatter citizens” (Hardoy & Sattertwaite, 1989; Pelling & Wisner, 2009). Access to energy, or rather a lack thereof, is a problem faced by most of Africa; today, more than 645 million Africans have no access to electricity, 700 million do not have access to clean cooking energy, and 600,000 die per year as a result of indoor pollution from cooking on biomass (African Development Bank Group, 2016). When electricity is available, its reliability and cost are a problem, with some of Africa’s poorest having to pay some of the world’s highest costs for energy (African Development Bank Group, 2016). Most African businesses emphasise that access to reliable, competitively-priced energy is the number one factor that could help them to grow. Table 3 shows the range of hazards in ESA specifically as they apply to the Eco-DRR context. The table is based on the level of occurrence and impact on ecosystems, biodiversity and human well-being. The hazards are separated into those that can be considered naturally occurring phenomena and those that have anthropogenic origins. In this instance drought is a naturally occurring event while the effects of climate change are considered in the category of anthropogenic hazards. The table demonstrates comparative differences between eastern and southern Africa and is subject to variation even within a region. It is also important to note that hazards are dynamic and particularly in the case of the anthropogenic hazards may be subject to rapid change. This ties in closely with the Pressure and Release Model demonstrated in Section 2.

Table 3: Range of hazards / vulnerabilities in Eastern and Southern Africa in an Eco-DRR context HAZARD /VULNERABILITY

EASTERN AFRICA

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Drought

NATURAL

Flood Cyclone Disease (Human Epidermic) Disease (Animal/Zoonotic) Earthquake Invasive Aliens (Natural) Poverty War

ANTHROPOGENIC

Famine Climate Change Effects (ocean temperature rise, extreme weather events, etc.) Land / Environmental Degradation Habitat Modification Wildfire (human induced) Species Overexploitation Bad Governance Pollution Population Growth / Migration Invasive Aliens (Exotic)

Key

High

Medium

15

Low

3.6 Disaster vulnerability The main driver behind heightened disaster risks, however, is the vulnerability of the population, which is exacerbated by minimal coping capacities (World Bank, 2015). Vulnerabilities on the continent are grounded in the legacy of colonialism, followed by years of authoritarian rule by African elites, a situation that has preserved and even widened class, regional and ethnic disparities and locked many people into a vicious cycle of poverty, powerlessness and marginality (Chambers, 1983; Wisner, 1988; Wisner et al., 2006; Mascarenhas & Wisner, 2012). It can be seen from Figure 15 that the majority of countries with a “high vulnerability” indicator are located in Africa, with the rest of the African countries having a “medium vulnerability” indicator. It is also evident from this figure that these countries have experienced a crisis within the last year or two. A great deal needs to be done to assist these countries to enable them to become more able to cope with these disaster events and the negative impacts thereof.

ECHO Global Vulnerability and Crisis Assessment 2013

Crisis indicator

Vulnerabilty indicator

Crises two years ago Crises last year Crises this year

High Vulnerability Medium Vulnerability Low Vulnerability No Value

Figure 15: Global vulnerability and crisis assessment for 2013 (EC, 2013)

Most countries in Africa have limited resources for investment in disaster risk reduction measures and minimal fiscal space to provide funding for disaster relief and recovery efforts (World Bank, 2015). According to Maplecroft (2013), 2012 was the least deadly year in 10 years, as far as natural disasters go, but a lack of resilience leaves some key growth economies at “extreme risk” (Figure 16). Again, the majority of countries with an “extreme risk” indicator are located in Africa, with many more having a “high risk” indicator. When populations find themselves in vulnerable positions, it is through the development and implementation of certain policies and strategies that the potentially devastating effects of disasters can be alleviated and in some cases prevented. Those relevant to this report are discussed in the following section.

16

Socio-economic Resillience Index 2013

Afghanistan

Chad Yemen

Guinea-Bissau

Eritrea

CAR

Somalia DR Congo

Sudan South Sudan

Rank Country

Category

1 Somalia extreme 2 Afghanistan extreme 3 DR Congo extreme 4 Sudan extreme 5 CAR extreme 6 Chad extreme 7 South Sudan extreme 8 Yemen extreme 9 Eritrea extreme 10

Legend Extreme Risk 0 - 2.5

High Risk >2.5 - 5

Medium Risk Low Risk >5 -7.5 >7.5 - 10

No Data

Guinea-Bissau extreme

Figure 16: Socio-economic Resilience Index 2013 (Maplecroft, 2013)

4. POLICIES, FRAMEWORKS AND STRATEGIES Policy is an important enabling factor for both biodiversity conservation and DRR. Developing policies that link both at national and regional level is still conceptually very new and no policy or legislative instruments specifically link biodiversity conservation with DRR, though both SADC in Southern Africa (SADC, 2016) and IGAD in East Africa recognise (IGAD, 2016) the link. At a global level the link is growing with the UNISDR – Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, making the link between DRR and the environment in priority areas 1 and 3 (UNISDR, 2015a). In addition, the CBD has moved forward by recognising DRR objectives in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the Aichi Targets. The CBD further urged member states to recognise in policy and legislation the role of ecosystem degradation and ecosystem conservation in respect of DRR (Prevention Web, 2016). Development issues and disasters are intricately linked, especially in developing countries (Hewitt, 2013). Any development that ignores the environmental aspects increases disaster risk, and the deterioration of environmental sustainability is a primary factor for increasing physical and socio-economic vulnerability (Gupta & Nair, 2012). Paragraph 23 of the Sendai Framework states that “policies and practices for disaster risk management should be based on an understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics and the environment” (UNISDR, 2015a). Unfortunately, CCA, environmental issues, development and DRR management processes are currently being governed by different legislative and policy tracks, characterised by different stakeholders and institutions implementing measures separately (Doswald & Estrella, 2015). Much talk of the post-2015 policy era has centred on finding synergies between the closely related elements of disaster risk reduction, climate change and adaptation, the Sustainable Development Goals, new humanitarian actions and the protection of biodiversity and the environment. To this end numerous international, regional and national frameworks and policy documents highlight the convergence of efforts to address these issues. It is heartening to see that some synergies are beginning to emerge.

17

4.1 Promotion of Eco-DRR in international frameworks Frameworks for DRR and CCA at international level promote considerations of environment (including ecosystems and biodiversity), and sustainable development in addressing disaster risk. The Cancun Adaptation Framework was adopted in 2010, and is aimed at enhancing action on adaptation, through international cooperation, to reduce vulnerability and build resilience in developing countries (UNFCCC, 2016). One of the guiding principles is to integrate adaptation into relevant economic, social and environmental policies. This framework has three areas of focus: the global level, regional level and national level. Specifically section II, article 14 (d) indicates that States need to build resilience of socio-economic and ecological systems, including through economic diversification and sustainable management of natural resources. The Framework furthermore “recognizes the need to strengthen international cooperation and expertise in order to understand and reduce loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including impacts related to extreme weather events and slow onset events.” Such events include “sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ocean acidification, glacial retreat and related impacts, salinisation, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification” (UNFCCC, 2011). The Hyogo Framework for Action (2005–2015), the first global agreement on disaster reduction, recognised the importance of sustainable ecosystems and environmental management in reducing disaster risk. Moreover, the 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Reduction identified ecosystem decline as one of four major drivers of risk and called for greater protection and enhancement of ecosystem services, a message that was further reinforced at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in June 2009 (UNISDR, 2010a). More recently, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015 – 2030) called for considering environmental management, sustainable development and the protection of biodiversity as good disaster risk reduction strategies. Paragraph 19(h) states that the development, strengthening and implementation of relevant policies, plans, practices and mechanisms need to aim at coherence, as appropriate, across sustainable development and growth, food security, health and safety, climate change and variability, environmental management and disaster risk reduction agendas in order to achieve sustainable development. Moreover, paragraph 28 (b) states that at a global and regional level stakeholders need to “[F]oster collaboration across global and regional mechanisms and institutions for the implementation and coherence of instruments and tools relevant to disaster risk reduction, such as for climate change, biodiversity, sustainable development, poverty eradication, environment, agriculture, health, food and nutrition and others…”. Section 28 (d) explicitly refers to the promotion of transboundary cooperation to enable policy and planning for the implementation of ecosystem-based approaches. Furthermore, paragraph 30 (n) emphasises the need to strengthen the sustainable use and management of ecosystems and implement integrated environmental and natural resource management approaches that incorporate disaster risk reduction. Areas of expertise focusing on disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation or ecosystems based approaches often do so from different perspectives. This is noticeable at international, regional and national policy level, though these foci might best be integrated at project level (Doswald & Estrella, 2015). In addition to the above, the UNEP 2016–2017 work programme identifies seven priority areas for achieving the Aichi biodiversity targets. The first three of these priority areas are climate change, disasters and conflicts, and ecosystem management (UNEP, 2016). These three priority areas fall solidly into the realm of an Eco-DRR approach.

4.2 Promotion of Eco-DRR in regional policies and frameworks The African continent has regional initiatives and cooperation agreements in place for dealing with disaster risk reduction (African Union, 2004). Since 2003, African nations have made significant strides towards implementing disaster risk reduction measures. Numerous collaborations and meetings led to the development of the African Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (ARSDRR). The Programme of Action (POA) led to the Africa Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction in 2005. The Africa Programme of Action 2005–2010 was discussed and adopted at the First Africa Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Addis Ababa in December 2005, attended by 42 countries, the African Development Bank, several UN and international agencies and bilateral donors. The POA was subsequently endorsed by a Decision of the Eighth Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of the African Union in Khartoum, Sudan in January 2006. However, a mid-term review of the 18

ARSDRR highlighted the need for some changes. Parallel to the First Conference of Ministers Responsible for Meteorology in Africa, the Africa Regional Office of the UNISDR hosted the Second Ministerial Conference on DRR in Nairobi, Kenya from 14–16 April 2010 (UNISDR, 2010b). Two of the most noticeable changes supported by African Member States were the need for new and coordinated funding mechanisms and the shift in emphasis to ensure local government and community-based application of disaster risk reduction initiatives. The Programme of Action for the implementation of the Africa Regional Strategy (2006–2015) adopted in April 2010 calls for increased integration of disaster risk reduction concerns in priority sectors, including the environment (PEDRR, 2010). In May 2014 African governments once again came together to endorse the continent’s contribution. The ARSDRR and its PAO both recognise the need to find environmentally linked solutions for disaster risk issues. The Regional Economic Communities (RECs) in Africa are key partners for the implementation of the Africa Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (World Bank–GFDRR, 2010a). The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) has taken concrete steps to effectively mainstream DRR into national policies by establishing a DRR Unit within the SADC Directorate of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Affairs (World Bank– GFDRR, 2010a). The SADC DRR Unit is responsible to coordinate and provide regional leadership on DRR, mitigation, preparedness and related management with support from SADC DRR Technical Committee (World Bank–GFDRR, 2010a). However, many remain sceptical as to the effectiveness of this Unit. The Southern Africa region is well covered with the United Nations (UN) system and its humanitarian partners (such as international NGOs) and a Regional Inter-Agency Coordination and Support Office (RIACSO). RIACSO provides support to strategic planning, assessment and monitoring including coordination for emergency response. It also has a functional partnership with the SADC, designed to strengthen networks like Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) and the Southern Africa Regional Climate Outlook Forum (SARCOF) (World Bank–GFDRR, 2010a). The standard modus operandi of RIACSO is on supporting preparedness and early warning across the region through annual plans that match the yearly meteorological cycles (World Bank–GFDRR, 2010a). Furthermore, the various sectors and clusters within SADC are more and more aiming towards finding synergies in their operations. This is evident in the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP), which is a comprehensive development and implementation framework guiding the regional integration agenda of SADC over a period of fifteen years (2005–2020). The most relevant directorate in SADC in dealing with issues of environmental protection and disaster risk reduction is the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) Directorate. It is tasked with the coordination and harmonisation of agriculture, natural resources and environment policies and programmes in the SADC region. Two of FANR’s priority areas are disaster preparedness and awareness for food security, and equitable and sustainable use of the environment and natural resources. SADC also established the Climate Services Centre in 1990, to provide operational and regional services for monitoring and predicting extremes in climate condition. The Centre develops and disseminates meteorological, environmental and hydro-meteorological products. These products contribute to improved disaster risk reduction in the region, and assist Member States to better prepare for weather and climate hazards, conservation, and protection of natural resources. Similarly, in the east Africa region, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) was established in 1986 to address issues of drought and development in the region (under the name Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development – IGADD). It was revitalised in 1996 and its mandate expanded to coordinate and harmonise policies in the areas of socio-economic, agricultural development, environmental protection and political and humanitarian affairs. The majority of natural hazards faced in the east Africa region are climate related. To reduce the risk of disasters occurring and mitigate their possible impact, IGAD established specialised centres. The IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre (ICPAC) coordinates all climate related risk reduction issues in the region. The Centre provides climate related information, prediction and early warning. This is done in support of environment management, disaster risk reduction and sustainable development in the region. The Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism (CEWARN) aims to systematically anticipate and respond to violent conflicts in a timely and effective manner, but does not have a specific environment protection component relating to conflicts and the movement of people. The IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) is mandated to promote and facilitate gender, conflict and environment responsive sustainable and equitable livestock and complementary livelihoods development in arid and semi-arid areas of the IGAD region. The region still experiences some challenges with mainstreaming climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction into development policies, although massive strides have been made in the past decade. The IGAD Environment and Natural Resources Strategy (2007) included disaster risk reduction as one of the key processes 19

underscoring the success of the Strategy. IGAD also established the Inland Water Resources Management Programme (INWRMP) in 2012. The focus of the INWRMP is on the creation of regional cooperation in water resources management, to improve policy and legal frameworks in water resources management, assist regional and national institutions for water resources management in the region, and strengthen and develop regional water resources management information systems and observation networks. IGAD has also implemented joint initiatives with the aim of bridging the gaps between the different communities of practice when it comes to a focus on resilience. To this end, IGAD is in the process of producing a Joint Regional Resilience Analysis (JRRA). JRRA aims to strengthen and enhance the existing partnerships, ensure a skills and tools exchange as well as tap into existing resources which will assist IGAD to holistically focus on resilience issues. On the other hand, the East Africa Commission was established through a Treaty signed in 1999 and entered into force in 2000. Article 3(1) of the Treaty states that members of the Community, referred to as “the Partner States”, shall be the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania and any other country granted membership to the Community under this Article. Since the establishment of the Treaty, the Republics of Burundi, Rwanda and South Sudan have also joined the Community. 
 The Partner States of the East African Community (EAC) are prone to natural hazards such as floods, droughts, landslides, earthquakes, lightning, as well as the human-induced disasters of conflicts, urban fires, and environmental degradation among others (EAC, 2012). A further challenge in EAC Partner States is the rapid decline of forest cover below the United Nations’ benchmark of at least 10 percent forest cover in a country (EAC, 2011), which might exacerbate disaster risk. Gupta and Nair (2012) indicate that environmental degradation epitomised by deforestation, loss of biodiversity, deterioration of drainage patterns, and unscientific development, have been some of the major factors for the increased vulnerability of the society and the land to disasters, in addition to aggravating their causative hazards. The promotion of sustainable utilisation of natural resources by Partner States and undertaking measures that would effectively protect the natural environment is enshrined in article 5 (c) of the EAC Treaty. The Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Strategy (2012 – 2016) of the East African Community acknowledges that the EAC Partner States share many terrestrial and aquatic transboundary systems and ecosystems and calls for a concerted effort to protect and conserve them in view of increasing environmental disasters. Sustainable utilisation of natural resources, gender equality and health are considered cross-cutting issues and form cardinal objectives of EAC, which in part is being monitored at partner state level through achievements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (EAC, 2011). A review of existing Disaster Risk Management mechanisms within EAC Partner States reveals that all Partner States have some disaster management mechanisms and institutions at various capacities, although most of them still focus on disaster response rather than disaster risk reduction (EAC, 2012). It is thus important to dissect these mechanisms to verify if ecosystem-based approaches to reducing disaster risk are enshrined in the policy and/or legislative documents.

4.3 Incorporation of Eco-DRR in national policies and frameworks Policy and legislative frameworks of most African counties are more explicit on response and less explicit on prevention, including Eco-DRR. PEDRR (2010) argues that national policies that integrate environment and disaster risk reduction are more mature in developed than in developing states. The DRR policies that have either been passed or are still in draft form generally set the basis for DRR mainstreaming. The policies are coherent with the global, regional and national frameworks and incorporate DRR tools including risk assessments, for example, hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessments and environmental impact assessments. The policies are also more explicit than the legislation on sector responsibilities, stakeholder and affected communities’ participation, multi-hazard early warning systems, risk-sharing transfer mechanisms, transboundary risks, preparedness, response and recovery. It is clear in most of the policies that they deal more with response rather than prevention. The constitutions in the sampled countries provide a regulatory framework for the implementation of the DRR policy. The SADC recognises that disasters are a development problem. The development process does not necessarily reduce vulnerability to natural hazards and on the contrary, development failures can be the root cause of disasters (SADC, 2011). Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into national policies and strategies to reduce vulnerability and build resilience to disasters remains a central issue in SADC, particularly those triggered by multiple hazards, including drought, floods, cyclones, fires, earthquakes, landslides, livestock disease, pest infestation 20

and epidemics. Many hazards in SADC transcend boundaries and their economies are closely interlinked. The Southern African floods of 2000 affected Mozambique, Madagascar, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana, highlighting the need for a sub-regional disaster risk reduction coordination strategy. Countries in southern and eastern Africa have, however, strengthened their national DRM authorities and formulated national policies, strategies and action plans, though the institutional arrangements of DRR agencies are very diverse across the Sub-Saharan Africa region. National authorities are established under various ministries, including the ministries of the interior, defence, agriculture and local government. However, this can lead to the fragmentation of climate change policies and DRM policies, when these ministries have little to no interaction (Nemakonde, 2016). DRM policies and frameworks are increasingly being revised to shift from an ex-post paradigm to an exante approach to DRR. The institutional framework of the DRM agencies can often determine how strong national authorities are in coordinating between national ministries, UN organisations, international development partners and NGOs (World Bank–GFDRR, 2010b). Multi-stakeholder platforms of several ministries, UN agencies and NGOs to enhance cooperation in DRR had already been established in several countries before the launch of National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2007). The UNISDR has supported the establishment of National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction since 2007. National platforms have been useful instruments to foster cooperation among ministries, agencies, donors, NGOs and civil society organisations for they are a coordination mechanism for mainstreaming DRR into development policies, planning and programmes in line with the implementation of the HFA (UNISDR, 2007). In some countries, national platforms have not yet been established due to lack of resources, limited capacities, institutional structures or legal foundation. The Cancun Adaptation Framework was adopted in 2010, and is aimed at enhancing action on adaptation, and has resulted in the preparation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) by many countries (Doswald & Estrella, 2015). The following section discusses Eco-DRR and related policies from the countries selected. Policies reviewed in a number of the sampled countries indicate the absence of government organisations or agencies to regulate and manage ecosystem services and of institutional structures and services. In countries such as Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Namibia, DRR policies have as their main goal to protect life and property of citizens through proactive and sound disaster risk management that links disaster related activities such as prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery to the national development process. A general observation in policies within the sampled countries is that they lack institutional and inter-institutional integration. There is absence of mainstreaming of activities that will foster fulfilling the gap by bringing instruments and institutional frameworks to solve existing and real environmental and biodiversity problems. The policies also do not deliberately mention institutional capacity and the technical capacity of various institutions dealing with biodiversity, even issues related to inspection and environmental monitoring. Some of the policies, however, mention the need to address emerging issues such as wildfires, climate change and human–animal conflicts.

