sitanalysis 2nd draft 10th may - iucn · 2016-05-19 · 6 casd situation analysis for iucn esaro...

Situation Analysis – Conservation Areas & Species Diversity 2nd Draft for review by Leo Niskanen 10th May 2011

Compiled by Leo Niskanen

Technical Coordinator

Conservation Areas and Species Diversity Programme

IUCN Eastern and Southern Africa Programme Office

Draft May 2011

2 CASD situation analysis for IUCN ESARO – 2nd draft 10th May 2011 by Leo Niskanen

TableofContentsAcronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8

2. State of biodiversity in eastern and southern Africa ............................................................................ 9

Overview of biodiversity in eastern and southern Africa ......................................................................... 9

Main ecosystems and habitats ............................................................................................................. 9

Species diversity and richness............................................................................................................. 10

Iconic species and ecological processes.............................................................................................. 12

Species endemicity.............................................................................................................................. 13

Threatened species ............................................................................................................................. 13

Important biodiversity areas ............................................................................................................... 14

Overview of protected areas .................................................................................................................. 18

Background and trends ....................................................................................................................... 18

Protected area coverage ..................................................................................................................... 23

3. Threats to protected areas and species diversity ............................................................................... 26

Main drivers of biodiversity loss ............................................................................................................. 27

1. Population growth and poverty .................................................................................................. 27

2. Growing demand for natural resources ...................................................................................... 30

3. Weak policies and legislation ...................................................................................................... 30

4. Poor governance ......................................................................................................................... 31

5. Conflict ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Direct threats .......................................................................................................................................... 31

1. Habitat loss and fragmentation .................................................................................................. 31

2. Overexploitation of plants and animals ...................................................................................... 34

3. Human‐wildlife conflict ............................................................................................................... 35

4. Pollution ...................................................................................................................................... 36

5. Invasive alien species .................................................................................................................. 36

6. Biofuels ........................................................................................................................................ 38

7. Genetically Modified Organisms ................................................................................................. 38

8. Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 38

9. Climate change ............................................................................................................................ 39

10. Capacity and resource constraints .......................................................................................... 40


4. Responses to threats........................................................................................................................... 42

Analysis of key policies, plans and strategies ............................................................................................. 42

Global ...................................................................................................................................................... 42

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) ........................................................................................... 42

Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) ............................................................................ 45

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) ............ 46

The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (The World

Heritage Convention) .......................................................................................................................... 47

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ................................................................................................ 48

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) ................................. 49

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ............................................. 49

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) ....................................................... 50

Other relevant global initiatives ......................................................................................................... 50

Regional .................................................................................................................................................. 52

Regional and sub‐regional biodiversity strategies and action plans................................................... 52

Other relevant regional programmes ................................................................................................. 56

National responses ................................................................................................................................. 58

National laws and policies .................................................................................................................. 58

Conservation trust funds .................................................................................................................... 59

Non‐governmental organizations ........................................................................................................... 60

African Wildlife Foundation ................................................................................................................ 60

Birdlife International ........................................................................................................................... 60

Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean (CORDIO) ...................................... 61

Frankfurt Zoological Society ................................................................................................................ 61

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) .................................................................................................. 61

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) .................................................................................................. 62

Great Ape conservation initiatives .......................................................................................................... 62

Great Ape Survival Partnership ........................................................................................................... 62

International Gorilla Conservation Programme .................................................................................. 62

Mountain Gorilla Conservation Fund .................................................................................................. 62

The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International ........................................................................................ 63

The Jane Goodall Institute .................................................................................................................. 63


5. Opportunities and priorities for engagement ..................................................................................... 64

Stakeholder consultations .......................................................................................................................... 64

Summary of findings ................................................................................................................................... 64

Criteria .................................................................................................................................................... 65

Preliminary priority areas of engagement .............................................................................................. 65

Harnessing the expertise and the data of the IUCN members and commissions, to effectively assist

countries with land use planning for sustainable development ............................................................ 66

Improving the governance and management of protected areas .......................................................... 67

Promoting the role of protected areas in climate change mitigation and adaptation ........................... 69

Support the development and implementation of biodiversity policies, conservation strategies and

action plans ............................................................................................................................................. 70

Addressing the widespread problem of human‐wildlife conflict by promoting and piloting integrated

conflict management approaches .......................................................................................................... 71

Upscaling and mainstreaming work on invasive alien species ............................................................... 72

Priority areas of engagement in great ape conservation ....................................................................... 74

Mountain Gorillas ............................................................................................................................... 74

Eastern Chimpanzees .......................................................................................................................... 75

Western Lowland Gorillas and Central Chimpanzees ......................................................................... 75

IUCN ESARO marine programme ............................................................................................................ 75

ANNEX I ................................................................................................................................................... 76

CURRENT AND PROPOSED NATURAL AND MIXED WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN THE ESA REGION ......... 76

ANNEX II .................................................................................................................................................. 80

CONVENTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY STRATEGIC GOALS AND THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS 80

Strategic goal A. Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity

across government and society .......................................................................................................... 80

Strategic goal B. Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use ............ 80

Strategic goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and

genetic diversity .................................................................................................................................. 81

Strategic goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services ................... 81

Strategic goal E. Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management

and capacity building .......................................................................................................................... 82

ANNEX III World Heritage Nature for Agenda Components, Results and Outputs ................................ 83

References .................................................................................................................................................. 88


AcronymsAWF – African Wildlife Foundation

CASD – IUCN programme on Conservation Areas and Species Diversity

CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity

CBNRM – Community Based Natural Resources Management

CEESP ‐ IUCN Commission on Environment, Economic and Social Policy

CI – Conservation International

CITES – Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

EAC – East African Community

ESA – Eastern and southern Africa

ESARP – Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Programme of IUCN

EWLS – East Africa Wildlife Society

IAS – Invasive Alien Species

ICCA – Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas

IGAD – Intergovernmental Authority for Development

KAZA – Kavango‐Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area

KWS – Kenya Wildlife Service

MDG – Millenium Development Goals

PAPACO – Programme Aires Protégées en Afrique Centrale et Occidentale

PAPAI – Pan African Protected Areas Initiative of IUCN

POWPA – Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity

SADC – Southern Africa Development Community

SANBI – South African National Biodiversity Institute

SSC –Species Survival Commission of IUCN

TFCA – Transfrontier Conservation Area

UNEP – United Nations Environmental Programme


WCPA – World Commission on Protected Areas

WCS – Wildlife Conservation Society

WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature


1. Introduction

The eastern and southern Africa (ESA) region is extremely rich in biodiversity. The region has high

numbers of endemic species and the largest remaining populations of iconic wildlife left on the

continent. The region’s diverse ecosystems, ranging from arid to tropical, encompass some of the most

diverse landscapes and seascapes in the world which provide a wide range of services that are vital

importance to the livelihoods and economies of the region. However, this natural wealth is under

pressure from a number of threats, including habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation of natural

resources, pollution, climate change and invasive alien species. These threats are driven by high levels of

poverty and population growth, growing global demands for natural resources, and weak capacity and

inadequate resources for biodiversity conservation.

Many countries in the ESA region have designated a significant portion of their terrestrial areas to

biodiversity conservation. The region hosts many large world‐renowned national parks and reserves,

such as the Serengeti, Kruger, Etosha and the Maasai Mara. There are also many different types of

protected areas managed by local communities for various purposes, which continue to protect

important biodiversity. Many of these areas are faced with severe management challenges and

pressures.

Although IUCN Eastern and Southern Africa Programme (ESARP) has a number of existing projects that

contribute to biodiversity conservation objectives, it has not, until now, had a thematic programme that

focuses solely on this core priority. The proposed Conservation Areas1 and Species Diversity (CASD)

programme is designed to help address this gap. This situation analysis aims to provide an overall

picture of the state of protected areas and species diversity in the region and makes recommendations

on potential areas of engagement for the CASD programme. These recommendations are designed to

inform the development of a more detailed strategy and action plan for the CASD programme.

The CASD programme development phase is funded from two separate sources: the Arcus Foundation

which has a specific interest in great ape conservation, and the Mava Foundation as part of its support

to IUCN’s global work on natural World Heritage sites. Consequently this situation analysis gives

particular attention to opportunities for the CASD programme to engage in specific activities related to

conservation of great apes and in support of conservation activities in and around World Heritage sites.

1 “Conservation Areas” are understood to encompass the full range of IUCN area categories. It corresponds to the IUCN

definition for protected areas: “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or

other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural

values”(Dudley (editor) 2008). In line with this definition, the term protected area is used throughout this document in lieu of

conservation area.


2. StateofbiodiversityineasternandsouthernAfrica

OverviewofbiodiversityineasternandsouthernAfrica

The ESA region encompasses a wide range of different terrestrial biomes ranging from deserts to moist

tropical broadleaf forests (see figure 1.). The marine biomes are equally diverse with overlapping

centers of endemism of fish, corals, snails and lobsters (Roberts et al., 2002). The region’s uniqueness is

enhanced by its large open landscapes and emblematic wildlife species.

Figure 1. Biomes of Africa (source: Africa Atlas, UNEP)

Mainecosystemsandhabitats

ForestecosystemsThe forest biome in the ESA region is highly diverse ranging from the high rainfall tropical moist forests

to dry savannah woodlands. Montane forests are found in pockets in high‐altitude, high‐rainfall areas of

Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, while

lowland tropical moist forests are mostly found in Angola and Uganda. The Miombo woodland

ecoregion includes the Eastern Miombo Woodlands, Central Zambezian Miombo Woodlands, and the

Zambezian Baikiae Woodlands. Acacia woodlands cover vast tracts of arid and semi‐arid area where

rainfall is low and soil conditions are favourable. The deciduous forests of Madagascar are the world’s

richest and the most distinctive dry forests in the region with high degree of plant and animal

endemism. The East African Coastal Forests comprise the Northern and Southern Zanzibar‐Inhambane

coastal forest mosaics. Stretching from southern Somalia through Kenya and Tanzania, to southern


Mozambique, this biome is characterized by tropical dry forests within a mosaic of savannahs, grassland

habitats and wetland areas. The area also includes the larger offshore islands of Pemba, Zanzibar, Mafia

and the Bazaruto Archipelago, as well as the smaller isles in the Indian Ocean. Mangrove forests are

common throughout the estuaries of the east coast, as far south as the Eastern Cape, as a result of the

warm Mozambique current maintaining suitable climate conditions.

Aridandsemi‐aridecosystemsThe most common habitats include grasslands, savannah, karoo, desert and fynbos. The Vast Horn of

Africa region encompasses most of Somalia, Djibouti, and parts of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Yemen,

Oman and Sudan. The region also includes the Socotra Archipelago off the coast of northeastern

Somalia, plus a few hundred islands in the Red Sea. A significant part of Madagascar is dry sub humid,

including unique spiny thickets in the far south.

