Mainstreaming biodiversity and wildlife management into climate change policy frameworks in selected east and southern African countries

Abstract

The Rio+20 outcomes document, the Future We Want, enshrines green economy as one of the platforms to attain sustainable development and calls for measures that seek to address climate change and biodiversity management. This paper audits climate change policies from selected east and southern African countries to determine the extent to which climate change legislation mainstreams biodiversity and wildlife management. A scan of international, continental, regional and national climate change policies was conducted to assess whether they include biodiversity and/or wildlife management issues. The key finding is that many climate change policy–related documents, particularly the National Adaptation Programme of Actions (NAPAs), address threats to biodiversity and wildlife resources. However, international policies like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol do not address the matter under deliberation. Regional climate change policies such as the East African Community, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa and African Union address biodiversity and/or wildlife issues whilst the Southern African Development Community region does not have a stand-alone policy for climate change. Progressive countries like Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia have recently put in place detailed NAPAs which are mainstream responsive strategies intended to address climate change adaptation in the wildlife sector.

Tourist perceptions and attitudes regarding the impacts of climate change on Victoria Falls

“…These included a further decline in animal and bird populations and increased temperatures, which was also disturbing. Mapira (2018) and Kupika and Nhamo (2016) seem to confirm some tourists' observations by pointing out that climate variability and change attributed to droughts in the basin led to vegetation and habitat loss, which, in turn, resulted in animal population reductions in many Zimbabwe National parks including the Zambezi and Victoria Falls National Park on the Zimbabwean side, which have the potential to scuttle game safari activities in the area.…”

Impacts of Climate Change and Climate Variability on Wildlife Resources in Southern Africa: Experience from Selected Protected Areas in Zimbabwe

“…Land and water protection and management such as hunting and disease control impacts by boundary fencing of the park, culling operations and water provisioning, have influenced the dynamics of large herbivore population trends in the Kruger National Park (KNP) over the past century [83,84]. Thus, the interactive effects of disease and climate-induced factors have the potential to affect many iconic African wildlife species under a changing climate.…”

“…In view of the magnitude of impacts, in future it will be important to incorporate predicted and observed climate change impacts into overall wildlife management plans and to review and modify existing laws, regulations and policies regarding wildlife management. Kupika and Nhamo [84] noted that most countries in Southern Africa do not mainstream climate change in their biodiversity-related policies. Thus, lack on enabling policy framework retards progress in as far as responding to climate-related disasters is concerned.…”

Climate change, carbon market instruments, and biodiversity: focusing on synergies and avoiding pitfalls

“…Consensus has emerged that policy mainstreaming fosters policy coherence across sectors and stakeholders, and is pivotal for developing effective measures in complex fields such as climate change mitigation. 45,46 If such integration of sectoral policies is done appropriately, this allows to (1) avoid or reduce conflicts between competing policies; (2) steer resources towards overarching political goals while avoiding mal-spending; and (3) increase the recognition of the importance of biodiversity in climate and land-use policies. Clearly, there are many political difficulties in factoring climate change goals into existing policies, thus regional to national solutions might be most appropriate.…”

“…Finally, climate policy goals need to be integrated into the wider context of land‐use relevant policies (Table , recommendation 6). Consensus has emerged that policy mainstreaming fosters policy coherence across sectors and stakeholders, and is pivotal for developing effective measures in complex fields such as climate change mitigation . If such integration of sectoral policies is done appropriately, this allows to (1) avoid or reduce conflicts between competing policies; (2) steer resources towards overarching political goals while avoiding mal‐spending; and (3) increase the recognition of the importance of biodiversity in climate and land‐use policies.…”