4.3.1 Ethiopia Ethiopia is one of the most disaster-affected nations in Africa. The risk profile of the country includes susceptibility to drought, floods, human epidemics, livestock diseases, crop pests and forest and bush fires. Alarmingly this risk profile and the pressures they place on communities, their livelihoods and the environment is expected to increase with changes in climate (Tadege, 2007). As a pro-active measure, the Ethiopia government has recently (2013) developed a new policy to guide disaster risk management activities within the country (Fanta, 2015). This policy covers a wide range of issues including (but not limited to) the development of comprehensive disaster risk management systems, early warning and disaster assessment information informed response, disaster declaration systems and processes, decentralised disaster risk management, mainstreaming of disaster risk management into sectoral institutions and the importance of cross-cutting issues (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2013). This policy emphasises the commitment to change the country’s approach to disaster risk management from a narrow response orientation to a more holistic risk reduction approach. To this end, the incorporation of cross-cutting issues as a strategic part of the policy recognises that if risk is to be reduced activities must be implemented in such a way that that they can contribute to environmental protection, sustainable development and climate change adaptation. To realise the effort of integrating and addressing cross-cutting issues through DRR, Ethiopia’s disaster management policy has identified lead sector agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy and given these departments 21

the responsibility to not only take responsibility for leading hazard specific risk reduction efforts, but also to integrate their everyday activities within the broader scope of disaster management (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2013; Fanta, 2015). Ethiopia has also established an Environmental Policy of Ethiopia to manage the country’s environment and natural resources. The overall policy goal is “to improve and enhance the health and quality of life of all Ethiopians and to promote sustainable social and economic development through the sound management and use of natural, human-made and cultural resources and the environment as a whole so as to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1997). Key to achieving this goal is integrated and cross-sectoral management of environmental resources. Specifically the policy identifies that natural resource and environmental management should be integrated laterally across all sectors and vertically among all levels of organisation. This implies that related fields of work such as sustainable development, disaster management and climate change adaptation should also integrate concepts and policies that promote environment and resource management (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1997). Crucially, the policy also recognises the need for integrating crosssectoral and sectoral federal, regional and local policies and strategies to achieve the outcomes of the policy. This therefore recognises the need for the integration of sustainable development, disaster management and climate change adaptation into the day-to-day function of the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia, as this type of integration will allow the organisation to holistically address socio-ecological problems (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1997).

4.3.2 Kenya The Kenyan Government recognises the importance of natural resources and the environment in general, and has put in place a wide range of policies and institutional and legislative frameworks to address the major causes of environmental degradation and the negative impacts on ecosystems arising from economic and industrial development programmes (UN, 2014). The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) was enacted in 1999 to provide the framework for environmental management and conservation. EMCA established the National Environment Management Authority, Public Complaints Committee, National Environment Tribunal, National Environment Action Plan Committee and County Environment Committees (NEMA Kenya, 2016). The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) was established to be the principal instrument of government tasked with implementing all policies relating to the environment, and to provide supervisions and coordination over all matters relating to the environment (NEMA Kenya, 2016). NEMA is part of the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, but as the management of environmental affairs requires a multi-sectoral approach, several other government agencies are also involved: Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation; Ministry of Water Development; Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife; and the Ministry of Agriculture (UN, 2014). NEMA develops regulations, issues guidelines, and prescribes measures and standards for the management and conservation of natural resources and the environment, and is also the Designated National Authority for certain Multilateral Environmental Agreements (NEMA Kenya, 2016). The government also developed a strategy called Vision 2030, which aims to attain a “nation living in a clean, secure and sustainable environment” driven by the principles of sustainable development. This aims to achieve sustainable growth, and is based on the three pillars of political, social and economic advancement, with environmental considerations falling within the social and economic pillar. Like all African countries, Kenya is a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and has been implementing other international development treaties such as Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that cater to sustainable development and environmental development (UN, 2014). The legislative and institutional frameworks on DRR in Kenya are still felt to be inadequate, as there are only multiple sectoral acts and regulations but nothing that comprehensively oversees disaster management across the country (IFRC, 2012). The country has developed a draft National Policy for Disaster Management in Kenya (2009), which seeks to shift the country from short-term responses to longer-term preparedness and the integration of DRR into development strategies.

22

4.3.3 Namibia The Namibian Constitution is linked to the founding of the Namibian state. The Constitution was adopted on the 9 February 1990, and on the 21 March 1990, Namibia became politically independent, with a basic legal framework drafted by the Constituent Assembly of Namibia (Ruppel & Ruppel-Schlichting, 2013). A major forerunner for Eco-DRR within Namibia is the biodiversity related laws of the Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1975. This legislation governs the holistic conservation of protected areas and wildlife. In the year 1996, amendments to this ordinance were made and came into effect. This included the amendment to take the establishment of conservancies and Wildlife Councils into account (Ruppel & Ruppel-Schlichting, 2013). In Namibia, a wide number of acts have had either a direct or indirect impact on the environment such as the Environmental Framework legislation, Environmental Management Act, the Nature Conservation Ordinance, the Forest Act or the Water Management Act (Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia, 2012; Ruppel & Ruppel-Schlichting, 2013). The Environmental Management Act of 2007 is an important tool that can be used to further Eco-DRR within Namibia through environmental protection (Commencement of the Environmental Management Act, 2007). The Act gives effect to Article 95 of the Namibian Constitution by establishing the management of the environment and natural resources as well as any responsibilities that this management may have (Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia, 2012). Article 95 stipulates that “the state shall actively promote and maintain the welfare of the people by adopting policies which include the maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilisation of living natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians” (Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia, 2012). Through this Article, Namibia is obliged to promote protection towards the environment as well as sustainable management of any natural resources (Ruppel and Ruppel-Schlichting, 2013). In 2009, the government of Namibia approved the National Disaster Risk Management Policy (Disaster Risk Management, 2011). Stipulations within the National Disaster Risk Management Policy include the improvement of the capacity of Namibia’s early warning system as well as the tracking, monitoring and disseminating of information on certain phenomena that can lead to disasters (Disaster Risk Management, 2011). The policy also emphasises any future plans for disaster risk management through achieving community and organisational resilience. Through achieving this resilience, long-term solutions for reducing disaster risk in Namibia can be promoted. Key policy changes focus on sustainable livelihood practices, and promoting disaster risk reduction among people affected by natural disasters (Disaster Risk Management, 2011).

4.3.4 Madagascar Madagascar regularly faces major natural hazards, namely cyclones/tropical storms, floods, droughts, sea-level rise and locust invasions (da Costa, 2014; Nachmany et al., 2014). Da Costa (2014) characterises the country’s vulnerability to natural disasters as extreme; the country has suffered 46 disasters over the past 35 years, cumulatively affecting over 11 million people and causing damage estimated at US$ 1 billion. It is expected that these events will intensify under climate change (Nachmany et al., 2014). As da Costa (2014) indicates, Madagascar is also one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, especially due to increasing extremes in weather events. Pertaining to biodiversity and ecosystems, Madagascar is a biodiversity hotspot (Nachmany et al., 2014). It is recognised as one of 17 mega-diverse countries worldwide, combining high biodiversity and endemism (World Bank, 2010a). However, Madagascar’s ecosystems are in rapid decline (World Bank, 2010a). Some of the key natural resources of the country have become severely degraded as a result of a dependency on agricultural systems and deforestation (da Costa, 2014). Deforestation is due mainly to clearing for charcoal production and gathering firewood or wood for construction. For instance, it is estimated that 1.2 million hectares of forest was lost between 1990 and 2005, with deforestation continuing at an annual rate of about 40,000 hectares per year between 2000 and 2005 (da Costa, 2014). On the other hand, the practice of tavy (the slash-and-burn method of agricultural cultivation), uncontrolled bush fires, illegal commercial exploitation of precious woods, and mining activities, pose huge challenges to the country’s environmental management systems (da Costa, 2014). These challenges are a potent mix for disasters to become a major threat in the country (da Costa, 2014; Nachmany et al., 2014). 23

However, significant efforts have been made to improve conservation and governance of natural resources, since the adoption of an integrated environmental protection policy agenda in 1990 by the Madagascar government supported by international development partners and conservation NGOs (World Bank, 2010a). As such, Madagascar has laws and policies on environmental management, including the Environmental Charter, which contains an annex detailing national policy on the subject (da Costa, 2014). In addition, Madagascar’s national strategic framework for climate change adaptation is contained in the National Climate Change Policy (2010) and the National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) (2006) (Nachmany et al., 2014). The National Climate Change Policy aims to promote a national response to reduce the vulnerability of the country to climate change. It has five elements: promoting adaptation; promoting mitigation; integrating climate change at all levels; developing funding instruments; and promoting research, development and technology transfer and adaptive management (Nachmany et al., 2014). Parallel to the environmental and climate change policies, Madagascar has two key laws dealing with disaster risk management: Law No. 2003-010, of 5 September 2003, on the national policy on disaster risk management and Decree No. 2005-866, of 20 December 2005, which provides detailed rules for the application of the 2003 DRM Law. These laws apply at all levels of government, and their focus is on preparedness, response and recovery (da Costa, 2014). According to the laws, risk management and disaster response fits into the overall framework of activities relating to civil protection and security. The guiding principles are: guarantee the protection of the population and of the environment; improve the resilience of the population in cases of risks and catastrophes; and develop conditions to reduce the vulnerability of the population (Nachmany et al., 2014). Beyond the legal framework on DRM, a much more detailed policy document is the “National Strategy for Risk and Disaster Management”, which was prepared in 2003, but never officially adopted (da Costa, 2014). Indications are that the strategy is currently being reviewed. Madagascar has an approved National Development Plan 2008 that mentions disaster risk reduction as a priority. The country has taken serious steps towards the integration of prevention of disasters and reduction of risks. The National Action Programme for Adaptation – NAPA 2006 aims to empower the country to adopt urgent and immediate adaptation measures, addressing the adverse effects of climate change. The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) 1989 is a long-term investment programme divided into three phases aiming to improve human living conditions through the protection of areas and better management of natural resources, promotion of environmental education, improvement of policy and management, and establishment of mechanisms for monitoring the environment.

4.3.5 Malawi Malawi is prone to human-made and natural disasters that include floods, drought, strong winds, stormy rains, hailstorms, earthquakes, landslides, pest infestations, fire and diseases outbreaks (Government of Malawi, 2015). The frequency and intensity of these has been increasing under the influence of climate change, population growth, urbanisation and environmental degradation (Government of Malawi, 2015). The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy II (MGDS II) 2011–2016, which is the overarching medium-term strategy for Malawi, is designed to attain Malawi’s long-term development aspirations. The Strategy acknowledges that natural resources are under constant pressure from unprecedented human, industrial and other developmental activities, as well as climate change (Government of Malawi, 2011). The strategy further links the degradation of natural resources to the occurrence of natural hazards and indicates that this is compounded by increased climate variations experienced in the form of prolonged dry spells, droughts, intense rainfall, floods and temperature variability. This in turn negatively affects the performance of sectors such as agriculture, forestry, natural resources, water and irrigation, infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, transport, trade and tourism (Government of Malawi, 2011). Disaster risk management is one of the six themes of the Strategy. In this regard, the Strategy highlights the relationship between disasters and the environment and indicates that poor households, particularly femaleheaded households, are more vulnerable to disasters. Women tend to rely more on the environment for food and are the primary gatherers of water and firewood. Thus, Malawi recognises the importance of addressing disaster risks for the socio-economic development of the country. The main policy for DRR in Malawi is the National Disaster Risk Management Policy of 2015. The main objective of the policy is to ensure that disaster risk management is integrated in development planning by all sectors in the country. The policy acknowledges that the increasing impact of disasters on lives, livelihoods, and economic and environmental assets continues to pose a significant threat to the nation’s ability to come out of poverty. It is 24

anticipated that the implementation of the policy will significantly reduce the social, economic and environmental impacts of disasters. This is because the policy is linked to other legislative frameworks and strategies including the Malawi Constitution, Environment Management Act of 1996, the Forestry Act of 1997, the Water Resources Act of 1969 and the Town and Country Planning Act of 1988. So to a large extent the policies and strategic frameworks of Malawi address Eco-DRR. The Malawi Draft National Climate Change Policy Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Management (2013) draws clear differences between Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the country. These two fields have the potential to benefit if policies combined them to address natural disasters in general and those related to climate change in particular. Combining the two into a single long-term policy framework would provide greater benefits by preventing duplication of efforts. The country has also a Growth and Development Plan that includes disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. The National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA), the main guiding document that the Malawi Government has developed on Climate Change, identified five priority activities to address Malawi’s urgent adaptation needs to climate change and extreme weather events for vulnerable communities (Government of Malawi, 2011). The country also has an enabling policy framework in the National Environmental Policy (NEP) and the Environmental Management Act (EMA) of 1996 for biodiversity issues (Environmental Affairs Department, 2006). The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) of Malawi outlines the status of the various biodiversity resources. It also stipulates strategies and actions necessary to ensure the management and sustainable utilisation of biodiversity (Environmental Affairs Department, 2006). Strategic guidance for the implementation is enshrined in the country’s constitution. Stakeholder participation in biodiversity conservation is also recognised, including the need to harmonise sectoral policies and legislation in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Environmental Affairs Department, 2006). Malawi has passed a Disaster Preparedness and Relief Act / 1991 and a National Disaster Management Plan has existed since 1997 (Government of Malawi, 2015). The country has a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2015–2025) being implemented by the Environmental Affairs Department, Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining. The strategy aims to enhance Malawi’s conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for the environment and human well-being. This strategy is a key element in ensuring that biodiversity contributes significantly to economic development and poverty alleviation in Malawi.

4.3.6 Mozambique In 1980, the Coordinating Council for Preventing and Combating Natural Disasters was created. This was replaced in 1999 by the National Disaster Management Institute (INGC), which falls under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (GFDRR, 2014). According to PreventionWeb (2016) this entity manages the “day-to-day matters relating to disasters”. The Disaster Management Policy (Government of Mozambique, 1999) introduced early warning systems, community involvement and fund allocation. This was based on principles that incorporated communities in the development and management of activities, assessed risks, allowed for better coordination, and utilised multi-sectoral capacities (GFDRR, 2014). The National Disaster Management Policy focused on disaster prevention and preparedness, and sought for their integration within the overall development framework of the country; including the institution of 588 local committees called Comités Locais de Gestão de Risco de Calamidades (CLGRC) distributed all over the country. The 5-year Development Plan of the Government incorporates DRR making links between poverty, disaster and vulnerability. A National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) regarding climate change is regularly updated. The Master Plan for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Disasters (2006–2014) was the reference for disaster risk management (GFDRR, 2014) until the Disaster Management Law of Mozambique No. 15 was passed in 2014. This new comprehensive disaster law covers aspects such as prevention, mitigation of effects, development of relief operations, and recovery of the affected areas (Negrussie, 2014). It institutes the legal framework for disaster management, which includes prevention and mitigation of the negative effects, the development of rescue and assistance operations, and the recovery and reconstruction of the affected areas (FAOLEX, 2014). It is stated that the operations should be executed in a decentralised manner, in the affected territories by those public administration organs. The Law is presented in the following chapters: (1) general provisions, (2) preventing and mitigating measures, (3) alerting system, (4) disaster management system, (5) requisition and procurement of goods and services, (6) special protection of areas and people, and (7) final provisions (FAOLEX, 2014).1 This Law obligates every stakeholder and sector to play an active part in disaster risk management. 1

The details of this law are available in Portuguese at this web address: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/moz134835.pdf

25

In January 2015, the new President of Mozambique came into power and appointed new Ministries. An important change in terms of the threat of food security has been the development of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, replacing the Ministry of Agriculture. This inclusion of food security highlights Mozambique’s commitment to the issues at hand (Sulila, 2015). The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MASA) is responsible for the management, conservation and protection of the resources that are essential to agricultural activities. This involves the implementation of policies with respect to land management, agricultural water use, livestock, wildlife and forestry. Within the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG), lies the National Directorate of Land and Forestry (DNFT), which is responsible for implementing national land policy, activities relating to land registration and surveying (Golder, 2014). The Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters and Fisheries is responsible for coordinating and ensuring the implementation of strategies and policies with respect to these important resources, which a large proportion of the population depend on for food security. Numerous Acts are in place to protect and sustainably utilise these valuable resources. The Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA) is responsible for the implementation of environmental policy and for the planning and use of natural resources in the country. It is the job of this ministry to promote sustainable development and use of renewable and non-renewable natural resources, and to propose strategies and policies for environmental development. MICOA works with the National Environmental Impact Assessment Directorate (DNAIA), which is responsible for environmental management, licensing, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, the review of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), the monitoring of impacts, and the strategic environmental evaluation of plans, programmes and policies (Golder, 2014). The Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development (MITADER) was created by combining the three public institutions. The Government of Mozambique has been committed to the REDD+ agenda since 2008, and in recent years has increased REDD+ Readiness by strengthening employment, creating a national steering committee and preparing a national strategy.