FreshwaterecosystemsThe region is rich in major freshwater ecosystems including some of the continent’s greatest rivers,

lakes, flood plains, swamps/marshes, and a variety of seasonally wet areas such as dambos and pans.

Notable freshwater ecosystems include the Nile, Zambezi, Okavango, Kafue, Tana, Victoria, Tanganyika,

Malawi, Mweru, Turkana, Alaotra, Albert, Tana, Chilwa and Bangweulu systems. Eastern Africa is

particularly rich in wetland biodiversity (Darwall et al, 2005).

CoastalandmarineecosystemsThe region’s coastal and marine ecosystems include dry coastal forests, coastal dunes, floodplains,

freshwater and saltwater marshes, mangrove forests, coral reefs, lagoons, sandy beaches and rocky

shores (UNEP, 2006). Ten of the 22 ESA countries on mainland Africa have coastlines; four are islands.

The coastline along the Atlantic Ocean is characterized by long sandy beaches interspersed with rocky

outcrops while that of the Indian Ocean is rich in coral reefs and mangroves. These systems host a

diversity of species and support important fisheries. They provide construction materials, energy

sources and support wildlife habitat and are an important tourism destination. Coral reefs are the

richest of these ecosystems. The Red Sea coral reefs off the coasts of Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia are

in the best condition, with 30‐50 per cent live coral cover and the richest diversity of coral and other

reef species in the entire Indian Ocean (Pilcher & Alsuhaibany, 2000). Sea‐grasses occur as dense turfs in

shallow and calm waters, and provide shelter, food and nursery areas for some of the important and

valuable species of fish and shellfish, mammals such as the dugong (Dugong dugong) and the green

turtle (Chelonia medas). The sandy beaches of the east coast are important for turtle nesting while the

sheltered bays of the southern Cape are globally significant calving grounds for the Southern Right

whale.

SpeciesdiversityandrichnessStrictly speaking species diversity is a measure of the diversity within an ecological community that

incorporates both species richness (the number of species in a community) and the evenness of species'

abundances. Species diversity is one component of the concept of biodiversity.

(http://www.eoearth.org/article/Species_diversity).


The eastern and southern African region contains remarkable species richness and diversity. Species

richness is not evenly distributed throughout the region. For example, the number of terrestrial

mammal species is highest in eastern Africa while Madagascar and the Western Cape have the highest

number of plant species (Figure 5).

Figure 2. Plant and mammal species richness in the ESA region (source: African Environment Outlook 2).

The largest number of marine mammal species is found off the eastern coast from Kenya to

Mozambique and around the Western Indian Ocean states (Vié et al., 2009).

In terms of bird species, Tanzania (1,050 species), Kenya (1,019 species), Uganda (988 species) and

Angola (894 species) are the richest, and rank among the top 20 countries in the world with the highest

numbers of bird species (Vié et al, 2009). The Great Rift Valley (GRV), which cuts through the region

from Ethiopia to Zambia, is the most species‐diverse migratory route for Palaearctic birds flying between

Eurasia and Africa and the most important raptor and soaring bird migration corridor in the world.

Besides Palaearctic migrants , there are Afrotropical migrants that use the GRV sites, including some

specialized and highly itinerant inhabitants of the saline Rift Valley lakes, such as the Lesser Flamingo

Phoeniconaias minor (Birdlife, 2010), which breeds almost exclusively in Lake Natron in Tanzania.

Recent assessments of freshwater biodiversity in eastern and southern Africa (Darwall et al. 2005 &

2009) identified Lakes Malawi and Tanganyika, as containing exceptionally high numbers of freshwater

species. South Africa ranks as the third most biologically diverse country in the world, mainly because of

the richness of its plant life (SADC, 2010).

The Western Indian Ocean region exhibits a high level of species richness, including more than 2,200

species of fish, over 300 species of hard coral, 10 species of mangrove, 12 species of seagrass, over

1,000 species of seaweed, several hundred types of sponge, 3,000 species of molluscs, 300 species of

crabs and more than 400 echinoderms (UNEP/Nairobi Convention Secretariat, 2009). The Eritrean Red

Sea coast and the 350 islands of the Dahlak Archipelago support fertile fishing grounds, with over 1 000

species of fish, 220 species of corals (UNEP, 2008), and 851 km2 of mangrove forest (UNEP, 2008).


The Mozambique Channel is a core area for coral diversity due to the currents and configuration of the

northern part of the Channel that help maintain high levels of biodiversity, as well as high recruitment

and replenishment of individuals within the region. Currents lead out from this region to all other parts

of the Indian Ocean—southward from Madagascar and Mozambique to South Africa, and northward to

Kenya, the Seychelles, northern Indian Ocean and onward to the Red Sea and the Indian subcontinent.

This may make the region a key source of coral larvae in the short term, and of genetic diversity in the

long term (Obura, unpublished.)

Southern Africa has a rich and varied insect and arachnid fauna, with at least 580 families and about

100, 000 species recorded. Namibia is thought to be one of the global centers of arachnid richness

(Barnard, 1998). There is a high diversity of butterflies in the Central Zambezian Miombo woodlands

(Burgess et al., 2004).

Madagascar and Tanzania are in the top 20 list of countries for amphibian species richness with 242 and

178 species, respectively (Vié et al, 2009).

The Central Zambezian Miombo woodlands located in Zambia and Tanzania is a center of bird diversity

but not plant diversity (UNEP, 2006). Ethiopia and the Upper Nile are recognized as global centers of

crop plant genetic diversity (Hawkes and Worede 1991, in UNEP, 2006). Uganda is ranked among the top

ten countries in the world in terms of animal and plant diversity, and specifically, diversity of

mammalian species (CBD, country profile).

IconicspeciesandecologicalprocessesThe ESA region is home to some of the world largest remaining populations of iconic species including

elephants, black and white rhinoceros, lions and cheetahs. The region boasts superlative wildlife

phenomena, including the last large ungulate migrations left on the continent: the wildebeest migration

in Tanzania and Kenya, and the White‐eared Kob, Tiang and Mongella gazelle migration in southern

Sudan, which have survived despite the protracted armed conflict in the country (see below). Botswana

has the largest African elephant population, estimated at 28% of the known global population (Blanc et

al., 2007). Tanzania is the remaining stronghold for lions with 16,800 animals from an estimated

continental population of 23,000‐39,000 (IUCN East & Southern Africa Lion strategy, 2006).

In the ESA region the Eastern Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) occurs in Burundi, Rwanda,

Uganda and Tanzania. The status of Chimpanzees in southern Sudan is uncertain (Plumptre et al., 2010).

Current population estimates are as follows:

Burundi: 200‐400 (Butynski, 2001)

Rwanda approximately 400 (Barakabuye et al., 2007)

Tanzania 2,700‐2,800 (Moyer et al., 2006)

Uganda about 5,000 (Plumtre, et al.,2003; Plumtre & Cox, 2005)

Mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) occur in two populations within three countries, the

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Uganda. This range includes the extinct volcanoes


of the Virunga Massif and the Bwindi Impenetrable NP. The Virunga population is estimated to number

380 and the Bwindi population 320 animals (GRASP, 2011).

These “flagship species” and wildlife spectacles are of enormous economic value to the tourism

industries of the countries in the ESA region.

SpeciesendemicityThe ESA region is host to a number of global centers of endemism. In Madagascar, the globally endemic

species richness relative to the land mass area is unparalleled: 181 mammals, 104 bird species, 241

endemic amphibians, 14 freshwater crabs, three reef‐forming coral species, 6 endemic conifers (Vié et

al., 2009). Six of the eight baobab species are endemic to Madagascar. In terms of mammal endemicity,

Madagascar ranks number one followed by Ethiopia, South Africa and Tanzania. For birds, Madagascar

also tops the list followed by Mauritius, Tanzania and Ethiopia.

More than 80% of South Africa’s 18,000 vascular plants are endemic (SADC, 2010). Seventeen per cent

of all identified plant species in Somalia are endemic, which is the second‐highest level of floral

endemism in continental Africa (UNEP, 2008).

ThreatenedspeciesThreatened species are those listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered in the IUCN Red

List of Threated Species. Madagascar tops the list with the greatest number of threatened species (636),

followed by Tanzania (580 species) and Somalia (398 species). Kenya also has a large number of

threatened species (311), followed by Mauritius, Mozambique, Uganda, Seychelles and Malawi, all of

which have more than 150 species threatened with extinction (Vié et al, 2009).


Table 1. Number of threatened species in each country (Critically endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable Red List Categories only) Country Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fishes Molluscs Other inverts Plants Total

Angola 14 18 4 0 22 4 1 26 89

Botswana 6 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 15

Comoros 5 8 2 0 7 0 62 5 89

Djibouti 8 7 0 0 14 0 50 2 81

Eritrea 9 9 6 0 14 0 50 3 91

Ethiopia 31 22 1 9 2 3 11 22 101

Kenya 27 27 5 7 71 16 55 103 311

Lesotho 2 5 0 0 2 0 3 2 11

Madagascar 62 35 19 64 75 24 76 281 636

Malawi 6 12 0 5 101 9 7 14 154

Mauritius 6 11 7 0 11 27 69 88 219

Mozambique 11 21 5 3 45 4 54 46 189

Namibia 11 5 0 0 2 0 1 2 21

Seychelles 5 10 10 6 14 2 63 45 155

South Africa 14 12 3 0 26 1 50 17 123

Somalia 23 35 19 21 65 24 137 74 398

Sudan 14 13 3 0 13 0 45 17 105

Swaziland 4 7 0 0 3 0 0 11 25

Tanzania 34 40 5 49 138 17 66 240 589

Uganda 21 18 0 6 54 10 12 38 159

Zambia 8 12 0 1 10 3 1 8 43

Zimbabwe 8 11 0 6 3 0 4 17 49

Source: Vié et al, 2009 Table 1 Number of threatened species

ImportantbiodiversityareasThe ESA region hosts seven of the of the eight biodiversity hotspots in Africa and several Key

Biodiversity Areas*.

African biodiversity hotspots have been designated on the basis of both existing biodiversity and the

threats to that biodiversity with the intention of focusing protection efforts on these valuable areas.

Each hotspot faces extreme threats and has already lost at least 70 percent of its original natural

vegetation. Over 50 percent of the world’s plant species and 42 percent of all terrestrial vertebrate

species are endemic to the 34 biodiversity hotspots (CI, 2011). The ESA region hotspots are as follows:


The Cape Floristic Region hotspot ‐ encompasses an entire floral kingdom, and holds five of South

Africa’s 12 endemic plant families and 160 endemic genera.

The coastal forests of East Africa hotspot ‐ renowned for extraordinary plant diversity. For example, the

40,000 cultivated varieties of African violet, which form the basis of a US$100 million global houseplant

trade, are all derived from a few species found in the coastal Tanzanian and Kenyan forests. Several

endemic and highly threatened primate species also occur in this hotspot (CI, 2011).

The Eastern Afromontane hotspot includes the Albertine Rift which harbors more endemic mammals,

birds, and amphibians than any other region in Africa. It also includes the species rich Lakes Tanganyika

and Malawi with incredible freshwater diversity. Primates include the Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringei

beringei) and the Eastern Chimpmanzee(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii).

The Horn of Africa hotspot ‐ an entirely arid area, home to a number of endemic and threatened

antelope species including, the Beira (Dorcatragus megalotis), the Dibatag (Ammodorcas clarkei), and

Speke’s gazelle (Gazella spekei). This hotspot also holds more endemic reptiles than any other region in

Africa. The endemic Somali wild ass (Equus africanus) and the Sacred baboon (Papio hamadryas) also

occur.


Madagascar & Indian Ocean Islands hotspot has remarkable biodiversity with high endemism and high

levels of threat. These include several species of lemur, a clade of strepsirrhine primates endemic to the

island of Madagascar.

The Maputaland‐Pondoland‐Albany hotspot is an important center of plant endemism with nearly 600

tree species, the highest tree richness of any temperate forest on the planet.

The succulent Karoo hotspot boasts the richest succulent flora on earth. Sixty‐nine percent of all the

plants that occur there are endemic (CI, 2011). The area also has relatively high reptile endemism.

Protected area coverage in this hotspot is poor, although the protected area system is currently being

expanded, notably with the creation of the 600 km2 Namaqua National Park in South Africa (ESARO

dryland sit analysis). Namibia has recently designated its entire coastline as a protected area.


Alliance for Zero Extinction sites are home to over 95 per cent of the world population of a ‘critically

endangered’ or ‘endangered’ species, as defi ned by the International Union for Conservation of

Nature’s (IUCN’s) Red List of Threatened Species. Important Bird Areas are critical sites for the

conservation of the world’s birds. Protecting all of these areas would significantly contribute to the

Convention on Biological Diversity’s target to safeguard areas of particular importance. However, at

present, more than two thirds of these sites are unprotected or only partially protected (UN, 2010). Figure 8 Candidate freshwater KBAS in southern Africa (Vié et al., 2009)

Figure 3. Candidate freshwater KBAs in southern Africa (Darwall et al., 2009)

The Alliance for Zero Extinction have identified sixty‐three sites in 15 different countries in eastern and

southern Africa which harbor 97 species classified as Critically Endangered or Endangered in the IUCN

Red List (see figure 9). Thirteen of these species occur in sites that are totally unprotected.

*Key Biodiversity Areas

In recent years, IUCN has been promoting the concept of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) to identify areas of

global importance to biodiversity conservation. KBAs are identified using globally standard criteria and

thresholds, based on the needs of biodiversity requiring safeguards at the site scale (Darwall et al. 2009). These

criteria are largely based on the framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability, widely used in systematic

conservation planning . A site meets the irreplaceability criterion for KBA status if it maintains a globally

significant proportion of a species’ total distribution range at some point in that species’ lifecycle. This includes

many species that have restricted ranges, highly clumped distributions within large ranges and congregate in

large numbers. KBAS may have source populations on which significant proportion of the global population of a

species depends, or species that are restricted to particular biomes or bioregions. KBAs comprise an ‘umbrella’

which includes globally important sites for different taxa and realms: Important Bird Areas (IBAs), Important

Plant Areas (IPAs), Important Sites for Freshwater Biodiversity, Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas

(EBSAs) in the High Seas and Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites.


Figure 4. AZE KBAs in ESA region (Source: Alliance for Zero extinction 2010 Update)

Overviewofprotectedareas

Protected Area– “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through

legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated

ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley (Editor) 2008).

BackgroundandtrendsMost government designated protected areas in the ESA region were set up during the colonial era to

protect particular species from overexploitation, usually large mammal aggregations that were

considered as important “game”. These protected areas typically excluded people, often forcibly

removing communities that were resident in the area. The principle which guided establishment of

most protected areas was that strict protection was essential for effective conservation of biological

resources and therefore the exclusion of humans, livestock and fire was considered necessary (UNEP,

2006).

In the 1980s colonial era conservation policies in Africa became increasingly under attack. Many species

were under threat from illegal off‐take and conservation goals were not being achieved (Hulme &

Murphee, 2001). The concept of sustainable development spurred initiatives for more local community

involvement in natural resources management. In line with this thinking, policies began to focus on

sustainable use and increased local participation. There was a realization that a “fences‐and‐fines”

approach leads to more conflicts, unacceptable social inequity, and ultimately the destruction of the

resources themselves (UNEP, 2006). Over the last several decades, there has been a growing voice in the

conservation community advocating for protected areas to contribute more to sustainable development

if they are to persist in the face of growing human populations and poverty in the developing world. This

is based on the belief that unless they become more relevant to countries’ development strategies and

the rights and needs of local people, many protected areas will come under increasing threat (Scherl et

al., 2004). Furthermore, since most protected areas in the world have people residing within them. or

dependent on them for their livelihoods, the conventional exclusionary approaches have engendered


profound social costs. This is particularly true when the affected indigenous peoples and local

communities were already, even before the protected area intervention, among the most marginalized

groups (CEESP http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/ceesp/topics/governance/ ).

Developments towards greater community involvement have taken two different tracks: a “minimalist

approach” that sought to give local communities around national parks limited access to benefits, and

community based natural resources management (CBNRM) that devolved tenure and responsibility for

management to autonomous local institutions (Hulme & Murphee, 2001). The CBNRM approach has

evolved faster in southern Africa. For example, in Zimbabwe, the Communal Areas Management

Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) programme targeted sparsely populated communal

land adjacent to national parks or hunting areas. It demonstrated that economic returns from

sustainable use of wildlife (largely through trophy hunting) exceeded the returns from marginal

cultivation or cattle ranching, and schemes were devised to return the proceeds of wildlife utilization to

the local communities (UNEP, 2006). In Namibia, a highly devolved CBNRM programme has proven to be

sustainable and has been associated with significant increases in the country’s wildlife populations.

In general, however, the various community‐based approaches have yielded mixed results (UNEP, 2006;

IUCN, 2010). Experience has shown that the equitable distribution of financial and social benefits from

PAs can be problematic. Many CBNRM projects have facilitated capture of benefits by small elites at the

local level, rather than at individual household level (IUCN, 2010). It has become clear that transparency

and accountability require whole communities, including women, to be genuinely involved in decision‐

making. Clarity over tenure of land and natural resources is fundamental to the success of these

initiatives, both in terms of conservation of biodiversity and in the fair and equitable sharing of benefits

derived from sustainable use. Local institutions need time to develop their managerial capacities;

building on traditional institutions and governance structures, rather than imposing new institutional

arrangements, is often much more successful in ensuring community buy‐in and in designing effective

means of participation (IUCN, 2010). A shortfall in many CBNRM programmes has been the tendency to

view “local communities” as homogeneous entities rather than as assemblages of distinct sub‐groupings

each with its own interests and views on natural resources management (IUCN, 2010).

In more recent years, particularly since the Vth World Parks Congress in 2002, there has been an

increasing interest in and support for a whole spectrum of protected area governance types, including

Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs). These are defined by the IUCN Commission on

Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) as “natural and modified ecosystems, including

significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by indigenous

peoples and local and mobile communities through customary laws or other effective means”.

There are today many thousand Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) across the world,

including sacred forests, wetlands, and landscapes, village lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal

stretches and marine areas (CEESP ICCA briefing note). The history of conservation and sustainable use

in many of these areas is much older than government‐managed protected areas and the biodiversity

conservation outcomes are often impressive (see box below). Yet, ICCAs are often neglected or not

recognized in official conservation systems


(http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/ceesp/topics/governance/icca/). This is beginning to

change: some governments have now integrated ICCA’s into their official Protected Area Systems, and

the Vth World Parks Congress and the Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the CBD accepted them

as legitimate conservation sites that deserve support and, as appropriate, inclusion in national and

international systems. CEESP has carried out important work on how to promote ICCAs in ways that

strengthen the governance of indigenous people and communities, rather than undermining their

initiatives (CEESP briefing note on ICCAs).

Source: CEESP ICCA briefing note

ICCAs conserve, or have the potential to conserve, an enormous part of the Earth’s biodiversity;

potentially areas as large as that of government designated protected areas could be conserved (CEESP

concept note). ICCAs help, or can help, in providing connectivity across large landscapes and seascapes,

may contribute climate change adaptation, and can provide substantial environmental benefits, such as

water flows and soil protection. ICCAs are often built upon sophisticated ecological knowledge systems,

including sustainable use, which have stood the test of time. They are usually based on customary

and/or legal territorial and tenure “common rights”.

Despite the growing global recognition that local communities should have full rights to natural resource

management, in recent years there has been a trend towards recentralization of natural resource

management, particularly wildlife management, in a number of countries including Botswana, Tanzania,

Zambia and Zimbabwe (IUCN, 2010). According to Alden Wily (2008) this stems from the competing

state and private sector interests and increasing value of natural resources which have led to the


conclusion that “these resources are too valuable for ordinary people to own”. Interventions by NGOs,

even those professing to be supportive of local communities, can unwittingly reinforce central power

because of their own interests and ties to the central government of the states in which they operate

(IUCN, 2010).

Another relatively recent development in the ESA region has been the proliferation of privately owned

sanctuaries. This is most obvious in South Africa, which has a large proportion of private land earmarked

for conservation, but individual investors as well as conservation organizations have been acquiring

large tracts of land for wildlife conservation purposes in other countries as well; a well‐known example

is the Singita Grumeti Reserve on the western side of the Serengeti National Park, financed mainly by

billionaire Paul Tudor Jones, where a luxury tourism operation accompanied by heavy investment in

anti‐poaching and community work.

For the countries in the ESA region, a major challenge is how to develop an effective mix of state,

community and private action in specific contexts. IUCN’s protected area categories and governance

types provide a full spectrum of different options that can be used towards this purpose (see below).

However, more efforts are needed to raise awareness of the different types of protected areas,

especially ICCA’s, and the powerful role they can play in conservation and sustainable use of

biodiversity.

Source: CEESP ICCA briefing note


TransboundaryprotectedareasIn recent years there has been a growth of transboundary protected areas (referred to in the southern

Africa sub‐region as transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs)). Example include: the Kavango‐Zambezi

(KAZA) Transfrontier Conservation Area shared by Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe;

the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park between Mozambique and South Africa; the Kgalagadi

Agreement establishing a park between South Africa and Botswana, and the Tuli Park between South

Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe. A number of other protected areas are located near international

borders (see map below). While many of benefits of transboundary protected areas are political and

economic, there are also significant biodiversity advantages: for example, as ecosystems seldom follow

national jurisdictions a “beyond borders approach” makes ecological sense; large parks also have lower

operational costs, and as TFCAs can support bugger wildlife populations, these are less prone to loss

when conditions fluctuate (UNEP, 2006). Populations of many mammal species, including great apes,

elephants, carnivores and ungulates straddle international boundaries. Trans‐boundary management is

important for conserving such species in the long term.