4.3.7 South Africa South Africa has developed a relatively strong set of policies and legislative frameworks in order to conserve its biodiversity. The National Environment Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) underlies all environmental impact assessment (EIA) and management (Jenner & Balmforth, 2015). The NEMA states that disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity should be avoided or, where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and remedied (Republic of South Africa, 1998). Environmental authorisations and waste management licenses are issued in terms of the NEMA by the Minister of Mineral Resources. The NEMA clearly spells out the principle of the “polluter pays”. Regulations promulgated in 2014 under NEMA further state that “A holder (of a mining permit) must determine and make financial provision for the rehabilitation and management of negative environmental impacts from prospecting, exploration, mining or production operations to the satisfaction of the Minister responsible for mineral resources.” The NEMA was followed in 2003 by the Protected Areas Act (PAA), which allowed non-State lands to become protected areas, and in 2004 by the Biodiversity Act (BA), which allowed for the listing of threatened and protected ecosystems. These pieces of legislation were complemented by existing and new taxation legislation that support tax breaks for certain environmental conservation activities, and by the 1998 Water Act, which imposes a duty of care on landowners to ensure water sources are not polluted. An important non-legislative framework is the Development and Environment Association (DEA)’s Biodiversity Stewardship South Africa Programme (BSSA). This piece of non-legislative framework covers the concept of using non-state actors to fulfil state objectives to conserve biodiversity, and the South African National Biodiversity Institute’s (SANBI) regularly updated National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) (Jenner & Balmforth, 2015). The NBA is a scientifically robust assessment of the relative threat and protection status of all ecosystem types across South Africa. The NBA is a valuable resource for identifying trends in biodiversity status; potential optimum offset locations and “no go areas” for development. Two of South Africa’s nine provinces (Western Cape and KwaZuluNatal) have developed their own offsetting schemes and guidelines, based on the national legal frameworks that do exist, on data from the NBAs and on additional fine-scale provincial biodiversity assessments and plans (Jenner & Balmforth, 2015). The averted loss offsets form the basis of provincial offset systems focusing on the conservation of 26

Table 4: Legislative arrangements relative to Eco-DRR in South Africa STATUTORY ELEMENT

MAIN FOCUS

CONTRIBUTION TO ECO-DRR

White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity (1997).

To ensure the conservation, sustainable use and fair and equitable sharing of biological diversity. Six objectives are derived from this aim, mainly including that biological resources and ecosystems are protected and sustainably maintained to meet basic human needs, and ensuring sustainable economic development.

The White Paper addresses integrated approaches from the Constitution Act and NEMA, by providing an environment for people that is not harmful to them, and to protect the environment by preventing pollution and ecological degradation, promote the conservation of biodiversity and fragile ecosystems, and lastly to ensure sustainable socio-ecological and socio-economic development.

National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA).

Provides for co-operative governance through the establishment of procedures and principles to guide decision makers in matters that affect the environment. This act further enables to effectively address integrated environmental management and co-operative governance. Principles addressed in this act include environmental protection, sustainable development, co-operative governance and accountability amongst many others.

NEMA calls for integrated approaches in terms of government sectors and in terms of environmental management. It furthermore makes provision for environmental protection and sustainable development through the effective identification of impacts on the environment and providing alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the impacts associated with the environment.

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) (NPAA).

Provides a framework for the management, conservation and the protection of ecosystems. Furthermore, it strives to provide for co-operative governance, sustainable management, the utilisation of protected areas and promote public participation in the management thereof for the benefit of the people.

The NPPA requires for co-operative governance in the identification, declaration and management of protected areas through a national system. It provides the strategy to manage, conserve and protect the protected areas and its biodiversity to the benefit of the country and its people.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NBA).

The NBA, within the framework of NEMA, ensures the conservation and sustainable management of the country’s biodiversity and its ecosystems and protected areas. It provides for the equitable sharing and sustainable use of indigenous biological resources and provide for co-operative governance in the conservation and the management thereof. It furthermore provides a framework for the identification, planning and the monitoring of biological resources.

The NBA calls for co-operative governance in firstly identifying protected areas and fragile ecosystems, and secondly to ensure that these biological resources are being conserved and effectively managed. It also provides guidance on the risks that might potentially threaten biodiversity, and how these threats should be administered and managed to ensure the sustainable management of the country’s biodiversity.

National Biodiversity Strategy Provides the plan to achieve the Johannesburg Plan of and Action Plan (2005) (NBSAP). Implementation, the Millennium Development Goals and to reduce the loss in the country’s biodiversity. This plan includes the strategic objectives and outcomes, to ensure the conservation and the management of biodiversity, and the equitable and sustainable use thereof to the benefits of the country, and to ensure a sustainable environment for future generations.

The NBSAP calls for an integrated national biodiversity framework. This Plan provides 5 strategic objectives to conserve and manage the biodiversity of South Africa. It also ensures the sustainable and equitable distribution and utilisation thereof. The objectives to reach this include: a legislative framework promoting the management of biodiversity into the economy, co-operative governance, integrated management of ecosystems to reduce the threats thereto, creating a network of conservation areas and ensuring sustainable development to enhance the well-being of people.

National Biodiversity Framework (2008) (NBF)

To provide an integrated and coordinated framework to conserve the country’s biodiversity and ensure sustainable development. The NBF builds on the NBSAP and NBA, focusing on immediate priorities in terms of conservation and sustainable development.

Calls for integrated and coordinated approaches to focus on immediate strategies to conserve and manage the biodiversity over a short-medium term. The framework also requires that roles and responsibilities are given to key stakeholders in implementing these strategies.

National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (2008)

Provides the strategy to ensure that the expansion of protected areas is done cost-effectively, ensuring increased resilience towards climate change and the sustainable management of socio-ecological systems.

The strategy provides for the identification and expansion of protected areas in a sustainable manner, through suggested mitigation measures, and provides targets to reach the expansion of protected areas. The targets of this strategy align with the related policy and legislative frameworks to effectively expand protected areas, ensure that the biodiversity and ecosystems are conserved and sustainable managed.

National Disaster Management Act (Act 57 of 2002) (DMA)

To ensure the development of an integrated and coordinated disaster management policy that focuses on preventing or reducing the risk of disasters, mitigating the severity of disasters, emergency preparedness, rapid and effective response to disasters and post-disaster recovery; the establishment of national, provincial and municipal disaster management centres; and disaster management volunteers.

Calls for integrated approaches across government sectors, including environmental issues. Requires the identification and establishment of disaster risk reduction focal points in all ministries that are responsible for aligning their core activities to disaster risk reduction.

National Disaster Management Framework (2005) (NDMF)

An integrated and coordinated policy for disaster risk reduction, in which the main emphasis is on disaster risk reduction and certain aspects of post-disaster recovery.

The NDMF makes provision for the inclusion of ecological and environmental assessment methods, as well as environmental health assessment as types of disaster risk assessments. It emphasises addressing multiple vulnerabilities through the continuity of protective environmental services.

critical biodiversity areas, meeting biodiversity targets, preventing ecosystems dropping below “endangered” status and arresting the decline of species and “special habitats”. This is done to deal with the pressure for economic development for South Africa, which is still a country with systemic poverty, and partly because ecologists view many habitats in South Africa as impossible to restore. The Western Cape (WC) and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) have the most publicly accessible biodiversity offset guidelines and are also the most biodiverse provinces, particularly in terms of flora, most of which lies outside protected areas. In the Western Cape Province for instance, a notable facet of its guidelines is the use of the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM in addition to the 2004 National Biodiversity Act’s Threatened and Protected Species regulations, since the latter does not take into account species threatened by habitat transformation or invasive species (Jenner & Balmforth, 2015). 27

4.3.8 Uganda The overall policy framework for disaster risk management in Uganda is the National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management of 2010. The policy recognises that increasing vulnerabilities related to changing demographics, technological and socio-economic conditions, unplanned urbanisation, development within high-risk zones, under-development, environmental degradation, climate variability, climate change, geological hazards, competition for scarce resources, and the impact of epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, points to a future where disasters could increasingly threaten Uganda’s economy, and its population. The main thrust of this policy is to make disaster management an integral part of the development process. The policy also recognises the effects of climate change, and calls for proactive actions to be undertaken to reduce the causes and the negative impacts of climate change through the development of adaptation and mitigation measures. The policy further acknowledges challenges such as environmental degradation exemplified by overgrazing, destructive tilling practices on sloping landscapes, monoculture, unguided and uncontrolled use of fertilisers and pesticides, bush burning, overfishing, deforestation. Therefore, to some extent the DRR policy in Uganda incorporates an ecosystem-based approach towards addressing disaster risk. Uganda’s climate change policy goal is to ensure a harmonised and coordinated approach towards a climate resilient and low carbon development path for sustainable development (Republic of Uganda National Climate Change Policy, 2012). The main objective of the policy is to ensure that all stakeholders (national and local levels) address climate change impacts and their causes through appropriate measures. The policy also promotes sustainable development and a green economy. UNEP, UNDP and IUCN (2014) have reported that adapting to Climate Change in Mountain Ecosystems in Uganda has shown that increasing temperature and rainfall are impacting the intensity and occurrences of hazards in mountain areas, including floods and landslides. In turn, these hazards threaten health, food security and the economic development potential of the people. Enhancing ecological services, such as catchment and natural resource management, could reduce such vulnerabilities and enhance livelihoods. The Mountain EbA Programme in Uganda has demonstrated that the implementation of soil and water conservation strategies like contour trenches has proven to be very effective (UNEP, UNDP and IUCN, 2014). Immediate results include the reduction of impacts of soil erosion and floods. Only six months after the implementation of the Mountain EbA Programme, combined with other good management practices on farms, a clear and visible difference between those implementing climate resilient measures and those not emerged. The differences were in terms of quantity and quality of crops and yields. Uganda was chosen as one of three pilot sites for implementing the mountain EbA programme, for its representative social and environmental conditions, which will enable replication and up scaling in other areas. The pilot programme in Uganda has served as an example that will support development of a framework for implementation (UNEP, UNDP and IUCN, 2014). The Uganda Natural Environment Management Agency (NEMA, 2011) report clearly outlines that Uganda, like most other countries, has management objectives and policies in place that have direct or indirect impacts on biodiversity. However, biodiversity-relevant policies and management are scattered through a wide variety of sectors and many do not include clear objectives or targets. Management policies include national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAP), protected areas system plans and endangered species action plans and legislation. Relevant policies in natural resource management sectors include wildlife policy, national forest plans, fisheries policies, water policies, land-use plans and environmental impact legislation. The Uganda National Development Plan 2010/11–2014/15 mainstreams climate change into the development plans, policies and budgets of all sectors. The UNISDR (2012) reported that the Uganda National Disaster Preparedness and Management Policy was approved by Cabinet in April 2011, which makes Uganda the only country in the Greater Horn of Africa with an approved DRR policy. The move demonstrates the clear commitment of the Government of Uganda to implement the five priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) and now SFA. The Government of Uganda has also progressed significantly in assessing all of their laws (Van Niekerk, 2015a) in terms of disaster risk reduction with the aim of developing a new Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Bill (Van Niekerk, 2015b). Thus the country ensures that disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation. The disaster preparedness and management and the health and environment sectors make provisions to tackle climate change in Uganda. The forest, land, water and energy sectors’ regulatory frameworks are also compatible with the climate change policy. In other sectors, effective implementation of the policy requires alignment with existing legal instruments. Some institutions focus on climate change, with somewhat different roles in a national coordination function (UNISDR, 2012). 28

4.3.9 Zambia Zambia’s Disaster Management Act, passed in April 2010, gives legal power over disaster management and disaster risk reduction to the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU) within the Office of the Vice-President (Government of Zambia, 2015a). Although strengthening capabilities for disaster early warning systems within the Zambian Meteorological Department is repeatedly mentioned in official climate change documents, for example the National Climate Change and Development Council, it is not clear what the coordination mechanism between the DMMU and the proposed institutions for coordinating climate change activities will be. Given the clear overlaps between disaster management and adaptation, it is important that the DMMU coordinates closely with the Climate Change Facilitation Unit (CFFU) and any future institutional arrangements such as the National Climate Change and Development Council outlined in the NCCRS, and that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. The CBD’s Fifth National Report (Government of Zambia, 2015b) revealed that Zambia is participating in the UNREDD Quick start programme, and had developed a national REDD+ strategy in 2010. The participation aimed at building capacity enabling the country to access international funding for REDD+ activities and reduce its deforestation rate (currently 250,000 – 300,000 ha annually, mostly for biomass and charcoal production). Zambia has a history of community-based resource management and has a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project. The Designated National Authority for the CDM is housed in the Ministry of Tourism (ZAWA, 2015). In the agricultural sector, climate adaptation includes diversification of cropping, water-saving techniques, small-scale irrigation schemes especially if linked to micro-hydro dams, and the further development of systems for seasonal forecasting and the dissemination of such forecasts. Micro-insurance schemes also hold potential to protect smallholder farmers from drought losses. The current focus, through initiatives such as the World Bank funded Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), is on mainstreaming climate change into national and sectoral planning, which is the preferable approach, instead of funding stand-alone projects. However, the lack of effective enforcement presents the key challenge facing implementation of the National Environment Protection (NEP) and Environment Management Agency (EMA). One example is that cultivation along riverbanks to meet food security has eroded stability of river ecosystems, leading to changes in river courses that have resulted in frequent floods. Actual implementation of policies and legislative reform is stalled or deadlocked as legal mechanisms have yet to be developed. Most agreements have to be negotiated with the ministry concerned on a case by case basis.

4.3.10 Zimbabwe Disaster management in Zimbabwe takes a holistic approach, as it incorporates sectors at risk within the government. The protection of each sector that is at risk within the country is supported by existing statutory instruments (Bongo et al., 2013). A conducive environment for the establishment of disaster management within its government was created, which is key for conceptualising institutional frameworks, appropriate policy development and legislation regarding DRR (Majoni, 2015). The above were provided by both the National Conservation Strategy of 1987, which was the first policy document that incorporated both sustainable development as well as environmental management (Bongo et al., 2013; Majoni, 2015), and the Zimbabwe Civil Protection Act of 1989, where the government initiated disaster reduction measures, as it was stated that, as national policy for civil protection, each citizen should assist in limiting the effects of disaster (Bongo et al., 2013). A few priority components of the 1989 Civil Protection Act that enabled its implementation included the organisational structure of civil protection in Zimbabwe from the Local Authority level to the National level, the component of planning for emergencies and disasters as well as the establishment of a Civil Protection Disaster Fund, to name but a few components (Wisner, 2004). Furthermore, the government of Zimbabwe engaged in a legislation review process from 1995 to enhance and strengthen their disaster risk reduction efforts. The end result of this review process culminated in a bill for consideration of the parliament in 2004 (Wisner, 2004). This bill included: The repeal of the Civil Protection Act to be replaced by the Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Management Act; to establish an emergency preparedness and disaster management authority to develop a DRR strategy; to establish an integrated early warning system; to integrate DRR into all development initiatives; standardise emergency services training; to establish a funding mechanism for DRR at local and national levels; and to increase the capacity of the local authorities to be able to manage disasters (Wisner, 2004).

29

A further statutory instrument incorporated by the Zimbabwean government was the Environment Management Act in 2002, which provided the basis for the establishment of the Environmental Management Agency (Government of Zimbabwe, 2003; Government of Zimbabwe, 2004). The Environmental Management Agency is responsible for “the formulation of quality standards on air, water, soil, noise, vibration, radiation and waste management” as well as “assisting and participating in any matters pertaining to the management of the environment” (Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association, 2003). The new National Environmental Policy, which was drawn up in the year 2003, is still in its second draft form and thus not yet in effect. Therefore, the National Environmental Policy of 1997 is still in use in conjunction with the Environmental Management Act of 2002 (Government of Zimbabwe, 2003).

5. ECO-DRR EXPERIENCES IN THE REGION This report has shown the importance and relevance of Eco-DRR. The IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events recommends investing in ecosystems, sustainable land management and ecosystem restoration and management when conceptualising and implementing disaster risk reduction plans (IPCC, 2012). This is necessary to ensure that any natural resources from the ecosystem as well as the environment itself do not become degraded in any way during disaster response or reconstruction. The main objective of this assessment of East and Southern Africa is to collect and review regional information and experiences on ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and to deduce any links associated with biodiversity. The case studies used for this assessment implemented the fundamental groundings of EcoDRR, which include conservation, restoration, and sustainable management, either as one of the main focus points of the case study or as an indirect result of the study goals. The following reviews the overall situation and experiences on Eco-DRR in East and Southern Africa.

5.1 Implementation of Eco-DRR in the region In recent decades, the world has experienced unprecedented biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, undermining the very foundations of life on Earth (UNDP, 2012). If climatic conditions or very specific habitat conditions change beyond the tolerance of the specific species inhabiting the ecosystem, significant losses of biodiversity could result. Although the species involved could have some capacity to adapt, in an increasingly intensively used world the probability of finding sufficient areas of suitable habitat in a new location are declining. The loss of ecosystems and biodiversity is a challenge for all countries within the African region and especially for countries with scarce resources. The sampled countries are committed to playing their part in responding to disaster risk challenges, as is reflected in the case studies presented in this section of the report. It again emphasises that human survival and well-being depend upon biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, and the goods and services they provide. Implementing DRR strategies to reduce disaster risk does not usually focus on the ecological aspects. This may leave the ecosystem and any potential natural resources vulnerable to degradation after the implementation of these strategies, which could include numerous reconstructions or infrastructural modifications. To ensure that the environment, biodiversity and the ecosystem as a whole are incorporated within the DRR strategies, the concept of Eco-DRR must be embodied. The concepts of Eco-DRR are widely accepted as a best practice to ensure a reduction in the disaster risk profile within the context of the East and Southern African countries. Most of the population living within these regions are dependent on the natural resources from the environment for their livelihoods. Eco-DRR strategies provide effective ways in which the disaster risk of both the environment and the people living within it can be managed. The Second Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Africa in April 2010 endorsed the Programme of Action that highlighted the need to continue working on DRR including a focus on ecosystems (UNDP, 2012). The conference made a declaration to address the need for strengthening regional institutions and capacity development and increasing investments in DRR (UNISDR, 2010b). Climate change is inevitable and it is acknowledged that the world’s poor will be disproportionately harmed by these expected changes. High levels of social and economic vulnerability, and high levels of exposure to environmental risks plague the poorer communities (ACDI, 2016). The ability of these communities to recover from and adapt to these impacts is often very limited. This holds true for most, if not all, countries in Southern 30

and Eastern Africa. To increase the resilience and decrease the vulnerability of these communities, specific adaptation measures are needed. They will be better equipped to deal with and recover from disaster if certain aspects of survival, such as food security, are more stable in the face of a changing climate. The following case studies aim to illustrate how the protection and conservation of certain natural ecosystems can greatly assist communities in coping with the onset of certain disasters that they are prone to in that region. In these case studies, the concepts of Eco-DRR were or are being integrated to ensure that the security of the environment and biodiversity are kept intact, whilst reducing disaster risks and managing the causal factors of the disaster. The aim is to show that by creating a more stable arena in which these communities secure their livelihoods, some of the catastrophic, and ultimately expensive, outcomes of natural disasters can be prevented or at least alleviated.

5.1.1 Use of Crop Wild Relatives (CWR) to increase food security under changing climatic conditions (Mauritius, Zambia and South Africa) DRR Issue: Climate change and food security.

Link to biodiversity/ecosystems:

Outcomes: • • • •

Mitigate impact of climate change. Enhanced food security. Contributed to conservation. More adaptive agricultural species.

Reduction of traditional crops due to a changing climate.

Ecosystems based approach: Agricultural conservation; climate smart agriculture; utilisation of biodiversity; ecosystem preservation.

Lessons: • Consider CWRs in policy formulation • Capacity development, knowledge transfer and policy development is key to success. • CWR not actively identified as valuable and this lead to habitat loss through urban development. • Need to identify CWR hotspots.

The biggest threats to global food security are the increasing demand for food products and the “unprecedented abiotic stresses that crops face due to climate change” (Redden et al, 2015). The genetic material that the wild relatives of domestic crops hold have the potential to be used in the development of new and improved crop varieties that could be more resilient and adaptive (CWR Diversity, 2016), thereby enhancing food security. Crop wild relative (CWR) species, which are genetically related to cultivated crops (Bioversity International, 2016), grow across a wide range of habitats which include grasslands, deserts, mountains, rainforests and salt marshes, and have evolved a number of different strategies for surviving under such diverse climatic conditions. The use of such genetic traits could be invaluable in the face of an ever-changing climate (CWR Diversity, 2016). It is expected that climate change will lead to increased growing season temperatures, increased severity and frequency of droughts, increased salinity of soils in coastal areas, and add to the spread of diseases and pests (CWR Diversity, 2016). CWR could help adapt to these threats. These wild species have been used since the beginnings of agriculture to improve yields, nutritional quality, pest and disease resistance and improved tolerance to abiotic stresses (Bioversity International, 2016), and could be key in supporting communities’ food security. This project is a good example of how disaster risk reduction benefits are masked in a climate smart agricultural project. To adapt to these changing climatic conditions in the agricultural sector, a project was launched to “enhance the link between conservation and use of CWR as a means of underpinning regional food security and mitigating the predicted adverse impact of climate change” (SADC Crop Wild Relatives, 2016). This three-year project (2014–2016) is being implemented through the ACP-EU Co-operation Programme in Science and Technology by the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, and co-funded by the European Union. The three countries involved (Mauritius, Zambia and South Africa) are all diversity-rich countries and represent the different eco-geographic areas within the SADC region. The specific objectives of the project are to: •

Enhance scientific capacities to conserve CWR;



Identify potential useful traits to adapt to climate change; and



Develop exemplar National Strategic Action Plans for the use and conservation of CWR. 31

South Africa faces certain challenges when it comes to fully utilising CWR. No real national leadership deals effectively with the coordination of activities between the environmental and agricultural sectors, which means that CWR has not been accounted for during the environmental policy planning process. The conservation of such species has also not been given high priority, and the capacity has been fairly low among national-level scientists with respect to being able to assess the occurrence of CWR and the potential value of utilising them to increase food security. This project aims to overcome the abovementioned challenges in order to fully implement the desired objectives (SADC Crop Wild Relatives, 2016). Two issues are at the heart of this project: the use of CWR for genetic material for the enhanced adaptive capabilities of agricultural species; and the conservation of these CWR, which relates to biodiversity preservation. As these species grow in the wild they are subject to habitat loss through urban expansion and other degradation practices. Since they have not been actively identified as valuable they have not been purposefully conserved, leaving them threatened in some cases. Conserving these wild species is of utmost importance if they are to be used effectively to develop crops with climate-resilient and adapted traits. This genetic diversity can be conserved in two main ways: in situ (in the natural habitat) and ex situ (in seedbanks and gene banks). Ideally, both methods should be applied, and each have their challenges. In situ conservation relates to ecosystem protection and biodiversity preservation, and requires the collaboration between many stakeholders from both the environment community and the agricultural biodiversity community to ensure ecosystem preservation where these plants occur (Dulloo & Thormann, 2015). Capacity building, knowledge transfer and policy development is imperative for this project to be successful. A framework was to be created for prioritising actions such as eco-geographical studies which, when implemented, should enable the identification of germplasm with climate change resilience traits and enable this information to be passed to the farming communities and breeders (ACP Secretariat, 2014). This project is still ongoing (as of 2016), so the data, which could be used to determine whether this approach is showing positive results to climate change adaptation and increased resilience in terms of increased food security and the reduction of vulnerabilities, is limited. However, according to Dulloo and Thormann (2015), this project has worked with partners to train more than 50 scientists in the SADC region on in situ conservation, predictive characterisation and pre-breeding. These three countries have thus been able to prepare comprehensive checklists of CWR species from their countries and are now able to prioritise some of these for in-depth diversity analysis. The next step will be to identify priority hotspot areas that can be conserved. National Strategic Action Plans will be developed in each of these countries, with a view to mainstreaming these into National Biodiversity Action Plans and associated policies (Dulloo & Thormann, 2015) such as environmental management and disaster risk reduction. This project is a prime example of how ecosystem preservation and biodiversity conservation can contribute to increased agricultural resilience and increased food security in the face of a changing climate, and therefore ultimately lead to disaster risk reduction. Although it is too early to compare the results of this project with other conservation agriculture techniques, the economic outcome looks promising. The financial value of this type of conservation and utilisation of natural resources should not be underestimated. According to Dulloo and Thormann (2015) “it has been estimated that the contribution of crop wild relatives to improving food production has an annual value of US$ 155–120 billion worldwide”.

5.1.2 Marine Protected Area management (Madagascar) The Western Indian Ocean region is subjected to climate-related perturbations that are mainly a result of ocean warming. These include changing rainfall patterns, coral bleaching, increasing frequency of extreme weather events and the alteration in stratification and circulation patterns of the ocean currents (Shah & Attwood, 2010). The Nosy Hara Marine Protected Area (MPA) (IUCN PA Management Category II, assigned in 2011) is situated off the north coast of Madagascar, and is the first protected area in this country to incorporate climate change into its management. It is managed jointly by the Malagasy National Authority for Protected Areas as well as other conservation bodies such as WWF. The main aim is to “build a resilient MPA as a tool for increasing socio-ecological resilience to climate change in the region” (Rakotondrazafy & Fischborn, 2014). This area specifically is of high ecological significance and the natural resources it harbours ensure the livelihoods of the local communities who practise fishing and subsistence farming (Rakotondrazafy & Fischborn, 2014). It has been identified as a critically important site for biodiversity conservation in Madagascar, and is made up of offshore islands, that harbour endangered marine species, critical coral reef habitat, mangrove and seagrass systems (Raherindray, 2016). 32

The Malagasy fishing communities rely heavily on coral reef fisheries and will likely be severely disadvantaged by degradation and coral bleaching (Ralison, 2010). It is imperative that this valuable resource be protected for food security, which in turn increases the resilience of the community in the face of disaster. Mangrove forests are tremendously important and provide vital breeding habitat for shrimps and fish species, provide timber for construction and wood for fuel, store significant amounts of carbon, and provide physical protection from storm surges. Again, it is vital that this resource be protected and preserved, as it aids food supply and physically protects the coastline from the damaging effects of sea level rise and wave action during cyclones. Both of these contribute favourably to the increased resilience of the local coastal community. The management of this area incorporated several measures. To reduce vulnerability and improve resilience by implementing environmentally sound adaptation, certain adaptation options were identified and prioritised. Adaptation measures that could provide multi-benefits with the lowest cost and associated risks were prioritised. These included: • Mangrove restoration (important for coastal protection and thus disaster risk reduction); • Marine turtle nursery; • Closure of fishing areas (those still resilient or starting to be at risk); and • Other alternative livelihoods (such as sheep rearing, promoting climate-resilient crops and building water supplies) were identified to build economic resilience. It is suggested by Ralison (2010) that flexible and adaptive management approaches, based on science and combined with “effective monitoring of well-identified indicators, will result in the successful conservation of marine biodiversity and the natural resources”. It is clear that if nothing is done to protect and manage these valuable resources the coastal communities will be left very vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and will be less able to cope should disaster strike. This coastal ecosystem is paramount to their survival and every effort should be made to conserve it. The inclusion of a focus on the effects of climate change into the management of the conservation area ensures a direct management directive and shows political will to effect change.

5.1.3 Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB) in wetlands (South Africa) DRR Issue:

Outcomes:

Floods, drought, diseases

Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Reduction of traditional crops due to a changing climate.

• • • • • •

Natural flood protection Carbon sinks CBRNM. Local skills and capacity development. Employment. Public awareness.

Lessons:

Ecosystems based approach:

• Local municipalities have important role to play in wetland conservation. • Protecting ecosystems services can be incorporated into employment creation and vulnerability reduction.

Biodiversity conservation

Wetlands contribute to disaster risk reduction through the provision of ecosystem services such as water filtration, flood attenuation and water security (Cape Action, 2016) – all important functions, especially in the face of changing climate. Wetlands are incredibly important ecosystems, and according to Wetland International’s CEO Jane Madgwick, “The global policy frameworks now recognise that harnessing the services of wetlands as “natural infrastructure” yields multiple dividends in water and food security, disaster risk reduction, climate action and sustainable development” (Wetlands International, 2016a). 33

Sixty-four percent of the world’s wetlands have been lost since 1900, through drainage and conversion, and the remaining wetlands are under pressure from economic and infrastructure development (Wetlands International, 2016a). Wetland areas are drained and developed as the need for space arises from increased urbanisation pressures. Rivers and streams are diverted and canalised, changing the functioning of the ecosystem (Holmes et al., 2008) and often leaving these riparian systems devastated. Pollution from urbanisation and farming enterprises negatively affects these wetland systems, changing their functioning. Without good governance, these highly valuable ecosystems could be damaged and lost, with dire consequences. In terms of climate change, South Africa is predicted to suffer increased droughts in some areas and more intense and frequent flooding in others. These floods are expected to cause damage to infrastructure and give rise to more water-borne diseases, which could also spread more easily (Climate System Analysis Group, 2016). Wetlands are able to provide the ecosystem services necessary to help alleviate the flood risk and the potential disease risk associated with flooding, thereby contributing to reduced vulnerability and increased resilience. Wetlands and their associated riparian systems have a major role to play in disaster risk reduction when it comes to floods. Typically, wetlands are gently sloped and as the water enters the system it is able to spread out across the surface of the wetland, thereby dissipating the energy and decreasing the velocity of flow (Kotze, 2000). Wetlands are able to change the sharp peaks of runoff into slower discharges over a longer period of time. It is these flood peaks that result in flood damage, so wetlands can potentially greatly reduce this damage and loss of property and human lives (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1986). It has been said by Sather and Smith (1984) that if 15% of the catchment area is covered in wetlands flood peaks will be 60% to 65% lower than if there were no wetlands. For this effectiveness to be realised each wetland needs to be functioning naturally, and therefore requires protection and conservation. Wetlands are also natural water filters and improve water quality. A well-functioning wetland can trap nutrients, sediment and even disease-causing bacteria (DAFF, 2016). Globally, people rely on healthy watersupplying landscapes such as wetlands for water, food and livelihoods. However, studies show that between 35– 60% of South Africa’s wetlands are severely degraded or have been totally lost (Rivers-Moore & Cowden, 2012). It is now widely recognised that wetlands are the most biologically diverse of all ecosystems, as well as providing carbon sinks and natural reservoirs of fresh water. Furthermore, they prevent flooding, filter pollutants and protect coastlines. The protection of these ecosystems has become paramount as a disaster risk reduction measure. From a cultural perspective, wetlands are important as a source of reeds for thatching, basket construction and hut construction. From a food security perspective, especially in the more rural areas, they are important as they provide local communities with opportunities for fishing and hunting. The Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB) programme involves cities around the world focusing on finding the best ways in which local government can engage in the conservation, management, utilisation and enhancement of urban biodiversity conservation, and is run by ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). The LAB project is part of ICLEI’s biodiversity programme, which strives to assist local governments to sustainably manage and conserve biodiversity. The LAB Pioneer methodology recognises the important role that local government has in biodiversity conservation and the value that biodiversity has in delivering ecosystem services, ultimately resulting in enhanced local climate resilience (ICLEI, 2016). The overall concept behind the LAB projects has resulted in a few projects around South Africa. The larger municipalities, such as Cape Town, started this work in 2008. One aspect is a three-year project running from January 2015 to October 2017, involving 11 district municipalities and metro areas. It is implemented by ICLEI in conjunction with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Working for Wetlands (WfW) and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) (ICLEI, 2016). The process will involve the compilation of a report illustrating the current state of the wetlands within each of the district municipalities or metro areas, followed by a Strategy and Action Plan. Municipal Departments are making progress and show a strong commitment to change. Local Biodiversity Management Workshops have been held and biodiversity experts and those government representatives responsible for this work are communicating regularly, resulting in local government capacity building. One of the partners in these LAB projects in South Arica is Working for Wetlands (WfW), a government public works programme (designed to be labour intensive for employment creation), managed by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). It a joint initiative by the Departments of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Water and Sanitation (DWS) and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), established in 2002 (Rivers-Moore & Cowden, 2012). The WfW programme ties in with the LAB projects so an overview of this programme is presented here. The creation of the WfW programme drew on objectives in environmental, biodiversity, water and agriculture policies, and capitalised on the growing recognition that wetland degradation is not necessarily permanent, and that it is possible to reinstate ecosystem 34

Figure 17: Wetlands in South Africa (Mayet, 2014) services through rehabilitation. The objectives of the WfW programme are to ensure effective wetland rehabilitation through: wetland protection, “wise use” of wetlands, skills and capacity development, co-operative governance and partnerships, knowledge sharing, communication, education and public awareness (Rivers-Moore & Cowden, 2012). In this way the programme is an expression of the overlapping wetland-related mandates of the three parent departments, and besides giving effect to a range of policy objectives, also honours South Africa’s commitments under several international agreements, especially the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Rivers-Moore & Cowden, 2012). The programme is a good example of multiple gains through a very focused intervention. Not only does the programme address the main issue at hand (rehabilitation of wetlands), inherently it also contributes to the socioeconomic elements of the people engaged in the project. It provides the participants with much needed skills and abilities to break out of the poverty cycle, which in turn lessens the people’s vulnerability and builds their resilience. Furthermore, it creates a culture of wetland protection in the communities, which leads to intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer. In addition, environmental conservation also contributes to the protection of biodiversity in the wetland areas and adds to sustainable development. The Working for Wetlands programme is, furthermore, a good example of how Eco-DRR is inherently part of a programme design without intentionally being so. The outcomes and gains from the projects reduce the risk of a natural hazard (such as flooding), lessen vulnerability of the communities in which it functions by building their social and economic capital, adds to the resilience of the socio-ecological linked system and mitigates elements of climate change. Wetlands International (2016b) sums up the importance of wetlands in relation to human security, which relates to DRR: “wetlands are vital ecosystems in the landscape and are indispensable to achieve a sustainable and secure world”. 35

5.1.4 Ecosystem-based adaptation action in the semi-arid Namakwa District (South Africa) DRR Issue: High temperatures, rainfall variability, storm surge, rising sea level, atmospheric CO2, floods. Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Fragile ecosystem, important biodiversity spot

Outcomes: • Priority mapping including vulnerability assessments • Disaster risk reduction adopted naturebased activities for vulnerability reduction and resilience building.

Lessons: • EbA intervention as spatial planning tool produced valuable information for disaster risk management. • Local livelihoods are intertwined with a healthy environment • Link between natural environment, livelihoods and security is needed.

Ecosystems based approach: Ecosystems based adaptation, ecosystem services

The Namakwa District Municipality is located in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa, bordering Namibia. This province is South Africa’s largest, but has very low population density and few natural resources such as arable land and water (Bourne et al., 2012). Despite this, the economy is largely based on agricultural pursuits such as livestock grazing, with the mining of natural resources contributing, although this is now declining. The economic opportunities for the local communities are limited. The mountainous areas dotted throughout the region are locally important water catchments. The potential threats to this region include increases in temperatures, changes in rainfall (best case would be a slight increase, worse case would be a decrease), storm surges along the coastline, rising sea level, coastal fog, and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Bourne et al., 2012). The rocky structure of the coastline decreases its vulnerability to storm surges and the rise in sea level, as it is less easily eroded compared to sandy shorelines. Research indicated that local biodiversity and ecosystem services are likely to be sensitive to impacts of climate change, especially those related to increases in temperature and reductions in rainfall (Conservation South Africa, 2012). These climate change threats would add to an already challenging environment where over-grazing, groundwater overabstraction, the ploughing of wetlands and unsustainable mining practices have negative impacts (Conservation South Africa, 2016). All climate models show that this area will become hotter and drier, and will experience more intense droughts, storms and floods (Bourne et al., 2012). The Namakwa District Municipality forms part of the semi-arid Succulent Karoo Biodiversity Hotspot, supporting over 6,000 species of plants, 250 species of birds, 78 species of mammals, and 132 species of amphibians and reptiles, with many of the plants endemic (found only here). Some 105 distinct vegetation types have been described in the Namakwa District Municipality (Chewe, 2016). The Conservation South Africa (CSA) (a Conservation International affiliate) project is part of an international pilot programme that aims to increase the adaptive capacity and the resilience of people who are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Project sites are located in terrestrial, marine and coastal regions in three countries, namely Brazil, the Philippines and South Africa (Chewe, 2016). These projects aim to increase the resilience and adaptive capacity of vulnerable people to climate change, through implementing EbA (Doswald & Estrella, 2015). A Vulnerability Assessment (VA) was conducted, the product of which was a vulnerability index made up of indicators of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity for each of the ecological, socio-economic and institutional vulnerability categories. A first assessment of the area indicated a “medium-high” vulnerability status. A priority areas map was then produced for EbA interventions, which was based on a combination of modelled biome resilience to climate change and priority areas for ecosystem-based adaptation. The map provided the District Municipality with a useful spatial planning tool that, when used in the development of Municipal Integrated Development Plans, Spatial Development Frameworks and Disaster Risk Management Strategies, can guide the implementation of nature-based activities to reduce the vulnerability of people and of ecosystems to the impacts of climate change (Conservation South Africa, 2012). 36

The main recommendation from the vulnerability assessment is to focus on reducing socio-economic and institutional vulnerabilities as the primary method for building local resilience to climate change. In this area, rural livelihoods are intricately entwined with and dependent on healthy, functioning natural ecosystems, so ecosystem services and ecosystem-based adaptation approaches are among the core recommendations for action planning to adapt to climate change and reduce disaster risk (Conservation South Africa, 2012). The specific ecological recommendations are: • Use the priority areas map for adaptation planning • Restore and manage river corridors and wetlands (biological diversity, animal fodder, soil erosion prevention and potable water) • Protect groundwater (protect wetlands and terrestrial vegetation to promote recharge) • Conserve water catchments and critical biodiversity areas (ecosystem delivery and to build resilience) • Monitor ecosystem and species responses to climate changes To effectively reduce socio-economic vulnerability, the connection between people’s livelihoods, their natural environment and security needs to be recognised and made sustainable. The institutional vulnerabilities can be reduced by creating informed, dedicated and well-funded local government and local institutions, developing official programmes and working with partners and the community (Bourne et al., 2012).