Figure 4. TFCAs in the ESA region (source: UNEP Africa atlas)

The establishment and development of transboundary protected areas has greatly expanded potentially

available range for wildlife and helped foster better cooperation between neighbouring states in

protected area management. However, there have been a number of challenges, including: lack of local

community acceptance, lack of awareness about the potential of TFCAs to contribute to both


biodiversity conservation and socio‐economic development, and the lack of mechanisms for integrating

other stakeholders (communities and private sector) in to TFCA development processes (SADC, 2010).

Other limitations of TFCAs include (SADC, 2011):

Differences between the participating states in their economic and administrative capacities,

commitments, and national policies and strategies;

Regional projects involving opening of borders are complex and result in lengthy processes due

to the numerous concerned stakeholders and the necessary effort for coordination;

Successful and sustainable collaboration requires extensive process‐related initiatives, meetings,

agreements, etc., which can be costly, both in terms of time and financial resources; indeed,

high transaction costs are one of the largest constraints for TFCAs;

Regional projects tend to neglect the principle of subsidiary, thereby weakening ownership by

the national stakeholders and local communities. Ambiguous land tenure rights of communities

and individuals, confusion and conflicts between governance and tenure and inequitable

distribution of benefits are all exacerbating factors;

Solutions need to be found to control animal diseases that can be transmitted from wildlife to

livestock and strategies need to be in place to deal with other human‐wildlife conflict.

Botswana’s beef exports to the EU for example depend on food‐and‐mouth disease‐free grazing

areas, which clashes with the principle of free‐roaming wildlife;

The tourism sector, much touted as a growth engine for economic benefits in the region, needs

to start delivering economically tangible results on the ground, if local communities are not to

lose interest, or worse, turn against biodiversity conservation.

ProtectedareacoverageMany of the countries in the ESA region have dedicated a large percentage of their land surface to some

form of protection. Botswana, Eritrea, Tanzania and Zambia have attained protected area coverage of

over 30% (UNEP, 2008). On the other hand, less that 1% of the land area of the Comoros and Lesotho is

protected (see table below). At the World Park’s congress in 2003, the government of Madagascar

pledged to triple its protected area coverage to 10% of the surface area of the country by recognizing

and including areas managed under a range of governance arrangements. In 2006, Eritrea announced it

would become the first country in the world to turn its entire coastline into an environmentally

protected zone (UNEP, 2008), an accomplishment since achieved by Namibia.

Table 2. Protected area coverage in the ESA region

Protected area to total surface area (percentage) in eastern & southern Africa region

Angola 12.1%

Botswana 30.2%

Comoros 0.1%

Djibouti no data

Eritrea 32.0%

Ethiopia 16.9%

Kenya 12.7%


Lesotho 0.2%

Madagascar 8.0%

Malawi 16.4%

Mauritius 2.5%

Mozambique 8.6%

Namibia 14.6%

Seychelles 6.4%

Somalia 0.7%

South Africa 6.1%

Sudan 4.7%

Swaziland 3.5%

Tanzania 38.4%

Uganda 26.3%

Zambia 41.5%

Zimbabwe 14.7%

(source: UNEP, Africa Atlas, 2008)

GapsinprotectedareacoverageAlthough no thorough gap analysis exist for all countries in the region, the current protected area

coverage does not appear to correspond very well with the distribution of biodiversity across the region.

For example, most of the biodiversity that persists in southern Africa occurs outside formal protected

areas (Scholes & Biggs, 2005) and many restricted range species are not adequately included in

protected areas areas (Rodriguez et al., 2004). The protected area network does not adequately cover

dryland, coastal and marine, or mountain ecosystems. The least protected areas are found in

Madagascar, the drier parts of South Africa and in the most heavily deforested sites in eastern Africa

(UNEP, 2006). Some of the least well‐protected eco‐regions are those with high biodiversity values,

including the Eastern Arc forests, the succulent Karoo, the Ethiopian montane forests, the lowland

Fynbos, the east African montane forests and the Northern Zanzibar‐Inhambane coastal forest mosaic

(UNEP, 2006). The current network of protected areas is also generally not designed to target

freshwater or marine species. For example, of the 112 main river ecosystems in South Africa, only 16 are

moderately to well represented within protected areas (Nel et al. 2007, in Darwall et al., 2009). Many

species with large range requirements are also poorly covered: in Tanzania, only 45% of the total range

of lions in is covered by protected areas (Mésochina et al, 2010) and 60% of the country’s chimpanzees

live outside protected areas (IUCN/SSC PSG). In southern Africa, three quarters of cheetah range, and

two thirds of wild dog range, falls on community and private lands (IUCN/SSC).

The eco‐regions under the best protection tend to be the savannah habitats (Burgess et al., 2005, in

UNEP, 2006), especially those containing charismatic animals, such as large mammals (de Klerk et al.,

2004; Fjeldsa et al.,2004, in UNEP 2006) compared to, for example, plants (Burgess et al. 2005). This

reflects the colonial‐era preoccupation with large mammal concentrations. However, the long‐term

viability of the ecological systems and processes on which such areas depend remains questionable.

Species loss has continued and in nearly all cases, category I‐IV protected area boundaries were


established with little regard for the year‐round needs of resident fauna. For example, the Nairobi

National Park and Maasai Mara reserve in Kenya were originally designed to conserve populations of

migratory mammals whose movements have since been severely restricted. Climate change is likely to

increase the importance of connectivity between protected areas (see box below).

Box1. Conservation of large, intact ecosystems at a scale that maintains ecosystem structure and diversity, with populations of species large enough to survive over time is a key priority for combating impacts of climate change. Such areas protect both known species and species not yet been described by science. Ecological processes may be as important as species or habitats. The conservation of large intact ecosystems may be an important measure for sustaining the populations of species in areas where climate change will reduce habitat condition. For example, water dependent antelope and other large fauna in areas of Africa likely to witness water stress, may need access to large dry season forage areas. Failure to provide for this may lead to the collapse of wildlife populations, including those of economic importance (for example, species that are important to the tourism industry). Source: Dudley et al (2010).

Protected areas that remain as isolated units, surrounded by a radically altered habitat, almost always

face serious viability problems over the long term. Creating or restoring functional linkages between

protected areas and their surrounding regions is vital to ensure ecological coherence and resilience for

both biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Given this knowledge, it is unlikely that

populations inside the current system of category I‐IV protected areas would be viable if isolated from

unprotected lands. Therefore, conservation activity outside the traditional network of protected areas is

absolutely critical for the long‐term survival of many species.

To include all vertebrate and plant species occurring in Sub‐Saharan Africa in protected areas, about a

third of its total area would need to be included in conservation strategies (UNEP, 2006). Hence,

identifying locations of high biodiversity in several major groups, so that a high proportion of

biodiversity can be protected in a comparatively small area, is an important goal. Perhaps even more

importantly, the variety of situations where applying other management categories and governance

types that would address some of the gaps in the production landscape need to be recognized.

The key issues for establishing an effective protected area network are prioritization of levels of

protection and use. Identifying protected areas should not be arbitrary. Sufficient knowledge exists to

apply more refined techniques to identify locations that are critical for many species, robust to climate

change, and have a good chance of being economically viable. As discussed above, consolidated and

connected reserves are more viable than the equivalent area of isolated patches. There are known

priority areas for conservation in every country, but the many different systems currently being used to

prioritize areas (ecoregions, hotspots, heartlands, key biodiversity areas, conservation landscapes, etc.)

can sometimes complicate the decision‐making process.


3. Threatstoprotectedareasandspeciesdiversity

Although eastern and southern Africa’s biodiversity is currently in better condition than in many parts of the world (UNEP, 2006), species diversity nevertheless continues to decline. Protected areas and species diversity in the ESA region are under growing pressure due to a number of factors. The drivers are diverse, complex and interlinked. The main drivers include poverty, high population growth, armed conflict, poor governance and unsustainable patterns of economic development. These drivers give rise to a number of threats including habitat loss and fragmentation, overexploitation of biological resources, pollution, climate change, and human‐wildlife conflicts. These pressures are exacerbated by low levels of awareness of the importance of biodiversity, widespread capacity constraints, and weak policies and legislation.

Table 3. Summary of main threats to biodiversity in the ESA region

Component/ecosystem Threat

Freshwater Over‐abstraction

Dams

Pollution

Marine and coastal Over‐harvesting

Inappropriate fishing methods (e.g. use of dynamite)

Pollution

Climate change ( e.g. coral bleaching)

Coastal erosion

Terrestrial Agricultural expansion

Mineral and oil extraction

Infrastructure development

Fuel wood collection

Over‐harvesting of non‐timber forest products

Over‐harvesting of natural/indigenous timber species for commercial

purposes

Land degradation

Illegal killing and trade


Wildfires

Human‐wildlife conflict

Armed conflict

Wildlife disease

Biofuel production

Genetically modified organisms

Cross cutting issues Climate change

Invasive alien species

Lack of capacity and resources

Maindriversofbiodiversityloss

1. PopulationgrowthandpovertyPoverty is both a cause and a result of environmental degradation: since a vast majority of the region’s

population depends on ecosystem goods and services for livelihoods, the continued degradation of the

natural resource base further erodes those livelihoods creating a vicious circle of poverty and

environmental destruction. This poses a major threat to the region’s biodiversity, causing over‐

exploitation of wildlife, encroachment into protected areas, clearance of forests, unsustainable

utilization of medicinal plants, clearing of wetlands and grasslands for agriculture (SADC , 2010).

Table 4 presents the demographic and socio‐economic indicators for the ESA region. The region has one

of the fastest growing and poorest populations in the world. The brief period of economic growth

experienced at the end of the 1990s did not last and current rates of economic growth vary considerably

across the region. In many countries poverty and malnourishment are on the rise. Malnutrition is on

average around 36.1% with a range of 44% to 72% across the SADC region. Life expectancy has been

declining over the years from about 60 years to slightly below 40 years at present. Infant mortality rates

remain for most countries in the region above 50 per 1000 births (SADC BAP, 2010).

The economies of the eastern and southern African countries depend mainly on natural resources, in

the form of agriculture, mining, industry and tourism. While the economic performance of countries is

mixed, the majority are slipping backwards in terms of MDG targets such as reducing infant mortality

rates and food insecurity. The proportion of people living on less than US$1 a day (Table 4) is declining

only marginally, while the absolute number continues to increase.

Throughout the region, poverty is a predominantly rural phenomenon. About 70 per cent of the region's

population, some 230 million people, lives in rural areas, and more than half of those people live on less


than US$1 a day (Table 4). These figures have not changed significantly over the last decade, except to

fall slightly as large numbers of people have moved to urban centers. Rural areas continue to be marked

by stagnation, poor productivity, low incomes and rising vulnerability. Rural poverty is particularly

concentrated in five countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania and Uganda. More than 25 per

cent of the region’s rural poor people live in Ethiopia alone (ESARO Wetlands situation analysis).