5.1.5 Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Management of the Mara River Basin (Kenya) DRR Issue: Climate change, droughts, floods, erosion, deforestation Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Unregulated use and over-abstraction of water, mining, urbanisation, pollution Ecosystems based approach: Integrated ecosystems management, protection of biodiversity

Outcomes: • Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. • Outcomes and goals per habitat. • Ensure holistic and integrated approach incorporating disaster risk reduction.

Lessons: • Cross-border political involvement and commitments needed. • Strategy and Action Plan need to have a specific disaster risk focus. • Poorly enforced laws lead to cross-border conflict.

The Mara River Basin (MRB) covers seven districts shared between Kenya and Tanzania. According to WREM International Inc. (2008) the MRB covers an area of approximately 8,941 km² (65%) in Kenya and approximately 4,809 km² (35%) in Tanzania. The MRB basin is of great biodiversity and environmental conservation interest, due to the international recognition of the well-known Masai Mara-Serengeti ecosystem (a World Heritage site designated by UNESCO). The activities in and around the basin consist mainly of agricultural activities like the planting of crops and the grazing of cattle, as well as other wildlife activities. The population of this area is experiencing quite a high rate of growth, which will add pressure on the use of natural resources. WREM International Inc. (2008) reports that the MRB receives an average rainfall of 1,400 mm annually in the highlands of the basin and 600 mm annually in the plains. This, combined with the rapidly increasing population and the main activities that are practised in the basin, exerts heavy pressure on the basin due to a high demand on water resources and limited available land. The impacts of climate change on the MRB are adding to the stress on ecosystem services and increasing the vulnerability to disasters like flooding and drought. WREM International Inc. (2008) and the ECSFP (date unknown) describe the key environmental, social and economic issues that are affecting the transboundary MRB. These issues include: the unregulated use and over-abstraction of water from the basin for agricultural, mining and other industries; an increasing population resulting in higher demands for land, urban development, resource demands and increased pollution; impact of tourism due to the Masai Mara37

Figure 18: The location and relief of the Mara River Basin in Kenya and Tanzania (WWF, 2010) Serengeti and wildlife Table 5: The population projections for the Mara River Basin (2000–2030) (WWF, 2010) displacement; the use Human Population in the MRB of fishing methods that 2000 2010 2020 2030 are unsustainable; and high level of erosion Kenya 428,7076 556,497 705,448 894268 due to the river and deforestation. These Tanzania 231,614 282,604 361,251 482,437 issues increase disaster Total 660,320 838,701 1,066,699 1,356,705 risks and vulnerability like food insecurity, poverty, health risks, flooding and drought. The risks that threaten the MRB have led to various policies and strategies to address the challenges and to manage the ecosystems of the transboundary MRB. However, these initiatives often overlap and in some instances address conflicting responsibilities. As a result, these weak and poorly enforced laws and policies have caused transboundary- and within-country conflicts, affecting the ecosystem and the livelihoods of the population groups that depend on the MRB, and increasing their vulnerability to disasters. For this reason a more holistic and integrated approach is required to address the transboundary challenges of the MRB and conserve the biodiversity of the basin for a more sustainable socio-economic change. The Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (BSAP) were therefore initiated for the sustainable management of the biodiversity of the MRB. LVBC and WWF-ESARPO (2010) state that the overall goal for the MRB is to have “a region rich in biodiversity which benefits the present and future generations and ecosystem functions”. The goal for the BSAP for the MRB mainly aims at “a prosperous population living in a healthy and sustainably managed environment providing equitable opportunities and benefits”. Studies have indicated that the best approach to conserve biodiversity is to conserve the whole habitat. For this reason, the BSAP focuses on three critical habitats in the MRB: the forest habitats, which include the Mau Forest and Mara riverine forest; the Serengeti-Masai Mara Ecosystem; and the aquatic ecosystems of the Mara River and Swamp. The BSAP has developed objectives and activities for each of the habitats to meet the biodiversity conservation requirements of each, which will be monitored and evaluated regularly. The benefit of a strategy like the BSAP is that the effective implementation hereof will result in the reduction of disaster risks, creating more biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods. One of the key challenges for implementing the BSAP is the need for political involvement and commitment from both Kenya and Tanzania. 38

With the increasing threats of disaster risk and climate change, it is even more critical to find more sustainable solutions for conservation and environmental management. This requires understanding the interaction and relationship between humans and ecosystems, and adopting ecosystem-based approaches like the BSAP. The BSAP is a good example of an eco-disaster risk reduction project, because it demonstrates how an ecosystem is managed in a sustainable manner through conservation and preservation of habitats in order to reduce disaster risk. The BSAP also contributes to Eco-DRR by assisting in achieving sustainable and resilient development, improving well-being and livelihoods and creating more resilient communities.

5.1.6 Building resilience to climate change on Mt. Elgon (Kenya and Uganda) DRR Issue: Climate change, floods, mudslides, drought Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Ecosystem degradation, soil fertility loss

Ecosystems based approach: Environmental conservation, utilisation of biodiversity, use of ecosystem services.

The Mount (Mt.) Elgon region is a transboundary mountain range between Kenya and Uganda. According to Olago et al. (2015) the Mt. Elgon mountain is the seventh highest mountain in Africa. Some of the districts in this area are characterised by mountainous terrain, so their climate is determined by altitude. The Mt. Elgon region has two rainy seasons with an annual rainfall of approximately 920 mm – 1,650 mm. The peak rainy season is in the months from May to July. This region is vulnerable to rainfall variability and disaster risks like floods and droughts due to the threats of climate change (Bomuhangi et al., 2016). The Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE, 2013) reports that the population of this region is approximately 2 million with an average growth rate of 4% annually. The main activity practised in this region is low-input subsistence agriculture. The direct extraction of natural resources is also being practised due to the severe poverty experienced in this region. These activities, the high density population and extreme poverty, together with the effects of climate change in this region, is making these communities more vulnerable to disaster risks like floods and land or mud slides (as a result of over-extraction and soil erosion) and drought (with a decline in soil fertility).

Outcomes: • Mitigate impactof climate change. • Increase adaptive capacity, societal and ecological resilience. • Sustainable use of resources. • Employment creation. • Renewed cultural ties and traditions.

Lessons: • Adaptation framework leads to addressing disaster risk, climate change, and ecological resilience issues. • Importance of transboundary collaboration in protecting ecosystems.

Figure 19: Cumulative risks in the various river catchments of Mt. Elgon (Olago et al., 2015) 39

Figure 20: The projected impact of temperature on forest gain and forest loss on Mt. Elgon (Olago et al., 2015)

To address the challenge of building resilience in the Mt. Elgon region the USAID, together with IUCN, created and implemented a resilience framework project to support climate change adaptation in the region of Mt. Elgon. According to Olago et al. (2015), the goal of this framework/project is “to enhance coordination and adaptation action between stakeholders using informed, timely, accurate and comprehensive information to promote societal and ecological resilience to adverse climate impacts”. The Mt. Elgon region consists of a wide range of ecosystems (MWE, 2013), including farmlands, rivers and streams, forests, swamps, mountains and pasturelands. Each of these ecosystems provides certain ecosystem services to the communities in this region that depend on the ecosystems and natural resources for their livelihoods. The climate variability characterised by this region and the land-use changes may result in various climate related hazards and disasters. In turn this will also affect the vulnerable communities living in this region and result in unsustainable resources. The resilience framework project to support climate change adaptation in the Mt. Elgon region is a good example of Eco-DRR. The project addresses the links between the ecosystems and ecosystem services, climate change and sustainable resource management while contributing to minimising the potential of hazardous losses. Through this project, the biodiversity and ecosystems are being conserved, the use of resources is more sustainable and the vulnerable communities of the Mt. Elgon region are becoming more resilient. This project reaches these targets through its focus on the improvement of scientific knowledge on climate change, and being better prepared for disaster risks posed by climate change, enhancing learning through capacity building and influencing the regional policy frameworks. Olago et al. (2015) state that the challenge is to ensure that this project is implemented successfully for future generations, through regular monitoring of the implementation, and factoring in changes in population growth and climate.

40

5.1.7 Adapting to climate change through the improvement of traditional crops and livestock farming (Namibia) DRR Issue:

Outcomes:

Climate change, food security, wildfires, drought Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Water management, sustainable use of resources.

• • • •

More resilient traditional crops. Enhanced community resilience. Food security. Better management of ecosystems.

Lessons: • Adapting traditional crop and livestock farmingin arid areas has direct benefits in terms of climate change adaptation.

Ecosystems based approach: Improvement of traditional crops and livestock farming

The effects of climate change are felt worldwide, but developing countries are more vulnerable to the effects. Namibia is considered as one of the most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change. According to Amadhila et al. (2013), the expected impacts that Namibia faces in terms of climate change are rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns and a decline in the availability of water resources. These impacts of climate change expose Namibia to various disaster risks like wildfires due to recurrent drought and seasonal flooding. Angula and Kaundjua (2016) identify North-Central Namibia (NCN) as the most vulnerable region of Namibia in terms of climate change because an average of 57% of the rural population living in NCN relies heavily on subsistence farming for their livelihood. Angula and Kaundjua (2016:1) further state that “a combined effect of environmental degradation, social vulnerability to poverty and a changing climate will compromise subsistence farming in NCN”. Due to NCN’s exposure to adverse disaster risks, the intervention of an ecosystem-based approach to climate change adaptation is needed. An Eco-DRR project is one way to implement an ecosystem-based approach to climate change adaptation. An example of an Eco-DRR project in NCN is Namibia’s country pilot partnership programme: adapting to climate change through the improvement of traditional crops and livestock farming (CPP NAM: CCA). According to the Final Evaluation Report (MAWF, 2012) the main goal of this project was to “assist the Republic of Namibia to devise and implement adaptation strategies to cope with predicted effect of climate change in the north-central regions, thus improving livelihoods and food security among the most vulnerable communities.” The reason for this project being successful and identified as an Eco-DRR project in the NCN is because it assisted the local communities to reduce their disaster risks and their exposure towards hazards, especially the communities that are depending on agricultural for their livelihoods that are the most vulnerable. Through this initiative, this project assisted with the sustainable management of ecosystems and natural resources, to ensure that the communities that are affected by the impacts of climate change and disaster risks are less vulnerable, by adapting to the impacts of climate change and in effect making them more resilient to disaster risks.

41

5.1.8 Sustainable management of indigenous forests in Mwanza East, Malawi DRR Issue:

Outcomes:

Deforestation, livelihood creation and capacity development

• • • • • • • •

Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Habitat degradation, ecosystem preservation, poverty.

Mitigate deforestation Provide alternative livelihoods. Increase food security. Reduce landslide risk. Water conservation. Improve air quality. Community empowerment. Income-generating activities.

Lessons: Ecosystems based approach: Reforestation, CBRNM, conservation.

• Communities will adopt alternative NRM techniques if it enhances their livelihoods. • Protection of biodiversity and ecosystems occurs sponteneously once linked to livelihoods.

Malawi is a relatively poor country with a predominantly rural population (86%) and approximately 215 people per km2 of arable land, with 40% of the land covered in forests (Mauambeta, 2000). It is no surprise then that it experiences the highest rate of deforestation in the SADC region. The natural resources are under heavy pressure from over-utilisation and poor exploitation practices caused mainly by agricultural expansion, urbanisation, poverty and the dependency on wood for energy. Forests are of high ecological importance and provide many ecosystem services: stabilisation of the soil surface, which prevents erosion and reduces the potential for landslides; water resource management; improvement of air quality; provision of habitat to support biodiversity; and regulation of climate (Luque & Iverson, 2016). The Wildlife Society of Malawi and other partner organisations recognised the need for the implementation of creative and innovative schemes to conserve the remaining pieces of natural woodland on the customary land, and a community-based natural resource management approach was applied in Mwanza East (Mauambeta, 2000). In 2008, the Sustainable Management of Indigenous Forest Project, coordinated by the SADC Forestry Sector Technical Coordination Unit (SADC-FSTCU) and funded by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), was implemented in Malawi. This project has also been applied in Namibia, Botswana and Mozambique, and is designed for the local people to participate and to be the major stakeholders, as they are the custodians of the forest. In Malawi, the Wildlife Society of Malawi is the implementing agency, working with the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Forestry, which shows the importance of effective collaboration. These Malawian forests host a wealth of biological diversity that can be used for income-generating activities based on non-timber forest products (NTFPs). The aims of the project are to reduce deforestation; to integrate marginalised groups and women into the management of natural resources; empower the local communities to manage sustainably; control illegal fuelwood/charcoal and timber trade; harvest and market NTFPs; and install effective project management systems. Some of the income generating NTFP activities include beekeeping, rearing of guinea-fowl, processing of indigenous fruit, bamboo furniture making (made from fast-growing bamboos and creepers), briquette making (alternative fuelwood from waste matter). Woodlots have been established on farms, around homesteads and in other areas, where individuals and/or communities are protecting naturally growing trees and planting new ones. The motto “a fruit tree planted for every child every year” has been adopted to encourage the planting of more fruit trees. This community-based natural resource management approach has shown that NTFPs and related activities can provide for the communities in a sustainable manner (Mauambeta, 2000). These enterprises have led to a more diverse livelihood for the local communities, which makes them more resilient in terms of food security. They have more options, and are not dependent on one source of income, which would be devastating if and when that resource runs out or is compromised through a disaster event. Forests have, for centuries, provided a place of safety and shelter for people during times of hardship such as famine and other events that compromise agricultural and food production (Luque & Iverson, 2016). The restoration of the deforested areas 42

Figure 21: Change in land cover over time (1990–2010) in Malawi (RCMRD, 2012) will also contribute significantly to the conservation of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services provided by forests, thus making the entire area more resilient to potential hazards. This project contributes to disaster risk reduction by conserving a highly significant ecosystem and promoting the long-term sustainable livelihoods of communities.

5.1.9 Participatory integrated water resources management (IWRM): The Berki Catchment (Ethiopia) DRR Issue:

Outcomes:

Drought, deforestation

Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Water management, protection of ecologically sensitive areas.

• • • • • • •

Increased capacity through IWRM. Reduction of water stress. Conflict resolution. Created ownership. Capacity development. Identified gaps in policy and legislation. Better inter-community communication.

Lessons: • Multi-stakeholder platforms ensures better buy-in, actions and understanding of challenges (such as natural hazards). • Political committment is key to IWRM.

Ecosystems based approach: CBRNM, IWRM.

The fragility of Ethiopia’s environment is well known. For many decades, unchecked deforestation has led to environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity and drying of wetlands (Maes et al., 2013). Figure 22 shows the rapid rate of deforestation that has occurred here during the past 13 years. 43

The country has one of the most varied climatic conditions on the continent, ranging from hot and semi-arid areas, tropical sectors with a distinct dry winter, to warm rainy without a distinct dry season. Eighty percent of the population of Ethiopia remains rural and thus the stress on water resources is common. Ethiopia is a water stressed country that will have significant future impacts in the light of the changing climate. The good management of water resources therefore becomes critical as an adaptation and risk reduction measure. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (GWP, 2010). It can be argued that IWRM contributes significantly to disaster risk reduction because of its long term focus on social and ecological systems, and its contribution to curbing floods and droughts.

Figure 22: Change in forest cover over time (2000–2013) in Ethiopia

Ethiopia has put in place policies, laws, strategies and programmes to embrace the tenets of IWRM. However, certain constraints limited the effective implementation and coordination of IWRM. To complement the efforts of government, the Ethiopian Country Water Partnership (ECWP) implemented a pilot project in two watersheds (Berki catchment) with the financial support of the US government. This project has shown that IWRM involves many changes to the existing system through a systematic¬ approach that creates a sense of ownership amongst all stakeholders, and ensures multiple gains across a number of problem areas. The objectives of the project were to identify policy gaps and constraints in implementing IWRM; identify stakeholders, and build their capacities in IWRM approaches; establish and train a Technical Team from various disciplines and sectors in IWRM; assess water and other natural resources of the Berki watershed; study the socio-economic dynamics of the Berki watershed; and document and share experiences on approaches, processes and findings (Jembere, 2009). In the process of implementation, a particular focus on natural hazards impacting on IWRM in the catchment could be achieved. The project also succeeded in identifying certain gaps in policy and management which included: lack of integrating water and land resource management; decentralisation without building local level capacity; lack of holistic approach; low level of awareness; lack of regulations for managing demands and conflicts; and limited private sector involvement. The project was also effective in bringing various stakeholders together and establishing multi-stakeholder platforms (such as the Tigray Regional Water Partnership) for planning and implementing measures relating to sustainable water resources management, ecosystem protection and conflict resolution. The project proved that local ownership of the IWRM process changes people’s perception of their involvement in the socio-ecologically linked systems, making decisions to enhance sustainable development and creating a risk-aware community. It showed that political commitment and involvement is key to IWRM, and in obtaining such buy-in solves other problems relating to sustainable development and conflict management. The IWRM process provided fertile ground for fostering better communication among the parties involved, which facilitated the capacity building initiatives and finding joint solutions to related natural resources management issues. Finally, the project is a good example of how starting small can lead to IWRM scaling up. Although the initial focus of the project was on the management of water, the shared risk profile of the communities in the catchment area significantly contributed to stakeholders finding common ground and engaging in consensus decision-making. The values in this project are the multiple successes relating to natural resources management and reducing the possible impact of hydrological hazards on the affected communities.