There is a high dependence on agriculture in the region. For example, 90% of Malawi’s population

depends on tilling the land, while in Mozambique, Swaziland and Tanzania over 80% of the population is

dependent on agriculture (SADC BDS, 2005). Given the limited availability of suitable agricultural land,

there is increasing pressure to convert marginal lands to agriculture. This is partly because the majority

of the population practices subsistence farming that is characterized by low productivity and food

insecurity (SADC BAP, 2010). The total land area under cropping in southern Africa increased from 394.8

million ha in 1994 to 396.7 million ha in 2001 (SADC, 2005). The SADC Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

(SADC ,2005) identified limited alternative livelihood opportunities outside agriculture and natural

resource exploitation, and subsequent increasing pressure on natural resources, as one the key regional

constraints to biodiversity conservation.

Of the higher income countries in the region, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and the Seychelles have

well‐developed economies, and are generally making good progress towards achieving a number of the

MDG goals (Table 4). The best performing of the lower income countries, such as Malawi and Tanzania,

show a steady rise in growth rates, despite high poverty levels and limited economic development.

The poverty situation is exacerbated by high rates of HIV/AIDs infection. The sheer scale of the impact of

AIDS has caused widespread human and economic devastation and undermined any hopes of a rapid

and significant reduction in poverty. Eastern and southern Africa is at the epicentre of the HIV epidemic.

In at least 12 countries in the region, from 11 to 36 per cent of the adult population are affected by

HIV/AIDS. With an infection rate of about 20% of the entire adult population aged between 15 and 49

years, southern Africa has the largest HIV/infected population in the world (SADC, 2005). Although

HIV/AIDS is much less prevalent on these islands than on the African mainland, its increasing incidence is

an emerging problem. The percentage of HIV/AIDS infected in the age group of 15 to 49 years for

Madagascar and Mauritius was less than 0.3 per cent in 2001 (WRI Earth Trends 2003).

Unsustainable debt servicing is undermining the ability of ESA countries to respond to the challenges of

natural resources management and poverty alleviation. For example, Malawi spends the same amount

on debt servicing as it does on health (SADC, 2010). This means that most of the governments' earnings

go to debt servicing instead of physical and infrastructural development, adversely impacting on

investment and economic growth.

Armed conflict and civil unrest have blocked economic and development progress and have aggravated

poverty in many parts of the region. Poverty rates are considerably higher in countries that are affected

by war or are recovering from conflict, such as Angola (ESARO wetlands situation analysis). Smallholders

in particular have been affected by a succession of major crises arising from civil strife. In Uganda,


insecurity caused by rebel insurgency in the north and northeast of the country is a major cause of

poverty.

Climate change, resulting in a decline in rainfall in some areas and the extreme weather patterns, such

as heavy rains and cyclones, in other areas are detrimental to farmers, their crops, and the rural

economy in general. At the same time, rising food prices are affecting poor rural people

disproportionately.

Table 4. Demographic and socio‐economic situation in the ESA region

The key factors responsible for increasing demand for food are rising incomes, growing uses of food

grains for biofuel production and animal feed, increasing world population, and urbanization. On the

supply side, high agricultural input prices (especially fertilizers and fuel), reduced world stocks, reduced

exports, and declining agricultural resources have been associated with low supply of food commodities

in the region (ESARO wetlands situation analysis).


2. GrowingdemandfornaturalresourcesIn order to lift their economies from poverty, the countries in the region have embarked on ambitious

economic plans and poverty reduction strategies. However, many of these strategies focus on short

term economic gains at the expense of environmental sustainability (SADC, 2005). In many cases, the

valuation of biodiversity does not feature in the economic development equation. This is sometimes due

to the lack of awareness of the importance of biodiversity to economic development. In some cases

countries consciously flout international and national environmental laws and obligations in pursuit of

short term economic objectives (e.g. SADC, 2010). These factors have contributed to widespread

environmental destruction and degradation.

The biodiversity in the region is also threatened by the growing global demand for natural resources. In

particular, the phenomenal economic growth of China, the world’s most populous nation, has greatly

increased the global demand for natural resources. Unable to meet its needs from its own degraded

natural resource base, China is increasingly turning its eyes to Africa for opportunities to exploit the vast

energy, mineral, timber and other natural resources of the continent. As a result, China has become an

increasingly important source of investment for many resource‐rich countries in Africa (WWF, 2010;

Bosshard, 2008).

There are glaring inequities in access and benefit sharing derived from biodiversity use. Inequitable

terms of trade combined with uneven distribution and access to natural resources by local communities

undermine efforts to promote sustainable use. Some countries in the region, in particularly in southern

Africa, have been exploring economic opportunities based on “bio trade” and diversification of

economic activities based on biodiversity (SADC , 2010).

3. WeakpoliciesandlegislationThere are a number of deficiencies in polices, legislative and institutional frameworks for addressing

various drivers affecting ecosystems and their ability to supporting livelihoods and providing ecological

services. The policies generally do not incorporate appropriate incentives for biodiversity conservation

and ecosystem management, partly due to lack of capacity to incorporate these issues during policy

formulation (SADC, 2005).

While all the ESA countries are signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in most

countries there is limited implementation of the Conference of Parties (COP) decisions as reflected by

irregular and inadequate national reporting and outdated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action

Plans. There is limited synergy in the implementation of MEAs and regional protocols.

Although some countries have made considerable progress in developing a policy environment that is

conducive to effective natural resources management, the region is still experiencing serious

governance challenges as far as biodiversity conservation and sustainable use is concerned. Since

biodiversity is a cross cutting issue, there are numerous, fragmented and sometimes contradictory

policy and legislations governing its conservation and sustainable use.

Generally, there appears to be insufficient appreciation of the importance of biodiversity to national

economies and sustainable livelihoods throughout the region. This results in continued exclusion of


biodiversity from the mainstream sectors of national economies, and limited investment in areas such as

value addition and bio‐prospecting by national governments (SADC, 2005).

4. PoorgovernanceWith the exception of a few southern African states, most of the countries in the region perform poorly

in Amnesty International’s corruption perceptions index (Amnesty International, 2010). Corruption

continues to undermine biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. It is a major

contributing factor to the prevailing trend of recentralization of control over natural resources across

the region (IUCN, 2010).

5. ConflictA number of countries in the region are experiencing, or recovering from, civil war and political

instability: Madagascar, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe are suffering from ongoing internal political

conflict; northern Uganda has been destabilized by years of rebel activity; Angola and Mozambique are

still recovering from prolonged periods of war. The negative impacts of conflict on protected areas and

species diversity are numerous and include: reduced funding and political support to conservation,

increased poaching, and general breakdown in monitoring and management systems. Political and

economic difficulties also give rise to refugee migrations, causing further pressure on the environment,

and often extending into neighbouring countries. Environmental degradation can exacerbate conflict,

which causes further environmental degradation, creating a vicious cycle of environmental decline,

competition for diminishing resources, increased hostility, inter‐communal fighting, and ultimately social

and political breakdown (UNEP, 2008). Armed conflict can have locally severe impacts on biodiversity.

For example, approximately 15 of Virunga's mountain gorillas have been killed since the outbreak of civil

war in 1990 (WWF,2011).

Directthreats

1. HabitatlossandfragmentationHabitat loss and fragmentation due to changing land use are major direct drivers of loss of biodiversity

in the region (UNEP, 2006). Ecosystem loss and degradation are major causes of greenhouse gas

emissions (Dudley et al, 2010). Habitat loss resulting from agricultural land expansion, settlements,

infrastructure development, and extraction of natural resources for industry puts enormous pressure on

biodiversity throughout the region. The problem cuts through all ecosystems: for example, degradation

of habitat due to changes in land use practices is the most serious threat to dryland biodiversity (EASRO

drylands situation analysis). Wetland habitats are lost by conversion to agriculture, urbanization,

canalization of waterways and construction of dams. Forests are cleared for agriculture, human

settlement and for mineral exploration. In the West Indian Ocean Island states there is tremendous

forest loss through agricultural expansion, wildfires, illegal logging and mining (UNEP, 2006). For

example in the Comoros, all potentially arable land is already in use, meaning that additional agricultural

land is created at the expense of remaining forests (CBD 2007, in UNEP 2008). Roads fragment many

terrestrial habitats. Veterinary fences block wildlife movements causing high mortalities, especially in

times of drought. Fenced off cattle farms have led to serious fragmentation habitats in parts of

Botswana and Namibia. Veterinary cordons have been linked to catastrophic declines in wildlife species


in parts of southern Africa. Habitat loss and degradation is also the number one threat to great ape

populations in the ESA region.

Extractive industries, especially mining and hydrocarbon exploration are big drivers of habitat loss and

fragmentation. Many existing oil and gas exploration concessions overlap with existing protected areas,

important biodiversity areas and important ecosystems (figure 5).

Figure 5 Oil & Gas concessions in Tanzania

Threats from mining remain a significant and include extensive habitat loss and pollution. Legislative

provisions for mining in protected areas persist in a number of countries, including Tanzania and


Zambia. Most countries have legislation in place to ensure environmental impact assessments and

audits are carried out and that good standards are applied to mining operations. In practice, companies

often flout these regulations.

Many countries in the region have high rates of deforestation (figure 6). Tanzania had the third‐largest

net loss of forest area in Africa (and the sixth largest in the world) between 2000 and 2005 (FAO 2005b,

in UNEP 2008). In Eritrea, forests account for only 15 per cent of the land (UNEP 2008), although original

forest cover is estimated to have been twice that amount (FAO 2001, in UNEP 2008). In Ethiopia, it is

estimated that forest cover now constitutes less than four per cent of the original forest extent (UNEP

2008). Common drivers include agricultural expansion, commercial logging, deliberately set forest fires,

and demand for fuel wood. In several countries, the consumption of fuel wood has increased due to

increasing prices of petroleum products, electricity and electrical appliances. For example, the

proportion of fuel wood used in Malawi’s rural households has increased from 90% to 94% in recent

years (SADC, 2005). In Zambia, the charcoal industry generates about US$30 million annually and about

60 000 people directly depend on it for the bulk of their income (SADC, 2005). The demand for this

energy source is expected to double in the next 30 years (SADC, 2005).

Figure 6 Deforestation rates in Africa (UNEP atlas, 2008)

Habitat fragmentation can have similar outcomes for biodiversity as outright habitat losses (UNEP,

2006). First, the “edge effect” disrupts biodiversity for a considerable distance into the remnant patches.