44

5.1.10 Climate adaptation for biodiversity, ecosystem services and livelihoods in rural Madagascar DRR Issue:

Outcomes:

Floods, drought, cyclones

Link to biodiversity/ecosystems: Coastal and marine degradation, decline in ecosystem services.

• Vulnerability analysis and mapping. • Climate impact assessment. • Plan to maintain and restore forest cover, and enhance marine system resilience. • Forest regeneration. • Changes in negative livelihood practices.

Lessons: • Community involvement and buy-in is key • Terrestial conservation paved the way for future restoration projects. • Permanent vegetation cover techniques allowed for continious crop production.

Ecosystems based approach: EbA

The fragility of Ethiopia’s environment is well known. For many decades, unchecked deforestation has led to Madagascar’s largely rural population mainly depends on subsistence agriculture activities, which contribute to habitat degradation, particularly loss of forest. Approximately 15% of Madagascar is covered with natural forest. Deforestation, due to resource extraction and unsustainable farming practices, destroys 50,000 hectares of forests every year. The loss and degradation of forests as well as coastal and marine ecosystems jeopardise the availability of ecosystem services such as water and food provision, flood regulation, storm surge protection and erosion control. The impacts from climate change are expected to undermine this fragile situation further. In order to address the impacts of climate change in a coordinated manner, this project aimed to undertake vulnerability analyses of Madagascar’s marine and terrestrial environments. The aim of the project, implemented by Conservation International, was to assist Madagascar to: improve its understanding and assessment of the impacts of climate change, including climate variation and extremes; assess local and regional vulnerability; identify and investigate available climate adaptation solutions; and assist in making informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures. This project operated in accordance with ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation (EbA) and acknowledges the invaluable ecosystem services upon which local communities depend, and the role these services play in reducing their vulnerability to climate change and climate variability (CI, 2011). The project had both terrestrial and marine goals. At terrestrial level, the project aimed to develop recommendations, based on a series of feasibility studies, for an action plan to maintain and restore forest cover and connectivity in priority areas, and to reduce pressure on natural forests. At marine level, the project aimed to build key knowledge about coral systems in Madagascar, and develop effective approaches for improving the resilience of these systems. The activities of the project included vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning, which build on an initial vulnerability assessment conducted by Conservation International and WWF in 2007. The vulnerability assessment led to technical workshops of multiple stakeholders as well as community engagement in three different bioclimatic zones of Madagascar. Terrestrial activities included an investigation into surveying and testing methods for natural forest regeneration in three forest types in Madagascar: southern spiny forest, western dry forest and rainforest. A feasibility study to assess the current conditions of riverine forests in Madagascar and their potential to act as migratory pathways for species under climate change was also conducted. This study was particularly necessary since the relationship between forest ecosystems and the forest-dependent species influences adaptive capacity to climate change. The project focused on sustainable livelihood activities such as slash and burn agriculture, and alternatives for ensuring livelihood security. Furthermore, the project considered human adaptation and secondary impacts, including an analysis of crop vulnerability by mapping current distribution of key crops (rice, cassava, vanilla and cloves) in Madagascar. In an effort to assess new biodiversity hotspots and climate resilient areas, a marine Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) in the northeastern coast of Madagascar was conducted. 45

The project resulted in numerous outcomes. Future climate and oceanographic scenarios for Madagascar up to 2080 were developed. The assessments created an understanding of the impacts of climate change on the distribution of terrestrial and marine species, their population sizes and habitat shifts on the island. Certain recommendations to increase the adaptive capacity of communities and terrestrial and marine species to climate change were also made. The terrestrial activities provided guidance for future restoration projects, highlighting proper planning, providing avenues for effective participation by local communities, and the importance of controlling alien, invasive species. The investigation into the riverine corridors produced maps highlighting riverine forests and forest fragments warranting high priority in restoration and protection efforts. A modelling approach was also developed to estimate the paths that species would take Figure 23: Change in forest cover over time (1990–2013) in through the Mangoky-Ihotry landscape. This Madagascar was used to identify the sites where restoration activities to increase habitat connectivity would be most cost-effective. The sustainable livelihood activities introduced permanent vegetation cover techniques, which allow for continuous crop production without burning the land, while also improving soil quality. Alternative crops were also identified. Emphasis was placed on farming diversification and financial savings (in particular micro-finance and savings groups). In terms of crop vulnerability, the project showed that the impact of future climate change on crop production in Madagascar may be restricted to specific zones and crop types. The marine interventions showed evidence of overfishing and reaffirms the need for successful alternative livelihood projects in these regions. Throughout the project, emphasis was placed on the future impact of floods, drought and cyclones on the island. These natural hazards formed the foundation for seeking solutions. This case study illustrates that communities have a broad and good understanding of the causes and consequences of a global phenomenon such as climate change. The consequence of hazardous impacts necessitated participants in the project to consider alternative actions and engagement with their natural environment. This project showed multiple gains and hidden successes in disaster risk reduction through conservation and adaptation actions. Traditional methods of ecosystem management in this case would have been one dimensional and mostly focused on the natural environmental. The project succeeded in bridging the gap between the important domains of enhancing livelihoods, food security, eco-system services, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation.

46

6. CONTRIBUTORS TO ECO-DRR 6.1 The role of biodiversity in DRR in Southern and Eastern Africa

Figure 24: The use of biodiversity and natural resources is essential for human livelihoods in much of ESA. Photo by MJ Murphree The link between biodiversity ecosystem management and DRR is currently evolving in ESA. A wide range of projects and programmes have been or are currently being implemented that are by their objectives serving a DRR purpose without explicitly being defined as DRR. Some of these programmes such as the community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) initiatives have been in operation or development for forty years. Mostly their origins are in both biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management with an underlying philosophy of linking human well-being to the sustainable use of natural resources. Only more recently were attempts made to see this approach within the context of DRR. The DRR paradigm is fairly new and arises out of the disaster management sector and the realisation that preventing disasters is better than having to manage disasters. It has been said by Perrings (2010) that “climate change is both a cause and an effect of biodiversity change”, and that a change in biodiversity affects the flow of ecosystem services. To sustain a certain development path, wellfunctioning ecosystems are essential to ensure ecosystem services, which include provisioning services (products that can be directly consumed, such as firewood, fuel, freshwater); regulating services (natural processes such as climate regulation, water purification, erosion control); supporting services (creating conditions for other ecosystems to exist, such as soil formation, nutrient cycling, habitats for biodiversity); and cultural services (recreation, spiritual and religious enrichment and ecotourism) (Boland & Hunhammar, 1999). Ecosystems services can therefore be referred to as natural capital (TEEB, 2016).

47

In this regard, some of the key areas where biodiversity plays a role in DRR and ecosystem health are: • Marine and coastal systems – mangroves, coastal dune vegetation and coral reefs mitigate tidal surges and maintain inshore fisheries for human livelihoods. • Wetlands and watercourses – biodiverse and healthy wetland systems mitigate flooding, soil erosion, disease containment such as cholera. • Savannah grasslands – maintaining the biodiversity of savannah grasslands is important for livestock grazing and soil fertility. • Savannah woodlands – are important carbon sinks, provide a wide range of non-timber forest products for human livelihoods. The protection of the environment and in particular its services and biodiversity becomes a crucial element for disaster risk reduction. The loss of biodiversity is one of the underlying drivers of disaster risk (UNISDR, 2015), therefore ecosystem conservation and/or restoration, which protects and preserves biodiversity, has an important role to play in DRR. Internationally the combined focus of ecosystem protection and disaster risk reduction has gained traction. The Secretariat of the CBD (CBD, 2014) recognises a need to “integrate ecosystem based approaches for DRR into relevant national policies and programmes including climate change adaptation strategies and plans, national plans to combat desertification, national biodiversity strategies and action plans, poverty reduction strategies, national disaster risk reduction or disaster management frameworks and sustainable land management strategies”. When examining the different approaches to conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem management and DRR, the relevance of scale in projects and programmes becomes clear. Many small NGOs and organisations are operating directly at household or community level implementing projects that are effectively DRR projects with a clear link to biodiversity conservation or ecosystem management. Small-scale conservation projects such as the Children in the Wilderness Programme in southern Africa also have a clear link to DRR. At a larger scale, large bi-lateral or multi-lateral donor programmes make a similar link, including programmes such as the Southern Africa Regional Environmental Programme (SAREP), the Resilience in Limpopo Programme (RESLIM), the Coastal East Africa Initiative of WWF and the BIOPAMA programme of IUCN. These large-scale programmes are often nested within other large-scale regional initiatives such as the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area in southern Africa. All of these different scales of operation are important if Eco-DRR is to be incorporated into conservation, development, DRR and disaster management and response planning. Working at a regional or global scale will not result in the desired outcomes if this is not translated into action at community and household levels. Conversely, only working at a community and household level will be difficult to maintain if it is not supported by the policy and funding mechanisms developed at larger scales. Much of the current challenge relates to facilitating this understanding between communities, practitioners and policy makers. The clear link between biodiversity and ecosystem health is then linked to human well-being, so it is imperative that Eco-DRR approaches are incorporated into planning and programming as early as possible. Eco-DRR should not be seen as a once off event but as an ongoing process that is constantly applied before, during and after the occurrence of any disaster.

6.2 Economic case for Eco-DRR The economic case for Eco-DRR can be analysed as direct contributions or as offsets against current or future disasters. As a direct contribution, biodiversity conservation contributes through ecosystem goods and services, tourism revenues and where applicable the sustainable use and trade in natural resources. As an offset, biodiversity conservation and DRR improve productivity, reduce unsustainable land and resource use and improve community resilience to natural hazards. Quantifying offset costs can be very difficult given that one is trying to determine a cost for something that did not happen. While it is beyond the scope of this study, available data can quantify the economic contribution of biodiversity conservation. In South Africa for example, the economic contribution of eco-tourism, hunting and wildlife ranching is well documented. In Namibia, the income generation of CBNRM through the communal conservancy programme 48

Figure 25: Water pump house destroyed by floods – Rio Elefantes, Mozambique, Jan 2013. Photo by MJ Murphree has been an area of analysis for the past 20 years. The challenge here will be to analyse this data in respect of DRR. At an ecosystem level, a range of tools can be used to quantify ecosystem values in respect of their goods and services, such as Natural Capital Accounting Disasters such as cyclones, flooding, earthquakes and tsunamis, result in economic losses amounting to over US$ 300 billion each year, with future losses in the built environment alone being estimated at US$ 314 billion (UNISDR, 2015). Extensive risks, which are minor but recurrent risks, add up to an expenditure of US$ 94 billion (UNISDR, 2015), and largely affect the low- to middle-income countries, and hamper development. The economic case for Eco-DRR refers to the financial value of biodiversity and ecosystem services. It is about illustrating that preserving biodiversity and conserving the natural ecosystems will result in higher financial gains than trying to mitigate the disaster threats and provide relief post-disaster with human-made infrastructure and interventions. It is about understanding the contribution of nature to the economies of the world, and valuing this contribution. Disaster funding could result in a better return on expenditure if the funds were allocated to those projects that support and conserve biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. It is useful for decision makers to be able to recognise and value natural resource ecosystems, such as wetlands, as commodities, and then to apply sustainable management activities. Several initiatives are used in the valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services and EcoDRR. Financial benefits can be realised with the implementation of Eco-DRR, especially the long-term investments. However, expressing these benefits in exact numbers faces some challenges. A few case studies providing quantified economic assessments (Reid et al., 2011, Rizvi et al., 2014) are presented briefly below. A global UNEP initiative called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010) is striving to “make nature’s values visible”, in short aiming to put a dollar value on biodiversity and ecosystems, based on the services they provide. The principal objective is to “mainstream the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services in decision-making at all levels” (TEEB, 2016). 49

Another entity valuing this is the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative, which highlights the potential benefits derived from adopting sustainable land management practices, which include Eco-DRR practices. The ELD also seeks to establish a universal approach for economic analysis of land management. The Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, OSLO consortium and CBD published a report in 2013 on “Valuing the Biodiversity of Dry and Sub-Humid Lands”, explaining how valuation techniques can generate economic data on dry lands, and how that may be applied in policy making (CBD, 2013). This can provide further evidence for Eco-DRR activities aimed at increasing resilience of dry land communities to drought, land degradation and desertification induced by climate change. Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) is a global partnership that aims to promote sustainable development by ensuring that natural resources are mainstreamed in development planning and national economic accounts. The partnership brings together a broad coalition of governments, NGOs, and intergovernmental organisations to implement Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) where there are internationally agreed standards, and develop approaches for other ecosystem service accounts. The different ecosystems will have different financial values attached to them, based on the services they provide and to whom they are provided. An overview of these services and the subsequent values is presented below for the biodiversity and ecosystems most pertinent to this report. Wetlands contribute to national and local economies by providing certain resources and ecosystem services. In the United States (USA) flood damage amounts to about US$ 2 billion per year, and it has been stated that this figure has increased because over half of the wetlands in the USA have been destroyed (USEPA, 2006). According to Brander and Schuyt (2010) the total economic value of the world’s wetlands (a total area of 63 million hectares) is US$ 3.4 billion per year. Ramsar, however, estimates the area of the world’s wetlands to be 12.8 million km2, which would bring the value up to US$ 70 billion per year (Brander & Schuyt, 2010). To get to these figures, an analysis was done based on wetland type, wetland size, population density and income per capita. Wetlands in areas of higher population density, for example, have a higher financial value as the services they provide thus relate to a higher dollar value. When it comes to a wetland’s ability to attenuate and control floodwaters, the costs to preserve this function may be less than the costs required to construct flood defences, and to provide post flood relief. In fact, in America, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) purchased an area of wetlands for US$ 7 million instead of building a flood control structure at a cost of US$ 30 million, as these wetlands were deemed to be so effective for flood control (Kotze, 2000). Forest ecosystems are considered to be of great economic significance with an estimated ecosystem service value of US$ 16 trillion annually (Luque & Iverson, 2016). Tropical forests have an estimated ecosystem services value of US$ 57,822,007 per hectare per year. Temporal and boreal forests amount to US$ 31,372,007 per hectare per year. In terms of forest valuation studies, service components such as hydrological protection and carbon storage yield higher values than forest products (Luque & Iverson, 2016). Coastal area vegetation and mangrove forests provide protection against tsunamis, flooding and sea level rise (Tanaka et al., 2006). In Sri Lanka and Thailand, certain species and their structural characteristics can contribute to increasing the protective function of vegetation against earthquake induced tsunamis (Tanaka et al., 2006). Biodiversity thus has an economic value derived from its contribution to the protective function against tsunamis. Mangrove trees have complex root structures that hold them firmly in place thus limiting erosion, as well as providing a physical barrier against floating debris. In some instance, the trees have saved lives by providing people with something to cling onto and to climb up above the water. Coral reefs are also economically valuable coastal ecosystems as they provide vital ecosystem services to billions of people worldwide (Beck, 2014). Benefits from coral reefs are valued using a total economic value (TEV) approach. The TEV method seeks to identify and value each benefit provided by a given reef and categorise these benefits into direct use, indirect use in coastal defence, and non-use values. Cesar et al. (2003) has indicated that tourism, fisheries and coastal defence typically contribute the most to the reef TEV. The critical benefits arising from coral reefs include the protection from flooding and erosion.

50

The above demonstrates that many human well-being and disaster risk reduction benefits are derived from biodiversity. In Botswana, biodiversity work and poverty issues are integrated at the country level, where UNDP supports government and civil society partners in mapping poverty levels across the country. The process revealed that 30 percent of deep poverty was found in wild land areas. A study undertaken through a project on “Building Local Capacity for Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Okavango Delta”, was able to add important information about the real incomes of communities in these areas, and found that through access to natural resources, the Okavango Delta households were able to supplement their incomes in kind to an extent equivalent to about US$ 1,500 per year. The ecosystem goods and services available to 60,000 people included access to fish, fresh water, reeds and grass for thatching and basket-making, fertile grazing for cattle in the floodplain, and nutrients for river-bed farming. Some also worked for cash in the nature tourism industry (UNDP, 2012). NEMA (2011) reported that Uganda depends on the exploitation of its natural resources for national development, livelihood improvement and poverty eradication. One of these resources is biodiversity. Due to its unique geographical location and favourable climate, Uganda has diverse ecosystems like forests, wetlands, hilly and mountainous areas, rangelands, rivers and lakes with a rich biodiversity. The income generated from natural resources is another aspect to the value of these ecosystems. The world’s fisheries resources is estimated to employ approximately 200 million people, providing about 16% of the protein consumed worldwide and have a value estimated at US$ 82 billion. The fisheries of Lake Victoria are shared between Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, and provide an immense source of income, employment, food and foreign exchange for East Africa. The lake produces a fish catch estimated at over 800,000 tonnes annually, worth about US$ 590 million. A pharmaceutical sector turnover of US$ 650 million annually is estimated to be derived from biodiversity resources for medicine. In Africa, the percentage of people who rely on traditional medicine (from plants and animals) is estimated at 80%. In Uganda, the population (especially the rural poor) relies heavily on traditional medicine to supplement primary health care (NEMA, 2011). Biodiversity maintains a diverse pool of genetic resources available for future developments and applications, some of which may not be known now. UNEP (2008) highlighted that Africa is home to one quarter of the world’s 4,700 mammal species, including 79 species of antelope. It also has more than 2,000 species of birds, one fifth of the world’s total, and at least 2,000 species of fish, alongside 950 amphibian species. The African mainland harbours between 40,000 and 60,000 plant species and about 100,000 known species of insects, spiders and other arachnids. Eight of the world’s 34 biodiversity hotspots are in Africa. Kenya Wildlife Service Annual Report (2008) and a report by UNEP (2009) indicated that the Mau complex, the largest forest of Kenya, covers some 400,000 hectares. It is one of the five main catchment areas known as the “water towers” of Kenya, which, together with Mount Kenya, the Aberdare Range, Mount Elgon and the Cherengani Hills, form the upper catchments of all but one of the principal rivers west of the Rift Valley. It feeds major lakes, three of which are cross-boundary. The Mau complex also generates over $ 270 million annually from tourism, energy and tea. Ecosystems in the African region contain numerous goods and services, however, which have an economic value not only to local populations, but also to people living outside their periphery. Many elements of human well-being are directly dependent on the products of ecosystems. Food, water and biomass energy are prime examples. Human health is reliant on adequate nutrition. The provision of food by agro ecosystems is well documented, but the role of foods harvested from natural ecosystems is underestimated. These are critical for the well-being (and even survival) of most rural people in ESA, especially in times of climatic or economic hardship. Furthermore, human health depends on clean water for consumption and sanitation, clean air, and enough domestic energy for heating and cooking. The sensitivity of humans to the continued sufficient supply of these services is heightened in the face of diseases such as malaria, HIV/Aids and tuberculosis. Among other things, the ability to avoid infection, and to survive if infected, is strongly linked to nutrition and environment. One of the most common methods of appraising adaptation options is cost benefit analysis (CBA). CBA is a systematic process of identifying, valuing, and comparing the costs and the benefits of a project in order to make concrete recommendations. Specifically, CBA is used to determine the extent to which the benefits of a given project outweigh the costs and to compare the relative merits of alternative projects in order to identify a preferred approach. Other methodologies include cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), robust decision making (RDM) and real options analysis (ROA), each with differing approaches, levels of uncertainties, and level of effort needed in conducting the analyses. Given that much of the economic case for Eco-DRR resides in the offset costs, success or failure is largely an issue of political debate that will have to address issues of rural peoples’ rights of access to resources and land tenure. In so doing governments will need to address their own short-term economic and developmental aspirations over longer-term environmental security and disaster risk reduction. 51

7. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS An Eco-DRR approach in ESA presents the region with a number of opportunities and several challenges if it is to be mainstreamed into both development and conservation efforts. The table below identifies some of the significant areas of opportunity and respective constraint. AREA

OPPORTUNITIES

CONSTRAINTS

International Institutional

The field of Eco-DRR is becoming increasingly accepted by multilateral donors and international institutions such as the CBD, UNISDR, UNEP. Eco-DRR addresses key areas of the Aichi biodiversity targets, the Sendai Framework and Climate Change Protocols.