Second, the number of species that can be supported in the long term depends on habitat size. Many

species persisting in fragmented habitats are increasingly becoming isolated as corridors of connectivity

are lost to human land use. For, example, several antelope species such as the Bluebuck (Hippotragus

leucophaeus) in south‐western South Africa, and the Kob (Kobus kob) in Tanzania, are all threatened

with extinction because of habitat loss (SADC, 2010). Fragmentation of habitats also reduces the


capacity of species to adapt to climate change, by limiting the possibilities of migration to areas with

more suitable conditions (UNEP, GEO‐3).

2. OverexploitationofplantsandanimalsIllegal hunting and collection of plants and animals for subsistence and commercial purposes are major

threats to biodiversity throughout the region. Birds and reptiles are in great demand for the pet trade.

Overfishing is exerting major pressure in freshwater and marine fisheries. For example, in Angola

overfishing by both local and foreign fishing fleets has significantly reduced fish stocks, threatening

some species with extinction. Uncontrolled fishing for sharks, lobsters and more recently sea cucumbers

is a growing concern along the entire Somali coast (IGAD strategy). The fish stocks in the Great Lakes

(Lake Victoria in particular) show classic symptoms of overfishing (UNEP, 2006). Destructive fishing

techniques (such as poison fishing, dynamite fishing and the use of small‐mesh nets are widespread

(Emerton & Tessema, 2001).

One of the greatest pressures to plant and animal species in the region is the unregulated trade in high

value plant and animal products such as ivory, rhino horn, game meat and skins, as well as live capture

and export of plants and plant products (SADC, 2010). Illegal hunting has caused a severe drop in wild

animal numbers in some parts of the region. Rhinoceros populations have plummeted due to the high

prices and demand for rhino horn in southeast and east Asia. Between January 2006 and September

2009, a minimum of 470 rhino were poached, mostly in Zimbabwe and South Africa (Milliken et al.,

2009). South Africa alone lost 333 rhinos in 2010, and so far has lost more than 70 in 2011. Most rhino

horns leaving Africa are destined for Southeast Asian medicinal markets that are believed to be driving

the poaching epidemic. In particular, Vietnamese nationals have been repeatedly implicated in rhino

crimes in South Africa. (Source:

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/esaro/?7165/Africas‐Rhinos‐face‐worst‐poaching‐

crisis‐in‐decades).

Unsustainable harvesting of bushmeat is increasing (ESARO forest analysis). Snaring of wildlife,

especially wild ungulates, increasingly for commercial operations in urban centers, is a major problem in

some areas. Although not as big a threat to great apes in eastern Africa as it is in southern Africa, gorillas

and chimpanzees are nevertheless often accidentally caught in snares set to capture other wildlife

leaving many individuals maimed or killed from their injuries.

The unregulated trade in elephant ivory remains a problem. The elephant ivory market in Khartoum is

thought to be one of the largest in the world and Sudan accounts for over one‐third of elephants’ range

in eastern Africa, yet fewer than 300 individuals are estimated to remain in the country (Blanc et al.,

2007). In Ethiopia, the domestic elephant ivory market has been revived since a 2005 crackdown by

authorities. In 2008 ivory was found readily for sale and selling at substantially higher prices than before.

New tusks from Kenya and Sudan continue to be smuggled into Ethiopia. Chinese nationals working in

Ethiopia are the main consumers of the ivory (Vigne & Martin, 2008).

The illegal trade in chimpanzee infants for the pet trade from DRC through East Africa is rampant,

despite many efforts to control it (Hicks et al., 2010).


The over‐reliance on traditional medicinal plants for primary health care has contributed to the over‐

exploitation of species such as Warburgia salutaris in Swaziland and Zimbabwe, and Albizia brevifolia in

Namibia, while commercial crafts have caused the decline in the tree species such as Berchemia discolor

in Namibia and Botswana. In Botswana, Hoodia species, Harpagophytum (Devil’s claw) species are

targeted due their appetite suppressing properties which creates a market for them in many developed

countries. In the mopane woodlands, the orchid Ansellia africana is overexploited because it is believed

to have aphrodisiac properties. Overexploitation of Boswellia papyrifeira is a problem in Djibouti

(Djibouti CBD report). Tanzania is heavily affected by the trade in wild birds and the country is widely

seen as a center of illegal bird trade in the continent (http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/ban‐

sought‐on‐african‐bird‐trade‐1.322160; http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/684/Commercial‐Trade‐

Wildlife‐WORLD‐LEADERS‐IN‐WILDLIFE‐TRADE.html; Friedman, pers.com)

Some critically endangered species are so few in number that their continued existence without active

management is called into question. Lack of genetic diversity and hybridization are major issues. For

example, the future of the flagship Giant Sable Antelope, (Hippotragus niger variani) in Angola is at risk

from hybridization from the common Sable Antelope (Hippotragus niger).

3. Human‐wildlifeconflictConflict between people and wildlife is a major contributor to the loss of biodiversity in Africa (UNEP,

2006). There is increasing competition between people, and between people and wildlife, for grazing

land and water resources. The loss of key dispersal areas for wildlife leads to greater pressure within the

protected areas and increased conflict with neighbouring local communities.

Species such as elephants, carnivores and primates cause widespread crop loss, inflict damage to

infrastructure, and can injure or kill people and livestock. The economic and social costs of this damage

can be significant and, in retaliation, people often kill or injure wildlife. For instance, 85 lions were killed

around Tarangire National Park in Tanzania in 2004‐5 in retaliation to livestock depredation (IUCN/SSC

CSG Lion conservation strategy). The result is a loss of a source of benefits to local communities and

national economies as wildlife is displaced or eliminated. This scenario occurs whenever the long‐term

costs of living with wildlife persistently outweigh the benefits. Many farmers, herdsmen and ranchers

living adjacent to parks look upon wild animals as pests and not as assets (Kaltenborn et al., 2003, in

UNEP 2006). Subsequently, human‐wildlife conflict (HWC) has become one of the main threats to a

number of economically important emblematic species, including elephants, lions, cheetahs, leopards,

wild dogs, chimpanzees, mountain gorillas. Furthermore, HWC contributes to general hostility towards

conservation initiatives and can undermine wider natural resource management objectives. It also

constitutes a major drain on the resources of protected area managers and other wildlife management

authorities which are increasingly unable to cope with the scale of the problem.

Wildlife‐carried pathogens are a major source of conflict between the wildlife and livestock sectors in

some countries. Large scale veterinary cordons set up to exclude wildlife from livestock production

landscapes in order to satisfy the meat import regulations of lucrative export markets have had

catastrophic impacts on some wildlife populations. Vice versa, some species such as chimpanzees and


gorillas are highly vulnerable to human diseases, a problem that is escalating with human population

growth and fragmentation of habitats resulting in a more expansive human‐great ape interface.

In light of the above it is perhaps not surprising that mitigation of HWC has been identified as a major

biodiversity conservation issue in almost all of the countries that host populations of damage‐causing

wildlife species (CBD reports).

4. PollutionPollution of marine ecosystems is a widespread problem in the region. For example, in Angola and

Djibouti marine pollution, as a result of offshore oil and gas exploration, transport and processing, poses

a great threat to these countries’ rich marine ecosystems (Angola and Djibouti CBD reports). Water

pollution from Mauritius’ large industrial and agricultural sectors poses a significant threat to its coastal

and marine environments (UNEP Africa atlas, 2008). In Tanzania, about 80 per cent of the industries,

including agro‐chemical and chemical industries, breweries and steel manufacturing industries, are

located in the coastal Dar es Salaam. It has been estimated that almost 70 per cent of these industries

directly or indirectly pollute the Indian Ocean (Mgana and Mahongo 2002, in UNEP Africa atlas).

Mangrove forests have to absorb untreated wastes discharged upstream, as well as oil and industrial

pollution, silt, and pesticides (ESARO forest sit analysis).

Pollution from sewage, pesticides and industry is affecting many freshwater ecosystems. Buildup of

phosphorus and nitrogen, mainly through run‐off from cropland and sewage pollution, stimulates

growth of algae and some forms of bacteria, threatening valuable ecosystem services and affecting

water quality. In east African Rift Valley lakes, pollution combined with unsustainable exploitation of

fisheries are major drivers of biodiversity loss (Odada et. al., 2003 – Birdlife International, 2010).

5. InvasivealienspeciesInvasive alien species (IAS) are species whose introduction and/or spread outside their natural past or

present distribution threatens biological diversity. IAS are introduced deliberately or unintentionally

outside their natural habitats where they have the ability to establish themselves, invade, out‐compete

natives, and take over their new environments. IAS can alter the composition of native biological

communities, often drastically, upsetting species composition, changing soil chemistry, hydrology and

fire frequency (SADC BAP, 2010). The spread of invasive terrestrial alien plant species such as Lantana

camara, Prosopis juliflora, Parthenium hysterophus and Chromolaena odorata is of great concern in the

ESA region. These species form thickets and displace native flora and fauna, are often toxic to livestock

and wildlife, and may cause health problems on contact. In Ethiopia invasion by Prosopis juliflora has

resulted in multiple negative effects on food security, livelihoods and on the environment (Dubale,

2006) in some areas completely excluding pastoralists from former grazing lands (ESARO drylands). In

Lesotho, severe rangeland degradation is facilitating the replacement of native flora with invasive weed

species (UNEP atlas, 2008). Invasive species of alien crustaceans, plants and fish threaten the

biodiversity of many wetland ecosystems.

Several key biodiversity areas and threatened species are under attack from IAS. For example, the

unique floral kingdom of the Cape fynbos, is severely threatened by Australian acacia species, such as


Acacia mearnsii, A. podalyriifolia, and A. longifolia which were originally introduced for timber, and bark

products, or to stabilize sand dunes. Chromolaena odorata displaces browse species for rhinos. IAS

impact on the many range‐restricted endemic fish species of Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi (Darwall et

al. 2005).

Aquatic weeds, often transported in the ballast water of boats, (e.g. Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia

stratoides, Azolla filliculoides and Salvinia molesta) are threatening important waterways, dams and

wetlands, and control is taking up major resources. Salvinia molesta is considered to be the most

serious threat to the aquatic environment in the Okavango Delta (Botswana CBD report).

IAS have become well established in many protected areas and therefore are by default protected,

which risks turning PAs to reservoirs of IAS and a source of future infestations (GISP, 2010). Few

protected area managers have the taxonomic skills to identify IAS, especially invasive alien plants;

managers are largely unaware of their impacts and, do not possess the necessary information and

equipment to actually manage them. There is a great need to build invasive species monitoring and

management into regular protected area management routines.

Invasion of ecosystems by alien species cause significant economic losses. Some examples (SADC, 2005):

The cost to restore the South African fynbos due to invasions by Pinus, Hakea and Acacia species

is estimated at about US$169 million (Turpie et al, 2000);

The Cypress aphid killed Cupressus trees worth US$41 million in eight countries of eastern and

southern Africa between 1986 and 1991 (Murphy, 1997)

Costs associated with the water hyacinth problem in seven African countries is calculated at

US$71.4 million per year (Kasulo, 2000)

The additional water use by alien trees in South Africa (excluding those in plantations and

orchards) is between 1 400 and 3 300 million m3/year (Görgens and van Wilgen 2004, in AEO‐6).

The Serengeti ‐ Masai Mara ecosystem, which hosts the largest wildlife migration known to man, is

under attack from Parthenium hysterophorus. If left unchecked it could threaten the continued

migration of millions of animals across the plains every year and result in the collapse of a highly

lucrative source of tourism revenue.

Specific invasive species inhabit specific countries of the region. More information is needed to

understand their spread and their risk, particularly in the context of climate change which will allow

them to shift their range and further compete with indigenous species (ESARO drylands sit analysis).

Natural and semi‐natural ecosystems, both terrestrial and marine, appear to be more resistant to IAS if

the number, types and relative abundance of native species are preserved (MA, 2006).

The lack of attention given to the threat that IAS are posing is mirrored at the national scale, and indeed

the lack of priority given to this issue by national governments is a large part of the problem. There is

therefore a great need to effectively communicate the message about IAS and the impact they are

having on biodiversity and livelihoods. Governments need to recognize that invasive alien species pose

one of the biggest threats to protected areas and biodiversity in Africa.


Work on IAS in the region, including recent IUCN/CABI collaboration to develop national strategies in

Ethiopia, Uganda and Zambia, has made it abundantly clear that management of IAS requires a regional

approach. Porous borders and removal of border control between common markets mean that the

spread of IAS is accelerating. There would be great value in developing a regional early detection and

response system that would encompass IAS alerts and rapid dissemination of information on control

methods between countries, backed up with the necessary capacity to undertake the necessary control

measures. The recent Serengeti‐Maasai Mara ecosystem invasion by the highly aggressive Parthenium

weed is a clear example of the importance of a transboundary IAS detection and control system.

Another problem is that there are a number of development agencies working to improve livelihoods in

the rural areas of Africa which are, as part of their efforts to diversify livelihoods, introducing invasive

alien species. Typical examples include aquaculture and erosion control methods. A key priority is to

engage with such organizations to find alternative species that are not invasive.

6. BiofuelsLooming power shortages and high oil prices on the world market are leading to new energy strategies

being examined. Biofuel development is viewed as a promising area of development in this respect.

Although there are positive aspects to biofuels, such as reduced CO² emissions, there are also risks;

biofuel plantations require large tracts of land and may displace important biodiversity; they can also

reduce areas available for food crops, thus eroding food security. Examples of highly contentious biofuel

projects with potentially catastrophic consequences for biodiversity include the 30,000 ha Jatropha

plantation in the globally important Dakatcha woodlands in Kenya and the similar sized bio‐ethanol

sugar cane plantation by the Mozambican part of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area

(Murombedzi, in IUCN 2010).

7. GeneticallyModifiedOrganismsIn the quest for high agricultural productivity, within the context of recurrent droughts, the importation

of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has been on the increase, especially in the southern part of

ESA region. Although GMOs have the capacity to boost the world’s food supply in the face of increasing

human populations, especially in developing countries, they can adversely affect local plant germplasm,

human health and the environment, if not properly handled (SADC, 2005). To date, there has been

limited attention to their management, although a number of countries are in the process of developing

legislation on bio‐safety. Agro‐biodiversity is already declining, with the general trend of changing from

indigenous breeds and varieties to more productive new breeds and varieties. According to FAO World

Watch List on threatened domestic animal breeds, over half of the domestic animals breeds will be

extinct in the next 20 years unless action is taken (SADC, 2005). These trends point to a potential loss of

genetic resources which have been developed to survive extreme environments and diseases.

8. FireWhile fire plays a key role in maintaining savannah and grassland ecosystems, uncontrolled wildfires

have become a problem in many parts of the region. Wildfires are responsible for half of the biomass

burning that occurs in Africa, while shifting cultivation accounts for 24 per cent, deforestation for 10 per

cent, domestic burning for 11 per cent, and the burning of agricultural waste for five per cent (UNEP


2005b in UNEP atlas 2008). Wildfire has been identified as a major threat to biodiversity in half of the

countries in the region (CBD 4th country reports). For example, every year approximately 40 per cent of

the surface area of Mozambique is burned, of which 80 per cent is forest (UNEP Africa atlas, 2008).

Many protected areas (e.g. several World Heritage sites) have identified fire as a major management

challenge. Slash‐and‐burn agriculture is the source of most of the wildfires, but fires are also started

deliberately by poachers, a major challenge in many protected areas including the world‐famous

Serengeti National Park. The frequency of wildfire is likely to increase due to climate change which will

bring dryer conditions to many parts of the region.

9. ClimatechangeWhile extreme climate variation is not new, the magnitude and rapidity of climate change likely to occur

in the 21st century is greater than the ability of many organisms to respond by adaptation or migration (

CBD 2007, UNEP 2006). Massive changes humans have made to ecosystems have closed off survival

options previously open to species trying to adapt to new climatic conditions (CBD, 2007).

Vulnerability to climate change poses a challenge to biodiversity and the sustainability of protected

areas and livelihoods throughout the region. Freshwater habitats and wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs,

dry and sub‐humid lands are particularly vulnerable to impact. Specific impacts will largely depend on

the ability of species to migrate and cope with more extreme climatic conditions. Migration to areas

with a suitable climate is severely hampered by barriers such as roads, fences, urban areas and

cultivated fields (UNEP, 2006).

Those ecosystems that are already at, or close to, the extremes of temperature and precipitation

tolerances are at particularly high risk – e.g. deserts and drylands (UNEP, 2006). In southern Africa,

climate change is projected to add further incremental stress to ecosystems already under pressure due

to population growth, increasing subsistence needs and persistent droughts (SADC BAP, 2010). Several

key centres of plant endemism, including the Cape Floral Kingdom and the succulent Karoo are

particularly vulnerable (Rutherford and others 1999, in UNEP, 2006). Climate models undertaken in

South Africa have indicated that large areas in the south and western parts of the country, within the

Succulent and Nama Karoo, and parts of the fynbos biome will be transformed to more arid, desert like

conditions. A loss of this biome of between 51 and 65 per cent is expected by 2050. Based on a

bioclimatic model and scenario used, 10 per cent of endemic Proteaceae have restricted ranges within

areas of the biome that are likely to be lost (Dudley et al, 2010).

Because of the lack of economic, development, and institutional capacity, African countries are likely

among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (IPCC, 2001, in WWF, 2007). The negative

impacts of climate change are compounded by widespread poverty, human diseases, and high

population density. (Davidson et al., 2003 in WWF, 2007).

Those ecosystems that are already at, or close to, the extremes of temperature and precipitation

tolerances are at particularly high risk – e.g. deserts and drylands (UNEP,2006). Climate projections

suggest that during dry months, less precipitation will occur which is likely reduce the resilience of

shrubs and grassland plants (Vanacker et al., 2005, in WWF, 2207). Changes in plant composition will


also have an impact on ecosystem resilience as less diverse systems are more sensitive to precipitation

fluctuations. For example, ecosystems comprised of uniform herbaceous cover, such as in savannah

plant communities, show the highest sensitivity to precipitation fluctuations when compared with plant

communities of a mix of herbaceous, shrub and tree species that support a higher diversity of species

(Vanacker et al., 2005).

In southern Africa, climate change is projected to add further incremental stress to ecosystems already

under pressure due to population growth, increasing subsistence needs and persistent droughts (SADC ,

2010). In Zambia, research shows that climate change substantially affects growth in certain tree

species. Chidumayo (2005) showed that dry tropical trees suffer severe water stress at the beginning of

the growing season and that a warmer climate may accelerate the depletion of deep‐soil water that tree

species depend on for survival. Several key centers of plant endemism including the Cape Floral

Kingdom and the succulent Karoo are particularly vulnerable (Rutherford et al., 1999, in UNEP, 2006).

There is emerging evidence that the effects of climate change are already apparent there (Foden et al.,

2003, in UNEP, 2006). Climate change is predicted to have major negative impacts on the biodiversity in

the Kalahari Basin and the Okavango Delta due to reduced water inflow and precipitation. In general,

wetlands in southern Africa are expected to shrink given the predictions of 15–20% lower rainfall in the

region over the next 50 years owing to global climate change (Darwall et. al, 2009). In South Africa, a

modeling study found that a reduction in the range of a species is likely to have an increased risk in local

extinction due to climate change (Erasmus et al., 2002 in WWF 2007).

In eastern Africa, predicted impacts of climate change include (WWF, 2007):

Climate change is expected to significantly alter African biodiversity as species struggle to adapt

to changing conditions;

Invasive species and other species with high fertility and dispersal capabilities have been shown

to be highly adaptive to variable climatic conditions. Due to its climate sensitive native fauna,

East Africa may be particularly vulnerable to invasive species colonization;

Climate change has the potential to alter migratory routes (and timings) of species that use both

seasonal wetlands (e.g., migratory birds) and track seasonal changes in vegetation (e.g.,

herbivores). This may for instance increase conflicts between people and large mammals such as

elephants, particularly in areas where rainfall is low. A change in the intensity or duration of the

rainy versus dry seasons could change relative breeding rates and, hence, genetic structures in

these populations;

Large changes in ecosystem composition and function because of regional climate change would

have cascading effects on species diversity ;

Climate projections suggest that during already dry months, less precipitation will occur,

reducing the resilience of plants. Species ranges will probably not shift in cohesive and intact

units and are likely to become more fragmented as they shift in response to changing climate.

10. CapacityandresourceconstraintsAll of the above mentioned threats are exacerbated by weak capacity and resources for effective

biodiversity conservation and management. There are major inadequacies in institutional capacity,


financial capacity, policy, law and the regulatory environment for effective conservation and

management, for instance:

Many countries in the region lack the technical capacity and financial resources to effectively combat

the multiple pressures on biodiversity. There are few qualified staff and a high staff turnover in

conservation authority agencies. Budgets are inadequate to effectively address the many problems, and

conservation authorities have to compete for limited funds with other sectors such as agriculture,

energy and infrastructure development. There is high dependence on foreign assistance.

Despite the impressive network of protected areas in the region, many of the institutions created to

manage these areas lack the adequate human and financial capacity to carry out their functions. In

addition, a number of issues are being raised with regards to the governance of protected areas. Most

protected areas, especially those under state management regimes are believed to be performing below

the expected thresholds, particularly with respect to the fulfillment of their primary roles of maintaining

ecological processes and preserving biodiversity (e.g. SADC, 2010; C. Brown, pers.com). Rural poverty

continues to increase around many protected areas exerting pressures on biodiversity, especially where

the local communities have been excluded from the benefits derived from protected areas.

Inadequate biodiversity inventory and monitoring systems, inadequate research, knowledge on and

ability to handle biodiversity information are among other key regional constraints.