There remains a considerable disconnect between international conventions and planning to activities at local levels. Funding is not sufficiently localised and often tied up in cumbersome bureaucratic processes.

Regional Institutional

In the ESA region both SADC and IGAD are fully supportive of Eco-DRR approaches. Regional NGOs have had some successes in fundraising and implementing Eco-DRR even if it is not specifically called Eco-DRR.

Regional bodies such as SADC and IGAD have very little funding and are heavily reliant on external donor resources. Given the importance placed by member states on short-term economic development there is often only a willingness to pay lip service to Eco-DRR.

National Institutional

Increasingly Eco-DRR is being incorporated into national environmental strategies, plans and policies. Local environmental and development NGOs are incorporating Eco-DRR into their activities.

Cross-sectorial integration at national government level is hard to achieve. Eco-DRR is yet to be considered a national developmental priority and is therefore understaffed and underfunded. Local NGOs are highly dependent on external donor funding which is project rather than process based and only available for limited periods of time.

Natural Capital

Despite rapid changes in the past twenty years, the overall natural capital of ESA remains comparatively high. Implementing successful Eco-DRR requires that issues of governance be addressed. This may impact from very localised community level to

Changes are occurring and at increasing rate often driven by poverty and population growth or migration. Bad, poor and weak governance represent one of the greatest threats to sustainable development and ecosystem management in ESA.

national level. As the cost of responding to disasters and humanitarian crises increases, Eco-DRR approaches offer a long-term cost effective response to preventing and recovering from disasters.

The increasing number of disasters means that there is still a great emphasis on response and recovery activities. Attracting funding from state and external sources remains a considerable challenge in ESA.

Governance

Economic

Knowledge and Capacity

As Eco-DRR approaches become more widely accepted and incorporated into developmental and conservation activities, there is an opportunity to increase knowledge dissemination (both formal and traditional) and capacity development at all levels. An important opportunity to train the next generation of government officials, field practitioners and academic researchers is currently developing.

Funding for knowledge and capacity development remains a low priority. Tertiary training is poorly catered for in this sector and academic research relies on donor funding and external academic institutions primarily located in the developed north.

8. CONCLUSIONS Some of the most prominent regional environmental issues affecting the continent include deforestation and desertification, water scarcity, pollution, threats to biodiversity, spread of alien invasive species, land and coastal degradation, poaching, and the impact of anthropogenic activities such as mining. Climate change is expected to increase the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events. Low-lying coastal areas will be threatened by sea level rise and thus be inundated with water, suffer coastal erosion and experience storm surges. This will have a devastating effect on human populations living in and around these low-lying coastal areas. Climate variability and change, together with human-induced changes, will also affect important ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs, which will have additional negative consequences for the fisheries and tourism industries. The main concern behind heightened disaster risks, however, is the vulnerability of human populations, which is exacerbated by minimal coping capacities. Most countries in ESA have limited resources for investment in disaster risk reduction measures and minimal fiscal space to provide funding for disaster relief and recovery efforts. Much of the post-2015 policy era has centred on finding synergies between the closely related elements of disaster risk reduction, climate change and adaptation. The Sustainable Development Goals, new humanitarian actions and the protection of biodiversity are key elements of this policy debate. At regional level, stakeholders need to foster greater collaboration across global and regional mechanisms. Institutions responsible for implementation need to develop a coherence of instruments and tools relevant to disaster risk reduction. These tools will need to address areas such as climate change, biodiversity, sustainable development, poverty eradication, environment, agriculture, health, food and nutrition. Both East and Southern Africa regions still experience challenges with mainstreaming climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction into development policies, even though progress has been made in the past decade. The RECs have an important role to play in respect of building Eco-DRR into regional approaches. Regional specialised centres are also needed to find better ways of working together, sharing information and addressing common issues.

52

Laws and policies in the ESA countries address both disaster risk reduction and environmental management. However, integration and project implementation at sub-national level is mostly compartmentalised or fragmented. The linkage between climate change and adaptation, sustainability, disaster risk reduction, biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management is seldom sufficiently recognised. Various national multi-sector platforms for environmental management and disaster risk reduction exist without much interaction. Evidence from the regions show that community-based approaches to Eco-DRR tend to be most effective when supported by sufficient understanding and historical knowledge on ecosystems and disasters. At this level, projects can be more cost effective to implement with considerable tangible benefits. An entry point to communities can be conservation and the protection of biodiversity because this relates closely to their own livelihoods rather than abstract terms such as disaster risk reduction. Disaster risk reduction cannot be isolated from normal environmental management, protection of ecosystems, enhancing ecosystem services, the offset of climate change and climate change adaptation. However, implementing DRR strategies to reduce disaster risk does not usually focus on the ecological aspects, missing the important holistic dimension. Addressing this shortcoming requires a process of capacity building, knowledge transfer and policy development. Section 3 of this report demonstrated the importance of Eco-DRR through the use of the theoretical Pressure and Release model. Following the analysis of this model and the case studies used in this report, it is clear that dynamic pressures and root causes need to be addressed if the continued cycle of disasters in ESA are to be reduced. In conclusion, the key messages of this report are: • The disaster risk profile in ESA is a combination of natural and anthropogenic hazards. • Current trends indicate that disasters in ESA are likely to increase in both number and impact. • Failure to address biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation will increase impact and reduce the overall resilience of socio-ecological systems. • Eco-DRR is often being applied in ESA without being specifically identified as such. • The application of Eco-DRR needs to occur at different scales simultaneously. • Eco-DRR requires a multi-sectorial and multi-disciplinary approach. • Community-based DRR approaches work and are cost effective. • Suitable and effective policies need to be developed at global, regional and national levels. • International funding support for Eco-DRR will be required in ESA.

53

9. REFERENCES ACDI (African Climate & Development Initiative). 2016. Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation. http://www.acdi.uct.ac.za/ vulnerability-impacts-and-adaptation. ACP SECRETARIAT. 2014. In situ conservation and use of crop wild relatives in three ACP countries of the SADC region. ACP Science & Technology Programme. 2p. http://acp-st.eu/sites/all/files/projects-factsheet/ACP-330-210_PRINT.pdf AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP. 2011. Droughts in East Africa: a reminder on the devastating effects of climate change in Africa. http://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/article/droughts-in-east-africa-a-reminder-on-thedevastating-effects-of-climate-change-in-africa-8267/ AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP. 2016. About us: energy and climate change. http://www.afdb.org/en/annualmeetings-2016/about-us/ AFRICAN UNION. 2004. Africa regional strategy for disaster risk reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/files/4038_ africaregionalstrategy1.pdf AMADHILA, E., SHAAMHULA, L., VAN ROOY, G. & SIYAMBANGO, N. (2013). Disaster risk reduction in the Omusati and Oshana regions of Namibia. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 5, 1-9. ANGULA, M.N & KAUNDJUA, M.B. 2016. The changing climate and human vulnerability in north-central Namibia. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 8(2):7pp. BECK, M.W. 2014. Coasts at Risk: An Assessment of Coastal Risks and the Role of Environmental Solutions. A joint publication of United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Coastal Resources Center (CRC) at the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL. 2016. Crop wild relatives. http://www.bioversityinternational.org/cwr/ Date of access: 11 May 2016. BLAIKIE, P. M., CANNON, T., DAVIS, I. & WISNER, B. 1994. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. London; New York: Routledge. BOKO, M., NIANG, I., NYONG, A., VOGEL, C., GITHEKO, A., MEDANY, M., OSMAN-ELASHA, B., TABO, R. & YANDA, P. 2007. Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 433–467. BOLAND, P. & HUNHAMMAR, S. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29: 293–301. BOMUHANGI, A., GORETTIE, N., MANAALWA, J.J., JACOBSON, M.G. & ABWOLI, B. 2016. Local communities’ perceptions of climate variability in the Mt. Elgon region, eastern Uganda. Cogent Environmental Science 2. BONGO, P. P., CHIPANGURA, P., MOYO, F. & SITHOLE, M. 2013. A rights-based analysis of disaster risk reduction framework in Zimbabwe and its implications for policy and practice. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 5(2):11pp. http://www.jamba.org.za/index.php/jamba/article/view/81 BOURNE, A., DONATTI, C., HOLNESS, S. & MIDGLEY, G. 2012. Climate change vulnerability assessment for the Namakwa District Municipality. Conservation South Africa. http://www.conservation.org/global/ci_south_africa/publications/ Documents/Vulnerability%20Assessment%20Full%20Technical%20Report%20-%20NDM.pdf BRANDER, L. & SCHUYT, K. 2010. Benefits transfer: the economic value of the world’s wetlands. TEEB case. 3p. http://www. teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The-economic-value-of-the-worlds-wetlands.pdf BRICKETT, C., MURTUGUDDE, R. & ALLAN, T. 1999. Indian Ocean brings floods to East Africa’s lake and Sudd marsh. Geographical Research Letters. 26(8):1031–1034. BUGNACKI, J. 2015. Critical issues facing Africa: terrorism, war and political violence. American Security Project. Posted on 17 Jan. http://www.americansecurityproject.org/critical-issues-facing-africa-terrorism-war-and-political-violence/ CAPE ACTION. 2016. ICLEI launches national LAB Wetlands project. http://www.capeaction.org.za/index.php/newsitem/721-iclei-launches-national-lab-wetlands-project Date of access: 22 May 2016. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2009. Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. CBD Technical Series No. 41. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2010. Fourth National Reports. http://cbd.int/ CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2013. Valuing the biodiversity of dry and sub-humid lands. Technical Series No.71. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and OSLO consortium. CBD. 2014. Notification: Incorporating disaster risk reduction into National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and opportunities to engage with national agencies responsible for the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 – 2015 and follow up in 2015. Ref.: SCBD/SAM/DC/DCo/VA/83873. 16 September 2014. https://www.cbd.int/doc/ notifications/2014/ntf-2014-116-nbsaps-en.pdf CEM (Commission on Ecosystem Management). CESAR, H. S., VAN BEUKERING, P. J. H., PINTZ, W & DIERKING, J. 2003. Economic valuation of the coral reefs of Hawai’i. Hawai’i Coral Reef Initiative, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu. 54

CHAMBERS, R. 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first. London, UK: Longman. CHEWE, G. 2016. Ecosystem Based Adaptation to climate change in Namakwa District Municipality. African Climate and Development Initiative (ACDI). http://www.acdi.uct.ac.za/news/ecosystem-based-adaptation-climate-changenamakwa-district-municipality CI (Conservation International). 2011. Action Pledge. Madagascar. http://www.conservation.org/publications/documents/CI_ Madagascar_NWP_Submission_Climate_Adaptation_for_Biodiversity_Ecosystem_Services_and_Livelihoods.pdf CILLIERS, J., HUGHES, B. & MOYER, J. 2011. African Futures 2050. Institute for Security Studies. CLIMATE SYSTEM ANALYSIS GROUP. 2016. Climate change in southern Africa and the associated impacts. http://media. csag.uct.ac.za/faq/qa_3impacts.html Date of access: 23 May 2016. COMMENCEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT. 2007. Government Gazette No. 4878. http://www.theeis. com/data/literature/Commencement_of_the_Environmental_Management_Act.pdf. Date of access: 14 April 2016. CONSERVATION SOUTH AFRICA. 2012. Adapting to climate change: maintaining ecosystem services for human well-being in the Namakwa District Municipality, South Africa. 9pp. http://www.conservation.org/publications/Documents/ CI_Ecosystem-based-Adaptation-South-Africa-Vulnerability-Assessment-Brochure.pdf CONSERVATION SOUTH AFRICA. 2016. Ecosystem based adaptation action for priority site in South Africa’s semi-arid ecosystem in the Namakwa District. http://www.conservation.org/global/ci_south_africa/Pages/ecosystembased-adaptation-in-the-namakwa-district.aspx CWR DIVERSITY (CROP WILD RELATIVES DIVERSITY). 2016. Crop wild relatives and climate change adaptation. http://www. cwrdiversity.org/project/cwr-and-climate-change-adaptation/ DA COSTA, K. 2014. How law and regulation supports disaster risk reduction: Madagascar country case study report. Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). 2016. Why are wetlands important? 1p. http://www.nda.agric.za/ doaDev/topMenu/DoAProgrammes/landcare/Impotance%20of%20wetland.pdf DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT. 2011. National Disaster Risk Management Plan: Republic of Namibia. DOSWALD, N. & ESTRELLA, M. 2015. Promoting Ecosystems for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: opportunities for integration. UNEP. Post-conflict and Disaster Management Branch: discussion paper. 49pp. http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/portals/155/publications/EcoDRR_Discussion_paper_web.pdf DULLOO, E. & THORMANN, I. 2015. Crop wild relatives – are they going to end up like the dodo? http://www. bioversityinternational.org/news/detail/crop-wild-relatives-are-they-going-to-end-up-like-the-dodo/ Date of access: 11 May 2016. EAC (East African Commission), 2012. Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Strategy (2012 – 2016), East African Commission Secretariat, Arusha, Tanzania. EAC (East African Commission). 2011. Fourth EAC Development Strategy (2011/12 – 2015/16): Deepening and accelerating integration, East African Commission Secretariat, Arusha, Tanzania. EC (European Commission). 2013. ECHO global vulnerability and crisis assessment 2013. Joint Research Centre. http:// reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/gna_fca_2013_2014_map.pdf ECSFP (European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme). Date unknown. Bordering on a water crisis: the need for integrated resource management in the Mara River Basin. Integrated Transboundary River Management. 8pp. http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/INTREPID/PolicyBrief.pdf EM-DAT (Emergency Events Database). 2016. CRED International Disaster Database. Brussels, Belgium: Universite Catholique de Louvain. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT. 2006. National Biodiversity strategy and action plan. Environmental Affairs Department. Lilongwe: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mw/mw-nbsap-01-en.pdf ESTRELLA, M. & SAALISMAA, N. 2013. Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR): an overview. In: Renaud, F., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. & Estrella, M. (eds.) The role of ecosystem management in disaster risk reduction. Tokyo: UNU Press. FANTA, T. 2015. National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2013–2015): Ethiopia, pp 1–52. FAOLEX (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Legal Office). 2014. Mozambique: Law No. 15/2014 establishing the legal framework for disaster management. FAOLEX – legislative database of FAO Legal Office. FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA. 1997. Environmental Policy. Addis Ababa: Environmental Protection Authority in Collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation. pp 1–29. FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA. 2013. National Policy and Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (ENPS DRM). Addis Ababa. pp. 1–25. GFDRR (Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2014. Mozambique. Recovery from recurrent floods 2000–2013: Recovery framework case study. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY. 2016a. GEF Benefits Index for Biodiversity (GBIBIO). https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/ thegef.org/files/documents/GBI_Biodiversity_0.pdf 55

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY. 2016b. GEF Benefits Index. https://www.thegef.org/gef/GEF-4_benefits_index GOLDER, 2014. Final Impact Assessment Report. PSA Development and LPG Project. Chapter 3. Sasol Petroleum Mozambique Limitada and Sasol Petroleum Temane Limitada. GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA. 2012. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/nam137202.pdf. Date of access: 14 April 2016. GOVERNMENT OF MALAWI. 2011. Malawi Growth and Development Strategy II (MGDS II) 2011 – 2016, Ministry of Finance and Development Planning, Lilongwe, Malawi. GOVERNMENT OF MALAWI. 2015. National Disaster Risk Policy. Secretary and Commissioner for Disaster Management Affairs, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, Lilongwe, Malawi. GOVERNMENT OF MOZAMBIQUE. 1999. National Disaster Risk Management Policy, 1999 Maputo. GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBIA. 2015a. Disaster Management Act, 2010. Lusaka. GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBIA. 2015b. Ministry of Lands Natural Resources and Environmental Protection United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Fifth National Report. GOVERNMENT OF ZIMBABWE. 2003. National Environmental Policy. Second Draft. GOVERNMENT OF ZIMBABWE. 2004. Chapter 20:27: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT 13 of 2002. Amended by Act 5/2004. GUPTA, A.K. & NAIR, S.S. (eds.) 2012. Ecosystem Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction. New Delhi: National Institute of Disaster Management. 202pp. GWP (Global Water Partnership). 2010. What is IWRM? http://www.gwp.org/the-challenge/what-is-iwrm/. HARDOY, J. & SATTERTWAITE, D. 1989. Squatter Citizen. London: Earthscan. HEWITT, K. 2013. Disasters in “development” context: contradictions and options for a preventative approach. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 5(2), Art. #91, 8pp. HOLMES, P., WOOD, J. & DORSE, C. 2008. City of Cape Town: biodiversity report. 68p. https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/ EnvironmentalResourceManagement/publications/Documents/Biodiversity%20Report%20CCT-LAB%202008.pdf ICLEI (INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES). 2016. http://africa.iclei.org/our-activities/ project-programmes/biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services/projects-programmes/wetlands-programme.html Date of access: 22 May 2016. IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2015. 2014–2015 Global Food Policy Report. Washington DC: IFPRI. https://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/gfpr/2015/index.html IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross). 2012. Background Report Law and Regulation for the Reduction of Risk from Natural Disasters in Kenya. A National Law Desk Survey, September 2012. Prepared by Christine Ye-Rang Nam. IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development). 2016. IGAD’s regional perspective in disaster risk reduction. www. preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/IGADDRMStatementGenevafinal.doc IKOME, F.N. 2012. Africa’s International Borders as Potential Sources of Conflict and Future Threats to Peace and Security. Institute for Security Studies. IOM (International Organisation for Migration). 2015. Environmental Migration Portal. Regional Maps on Migration, Environment and Climate Change. https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/maps IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 582 pp. JEMBERE, K. 2009. Participatory integrated water resources management (IWRM) planning: Lessons from Berki Catchment, Ethiopia. 34th WEDC International Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. JENNER, N. & BALMFORTH, Z. 2015. Biodiversity offsets: Lessons learnt from policy and practice. Country Summary Report: South Africa. Unpublished Report. Fauna & Flora International. KELLET, J. & SPARKS, D. 2012. Disaster Risk Reduction: spending where it should count. Global Humanitarian Assistance, Development Initiatives. 40 pp. KNOEMA, 2016. Biodiversity and Protected Areas – GEF benefits index for biodiversity. World Data Atlas. https://knoema.com/ atlas/topics/Environment/Biodiversity-and-Protected-Areas/GEF-benefits-index-for-biodiversity?type=maps KOTZE, D. 2000. The contribution of wetlands to the attenuation of floods. Mondi Wetlands Programme. 7 pp. LOPEZ-CARR, D., PRICOPE, N.G., JANKOWSKA, M.M., FUNK, C., HUSAK, G. & MICHAELSEN, J. 2012. Mapping population vulnerability and climate change in Africa. International seminar on population dynamics and the human dimension of climate change. Canberra, Australia, 27–29 November. LUQUE, S. & IVERSON, L. 2016. Forest-related ecosystem services. pp 383–393. In: POTSCHIN, M., HAINES-YOUNG, R., FISH, R. & TURNER, R.K. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. New York: Routledge. LVBC & WWF-ESARPO (Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) of the East African Community (EAC) & WWF Eastern & Southern Africa Regional Programme Office (WWF-ESARPO). 2010. Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Management of the Mara River Basin. Nairobi and Kisumu, Kenya. 56

LVBC & WWF-ESARPO (Lake Victoria Basin Commission and World Wildlife Fund Eastern & Southern Africa Regional Programme Office). 2010. Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the Sustainable Management of the Mara River Basin. Nairobi and Kisumu, Kenya. 48 pp. MAES, F., CLIQUET, A., PLESSIS, DU, W. & MCLEOD-KILMURRAY, H. 2013. Biodiversity and Climate Change: Linkages at International, National and Local Levels. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. MAGADZA, C.H.D. 2000. Climate change impacts and human settlements in Africa: prospects for adaptation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61: 193–205. MAJONI, T. 2015. The challenges of DRR in Zimbabwe. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction – Regional Office for Africa. https://www.unisdr.org/archive/45266 MAPLECROFT. 2013. 2012 least deadly for natural disasters in 10 years, but lack of resilience leaves key growth economics at ‘extreme risk’. Publication date: 07 Mar. http://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/31552 MASCARENHAS, A. & WISNER, B. 2012. Politics: Power and Disasters. In: B. Wisner, JC Gaillard and I. Kelman (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Hazard and Disaster Risk Reduction, pp. 48–60. London: Routledge. MAUAMBETA, D.D.C. 2000. Sustainable management of indigenous forests in Mwanza East, Malawi: an innovative approach to community-based natural resource management projects. Participatory Forest Management: a strategy for sustainable forest management in Africa. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Community Forestry in Africa, 26-30 April 1999, Banjul, The Gambia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation. MAWF (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry). 2012. Namibia Country Pilot Partnership Programme: Adapting to climate change through the improvement of traditional crops and livestock farming (CPP NAM: CCA). Final Evaluation Report. Republic of Namibia: Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. 77 pp. MAYET, N. 2014. Wonders of Wetlands. http://greendeensa.org/the-wonders-of-wetlands-2/. Date of access: 8 June 2016. MET OFFICE. 2016. ENSO impacts: El Niño Southern Oscillation is a key component of year-to-year climate variability. http:// www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/gpc-outlooks/el-nino-la-nina/ENSO-impacts. MITSCH, W.J. & GOSSELINK, J.G. 1986. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. MWE (Ministry of Water and Environment). 2013. Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Mountain Elgon Ecosystem: Vulnerability Impact Assessment (VIA) for the Mt Elgon Ecosystem. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/154f22ce6 94d6d70?projector=1 NACHMANY, M., FANKHAUSER, S., TOWNSHEND, T., COLLINS, M., LANDESMAN, T., MATTHEWS, A., PAVESE, C., RIETIG, K., SCHLEIFER, P. & SETZER, J. 2014. The GLOBE Climate Legislation Study: A Review of Climate Change Legislation in 66 Countries. Fourth Edition. London: GLOBE International and the Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics. NEGUSSIE, E. 2014. Mozambican parliament passes a new disaster management law. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-law/news/africa/mozambicanparliament-passes-a-new-disaster-management-law/ NEMA Kenya (National Environment Management Authority – Kenya). 2016. Environmental Act (EMCA). http://www.nema. go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=149 NEMA. 2011. Developing biodiversity monitoring indicators for Uganda (draft). Available at: http://www.bipindicators.net/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=o2Lye0H-2KY%3D&tabid=38. NEMAKONDE, L.M. 2016. Integrating parallel structures for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the Southern Africa Development Community. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus. NGECU, W. & MATHU, E. 1999. The El Nino-triggered landslides and their socioeconomic impact on Kenya. Environmental Geology, 38(4): 277–284. OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). 2016. Regional Outlook for Southern Africa: Recommendations for Humanitarian Action and Resilience Response. 29 March – 2 May. Sunninghill: OCHA-Rosa. OIE-IUCN (World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) & International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2014. Guidelines for Wildlife Disease Risk Analysis. OIE, Paris, 24 pp. Published in association with the IUCN and the Species Survival Commission. OLAGO, D., OWINO, J.P. & ODADA, E. 2015. Building resilience to climate change of Mt. Elgon: policy implications and recommendations. ACCESS/IUCN. 13 pp. PEDRR (Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction). 2010. Demonstrating the Role of Ecosystem-based Management for Disaster Risk Reduction. Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction. PELLING, M. & WISNER, B. (eds.) 2009. Disaster Risk Reduction: Examples from Urban Africa. London: Earthscan. PERRINGS, C. 2010. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Climate Change. Environmental Economics Series. ecoSERVICES Working Paper, ASU, Tempe. PRACTICAL ACTION AND CHRISTIAN AID. 2009. The Economic Cost of Climate Change in Africa. Pan African Climate Justice Alliance. http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/economic-cost-of-climate-change-in-africa.pdf

57

PREVENTIONWEB. 2016. National Institute of Disaster Management (INGC). http://www.preventionweb.net/organizations/1347 RAHERINDRAY, R. 2016. Nosy Hara Marine Park – it’s awesome. http://c-3.org.uk/nosy-hara-marine-park-its-awesome/ Date of access: 18 May 2016. RAKOTONDRAZAFY, H. & FISCHBORN, M. 2014. Pioneering climate change adapted Marine Protected Area management in Madagascar. 74-82 pp. In: MURTI, R. & BUYCK, C. (eds.) Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Switzerland: IUCN. 168 pp. RALISON, H. 2010. Marine Protected Areas and Climate Change in Northwestern Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA). Issue 4. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.5ce3bd8012d7 9a59295800014140/1459560191375/WIOMSAMAGAZINE.pdf RCMRD (Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development). 2012. Project implementation guide: Malawi, land cover mapping for green house gas inventories development project in East and Southern Africa region. Nairobi, Kenya; 85 p (In: HAACK, B. & MAHABIR, R.S. 2014. Remote sensing derived national land cover land use maps: a comparison for Malawi. Geocarto International, Aug. DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2014.952355) REDDEN, R., YADAV, S.S., MAXTED, N., DULLOO, M.E., GUARINO, L. & SMITH, P. 2015. Crop Wild Relatives and Climate Change. Wiley-Blackwell. 400 pp. REID, H. 2011. Improving the evidence for ecosystem-based adaptation. IIED Opinion: Lessons from adaptation in practice. Reid, H. 2015. Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from community-based natural resource management. Climate and Development, DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2015.1034233. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. 1998. National Environmental Management Act. Act No. 107, 1998. Government Gazette, no. 19519, 27 Nov., Cape Town. REUCHLIN-HUGENHOLTZ, E. & MCKENZIE, E. 2015. Marine protected areas: Smart investments in ocean health. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. RIVERS-MOORE, N. A. & COWDEN, C. 2012. Regional prediction of wetland degradation in South Africa. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 20(6), 491–502. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-012-9271-5 RIZVI, A.R., BAIG, S., & VERDONE, M. 2014. Ecosystems Based Adaptation: Knowledge Gaps in Making an Economic Case for Investing in Nature Based Solutions for Climate Change. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. V + 48 pp. RUPPEL, C. O. & RUPPEL-SCHLICHTING, K. (eds). 2013. Environmental law and policy in Namibia towards making Africa the tree of life. Namibia: Hans Seidel Foundation Namibia; LRDT Legal Research and Development Trust of Namibia. SADC (Southern African Development Community). 2011. SADC disaster risk reduction strategy and plan of action. Gaborone: SADC Secretariat. SADC (Southern African Development Community). 2016. Outcomes of the Ministerial workshop on food security and poverty eradication. Theme: towards a poverty free and food secure future. Gabarone, Botswana, 16 May. http://www. sadc.int/files/8114/6410/2874/Outcomes_Food_Security_Workshop_17_May_2016.pdf SADC Crop Wild Relatives. 2016. About SADC crop wild relatives. http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/sadc-cwr-project/about-sadc-cwr/ SATHER, J.H. & SMITH, R.D. 1984. An overview of major wetland functions. US Fish & Wildlife Service. SCHOLES, R.J., KUPER, W. & BIGGS, R. 2006. Biodiversity. Africa environment outlook 2. Our environment, our wealth, pp. 226–261. http://hdl.handle.net/10204/1179 SEO, S. N., MENDELSOHN, R., DINAR, A., HASSAN, R. & KURUKULASURIYA, P. 2009. A Ricardian Analysis of the Distribution of Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture across Agro-Ecological Zones in Africa. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(3), 313–332. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9270-z SHAH, N. & ATTWOOD, C. (eds.) 2010. Climate change – less talk, more action! Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA). Issue 4. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.5ce3bd8012d7 9a59295800014140/1459560191375/WIOMSAMAGAZINE.pdf SUDMEIER-RIEUX, K., NEVILLE. A. & MURTI, R. 2013. Environmental Guidance Note for Disaster Risk Reduction: Healthy Ecosystems for Human Security and Climate Change Adaptation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 34 pp. SULILA, H. 2015. What’s in a name? Agriculture and food security in Mozambique. USAID, SPEED, AfricaLead. http://www.speedprogram.com/blogs/by-author/honorata-sulila/whats-in-a-name-agriculture-and-food-security-in-mozambique TADEGE, A. 2007. Climate change national adaptation programme of action of Ethiopia. National Meteorological Agency. pp. 1–85. TANAKA, N., SASAKI, Y., MOWJOOD, M.I.M., JINADASA, K.B.S.N., HOMCHUEN, S. 2006. Coastal vegetation structures and their functions in tsunami protection: experience of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. Landsc. Ecol. Eng., 3: 33-45. TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. TEEB. 2016. The initiative. http://www.teebweb.org/about/the-initiative/ UN (United Nations). 2014. Sustainable Development in Kenya: Stocktaking in the run up to Rio+20. 69 pp. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/985kenya.pdf UN (United Nations). 2015. World population prospects. New York: United Nations. 66 pp. 58

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2012. The Future We Want: Biodiversity and Ecosystems—Driving Sustainable Development. United Nations Development Programme Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012–2020. New York. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2008. Africa: atlas of our changing environment. Division of Early Warning and Assessment, North America. http://www.unep.org/dewa/africa/africaAtlas/PDF/en/Africa_Atlas_Full_en.pdf UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2009. Global Environmental outlook 5: Environment for the future we want. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2010. State of Biodiversity in Africa. pp 1–12. Nairobi: UNEP. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2015. Global synthesis report: Success Stories in Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services into Macro-economic Policy and Land Use Planning: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/ resources/Global%20synthesis%20report.pdf UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2016. A glass half empty: Regions at risk due to groundwater depletion. Thematic focus: Ecosystem management and resource efficiency. UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS). Available at http://www.unep. org/pdf UNEP, UNDP and IUCN (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)). 2014. Ecosystem-based adaptation: adapting to climate change in mountain ecosystems. http://adaptation-undp.org/sites/default/files/downloads/2014_mt_ eba_brochure_global_vs.pdf UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2011. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its 16th session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1. http://unfccc. int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=4 UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2016. Cancun Adaptation Framework. http://unfccc. int/adaptation/items/5852.php UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2004a. Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/657 UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2004b. Towards Sustainable Development in Africa. Report on the status of Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Risk Assessment in Africa. UNISDR/NEPAD report (May, 2004). www.unep.org/.../NEPAD%20Secretariat%2. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2007. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 - 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR. Version 2007. http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/HFA UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2010a. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR 2011). Demonstrating the role of ecosystems-based management for disaster risk reduction. Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR). 113p. http://www.preventionweb.net/ english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/PEDRR_2010.pdf UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2010b. Declaration of the Second African Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, Nairobi, Kenya, April 14–16. www.unisdr.org/preventionweb/files/13655_ MinisterialDeclarationinEnglishadop[1].pdf UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2012. Disaster Reduction in Africa. UNISDR informs. Special Report on Drought Reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/files/26438_isdrafricainformsspecialissuesondro.pdf UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2015a. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Adopted at the Third UN World Conference in Sendai, Japan, on 18 March 2015. UNISDR. 2015b. The Global Assessment Report on disaster risk reduction 2015. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). UNPF (United Nations Population Fund). 2014. The state of the world’s population. New York: UNFPA. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Economic benefits of wetlands. https://www.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/2016-02/documents/economicbenefits.pdf VAN NIEKERK, D. 2015a. Critical elements for the inclusion in a new Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Bill for the Government of Uganda. UNDP/OPM: Kampala. VAN NIEKERK, D. 2015b. Literature review of relevant policies and legislation to inform the development of a new disaster risk reduction and management act for the Republic of Uganda. UNDP/OPM: Kampala. VAN NIEKERK, D., COETZEE, C., BECKER, C., HILDEBRANDT, L., FOURIE, K., ANNANDALE, E., SHOROMA, B., SNYMAN, E., MURPHREE, M.J. & WENTINK. G. 2013. Disaster risk reduction investments in Africa. UNISDR. Nairobi. WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL. 2016a. No Sustainable Development Goals unless action is taken to reduce the deficit in natural infrastructure. https://www.wetlands.org/news/no-sustainable-development-goals-unless-action-istaken-to-reduce-the-deficit-in-natural-infrastructure/ Date of access: 22 May 2016.

59

WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL. 2016b. Act now on wetlands for Agenda 2030. https://www.wetlands.org/publications/actnow-on-wetlands-for-agenda-2030/ Date of access: 26 May 2016. WISNER, B. 1988. Power and Need in Africa. London: Earthscan. WISNER, B. 2004. Disaster risk reduction efforts in Zimbabwe. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reuction (ISDR), CRID. http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI13022752/00001 WISNER, B., BLAIKIE, P. M., CANNON, T., & DAVIS, I. 2004. At risk. London: Routledge. WISNER, B., GAILLARD, J. C. & KELMAN, I. 2012. Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management. Oxon: Routledge. WISNER, B., TOULMIN, C. & CHITIGA, R. 2006. Introduction. In: B. Wisner, C. Toulmin & R. Chitiga (eds.) Towards a New Map of Africa, pp. 1–50. London: Earthscan. WORLD BANK, 2011. Vulnerability, Risk Reduction, and Adaptation to Climate Change, Madagascar climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profile, Washington DC: World Bank. WORLD BANK. 2010a. Governance and Development Effectiveness Review:
A Political Economy Analysis of Governance in Madagascar, Public Sector Reform and Capacity Building Unit (AFTPR)
Africa Region, Washington D.C: World Bank. WORLD BANK. 2013. World Development Report 2014: Risk and Opportunity–Managing Risk for Development. Washington DC: World Bank. WORLD BANK. 2015. Disaster Management in Africa. http://go.worldbank.org/UO0ESIRF10 WORLD BANK-GFDRR (World Bank – Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2010a. Making Development Climate Resilient: A World Bank Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. http:// beta.worldbank.org/content/ WORLD BANK-GFDRR (World Bank – Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2010b. Report on the status of Disaster Risk Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa. http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2010_ Status_DRR_Africa.pdf WREM (Water Resources and Energy Management) International. 2008. Mara River Basin Monograph, Mara River Basin Transboundary Integrated Water Resource Management and Development Project. Final technical report. Atlanta. 446 pp. WWF (World Wildlife Foundation). 2010. Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Management of the Mara River Basin. YIN, R. K. 2003. Case study research, design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. ZAWA (Zambia Wildlife Authority). 2015. Country Report for the Tenth Session of Parties (COP-10) to Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Uruguay. ZIMBABWE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION. 2003. Summary of the Environmental Management Act.

60

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office P. O. Box 68200 - 00200 Nairobi, Kenya Tel +254 20 249 3561/65 +254 724 256804 +254 734 768770 https://www.iucn.org/regions/eastern-and-southern-africa