Responses at global, regional, national and site levels are required to address these constraints. A

selection of responses is presented in the following section.


4. Responsestothreats

Analysisofkeypolicies,plansandstrategiesResponses to the biodiversity crisis in the ESA region include international multilateral environmental

agreements, various regional agreements and numerous national policies, strategies and plans.

Numerous intergovernmental and non‐governmental organizations are active in the field of protected

areas and species diversity. A sample of initiatives is summarized below.

GlobalMost of the eastern and southern African countries are signatories to the main multilateral

environmental agreements (MEAs):

ConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD)The main global environmental agreement on biodiversity is the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD). The CBD was the product of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio

Convention). The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was set up at the same time as the financing

mechanism for the CBD. To date, 169 countries have ratified the convention. All the 22 ESA region

countries are signatories to the convention, except Somalia which has special status due to its political

situation.

All countries in the region, with the exception of Somalia, have developed National Biodiversity

Conservation Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) in line with the requirements of the CBD. A national

strategy is intended to reflect how the country intends to fulfill the objectives of the CBD in light of

specific national circumstances, and the related action plans will constitute the sequence of steps to be

taken to meet these goals. NBSAPs are also intended to adapt existing strategies, plans or programmes

to achieving biodiversity conservation and sustainable use issues.

The “first generation” NBSAPs were developed several years ago and many are now out of date. All

NBSAPs are meant to be revised and brought in line with the CBD Strategic Plan 2011‐2020 by 2014.

Support to this process comes from the GEF‐5 enabling activities allocation, which is approximately USD

450,000 per State Party.

Most of the states in the ESA region have recently compiled their fourth national reports on the

implementation of their NBSAPs. However, few of these reports provide detailed assessments

concerning the extent to which activities in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans have

been implemented or what outcomes have been achieved. Only a number of the reports analyzed

provide quantitative assessments of implementation of activities or elements of the NBSAP. For

example, Djibouti reports that 30% of the projects identified in the NBSAP have been carried out.

Lessons learned from the first round of NBSAPs in SADC countries are listed below.


NBSAP’s Achievements: Challenges implementing NBSAP:

Protected areas have increased, including the whole coastal line

Biodiversity assessment, status of species ‐ creating baselines

NBSAP prepared and in place

Establishing institutional framework for Biosafety; policy and legislation put in place

Translated NBSAP into National Biodiversity Framework (33 actions)

NBSAP translated into legal document

Enhancing capacity development into local and national plans

Establishing the context and creating high‐level reference for national and sub‐national targets

NBSAP helped in mainstreaming biodiversity into other sectors and emphasize biodiversity for development

Provincial National Action Plans

Inadequate financial resources – Resource mobilization

Communicating the NBSAP (CEPA)

Lack of buy‐in from, and participation of, key NBSAP stakeholders

Institutional fragmentation

Lack of documented traditional knowledge across SADC Member States.

In some cases, the baseline information on biodiversity is unknown

Alignment with action plans, at a level where implementation is more attainable and direct

Better addressing CBD’s objectives 2 and 3

Lack of capacity

Source: CBD (2011) Regional Workshop for southern African on updating NBSAPs: incorporating work on valuation and

incentive measures Kasane, Botswana, 14‐20 March 2011. Report of the workshop. Draft.

Conferences on the Parties (COP) to the CBD are held every two years. In October 2010, the 10th COP

adopted a revised and updated Strategic Plan, including new Biodiversity Targets (known as the Aichi

targets), for the 2011‐2020 period. This came in the aftermath of the acknowledgement that the

previous target to “achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the

global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life

on Earth” had not been met. The new strategic plan recognizes that to decrease the direct pressures on

biodiversity engagement of the agricultural, forest, fisheries, tourism, energy and other sectors will be

essential to success. It also recognized that “where tradeoffs between biodiversity protection and other

social objectives exist, they can often be minimized by using approaches such as spatial planning and

efficiency measures”. While these longer‐term actions are taking effect, the strategy urges immediate

action to help conserve biodiversity, including in critical ecosystems, “by means of protected areas,

habitat restoration, species recovery programmes and other targeted conservation interventions”.

(emphasis added).

The "Aichi Biodiversity Targets" are organized under five strategic goals:


Strategic goal A. Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across

government and society. Targets 1‐4.

Strategic goal B. Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use. Targets 5‐

10.

Strategic goal C. Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic

diversity. Targets 11‐13.

Strategic goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services. Targets 14‐16.

Strategic goal E. Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and

capacity‐building. Targets 17‐20.

The following Targets in the CBD strategic plan are of particular importance to the CASD programme:

Target 11: “By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 per cent of coastal

and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are

conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected

systems of protected areas and other effective area‐based conservation measures, and integrated into

the wider landscapes and seascapes”. (emphasis added)

Target 12: “By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their

conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained”.

These two targets clearly place the focus on areas that are the most important for biodiversity and

ecosystem services, especially those with species threatened by extinction. Protected areas, or other

area‐based conservation measures, are identified as important tools in achieving these targets.

Furthermore, these protected areas should be equitably managed, ecologically representative and well

connected systems that are well integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.

Other targets of importance to the CASD programme include:

Target 2: “By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local

development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into

national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems”.

Target 9: “By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species

are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their

introduction and establishment”.

Target 10: “By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable

ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their

integrity and functioning”.


Target 17: “By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced

implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan”.

The full list of Aichi Targets is provided in Annex II.

It is planned to translate the new CBD strategy to revised national biodiversity strategies and action

plans within two years. There are a number of enabling activities, number of which will be taking place

during the course of 2011. The GEF‐5 has allocated USD 500,000 per country for enabling activities. The

most important activities to note are:

Developing national and regional targets, using the Strategic Plan and its Aichi Targets, as a

flexible framework, in accordance with national priorities and capacities and taking into

account both the global targets and the status and trends of biological diversity in the

country, and the resources provided through the strategy for resource mobilization, with a

view to contributing to collective global efforts to reach the global targets;

Reviewing, and as appropriate updating and revising, national biodiversity strategies and

action plans to make them into effective instruments to promote the implementation of

the Strategic Plan and mainstreaming of biodiversity at the national level. The first steps in

this process are a series of capacity building workshops;

The CBD urges regional organizations to consider the development or updating of regional

biodiversity strategies, as appropriate, including agreeing on regional targets, as a means

of complementing and supporting national actions and of contributing to the

implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011‐2020.

In addition, the CBD work plan includes a provision for specialized workshops, e.g. on

protected areas.

The GEF is also planning a series of national dialogues to understand the national priorities

of the state parties.

At the SBSTA 14 meeting in May 2010, leading up to the COP 10, IUCN‐WCPA, along with TNC, WWF, CI,

WCS, BirdLife International were invited to “develop technical guidance on ecological restoration,

conservation connectivity and corridors, climate change adaptation and mitigation”.

ProgrammeofWorkonProtectedAreas(PoWPA)Protected areas are one of the seven cross‐cutting thematic areas of the CBD with its own programme

of work. The ecosystem approach is the primary framework for action under the Convention and its

Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA). Multiple‐use protected areas applied in an ecosystem

approach context can, for example, help meet specific goals relating to conservation, sustainable use

and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. The ecosystem

approach provides a framework within which the relationship of protected areas to the wider landscape

and seascape can be understood, and the goods and services flowing from protected areas can be

valued. In addition, the establishment and management of protected area systems in the context of the

ecosystem approach should not simply be considered in national terms, but where the relevant

ecosystem extends beyond national boundaries, in ecosystem or bioregional terms as well. This presents


a strong argument for and adds complexity to the establishment of transboundary protected areas and

protected areas in marine areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. The PoWPA is intended to

assist Parties in establishing national programmes of work with targeted goals, actions, specific actors,

timeframe, inputs and expected measurable outputs.

In decision X/31 on protected areas the 10th CBD COP agreed to management effectiveness assessments

in 60% of the total areas by 2015 and to ensure that the results of the assessments are implemented.

Similarly in PoWPA the Parties have agreed to integrate all protected areas into wider land and

seascapes by 2015 taking into account ecological connectivity. In decision IX/18, para3 the COP urged

Parties to finalize ecological gap analysis by 2009. Regarding other effective area based conservation

measures, PoWPA accorded recognition to indigenous and local community conserved areas and broad

sets of protected area governance types. IX/18 para 6 (a) and (b) the COP invited Parties to diversify

protected area governance types and recognize co‐managed protected areas, private protected areas

and indigenous and local community conserved areas within the national protected area system through

acknowledgement in national legislation or through other effective means.

As the elements of Target 11 of the CBD Strategic Plan 2011‐2020 incorporate the tenets of PoWPA, its

further effective implementation holds the key for achieving Target 11. PoWPA implementation also

helps achieving other Targets (1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 18 –see also annex II).

ConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpeciesofWildFaunaandFlora(CITES)CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an

international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in

specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival (http://www.cites.org/). CITES

works by subjecting international trade in specimens of selected species to certain controls. All import,

export, re‐export and introduction from the sea of species covered by the Convention has to be

authorized through a licensing system. The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices,

according to the degree of protection they need:

Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is

permitted only in exceptional circumstances;

Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must

be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival;

Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other

CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade

CITES has established a number of species programmes. The following are the most relevant to the ESA

region:

Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) – a site‐based monitoring system established to

detect trends in the illegal killing of elephants across Africa and Asia. There are currently 21

MIKE sites in 10 different countries in the ESA region. IUCN ESARO has an agreement with CITES

(currently being re‐negotiated) which includes hosting of sub‐regional site support officers at

IUCN offices and collaboration with the IUCN/SSC AfESG on a number of technical issues.


Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) is a comprehensive information system to track

illegal trade in ivory and other elephant products. It shares the same objectives as those set out

for MIKE (in Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12), with the difference that its aim is to record

and analyze levels and trends in illegal trade, rather than the illegal killing of elephants. The

central component of ETIS is a database on seizures of elephant specimens that have occurred

anywhere in the world since 1989. The seizure database is supported by a series of subsidiary

database components that assess law enforcement effort and efficiency, rates of reporting,

domestic ivory markets and background economic variables. These database components are

time‐based and country‐specific and are used to mitigate factors that cause bias in the data and

might otherwise distort the analytical results. The subsidiary database components also assist in

interpreting and understanding the results of the ETIS analyses. Since its inception, ETIS has

been managed by TRAFFIC on behalf of the CITES Parties and is currently housed at the TRAFFIC

East/Southern Africa office in Harare, Zimbabwe.

Prunus africana ‐ a tree from the mountain areas of tropical Africa and Madagascar is

harvested for its bark, which has medicinal properties, and timber. The species has been listed in

CITES Appendix II since 16 February 1995. A working group has been set up to guidance to States

(includes Kenya, Madgasacar and Tanzania) on the implementation of the recommendations

resulting from the Review of Significant Trade for Prunus africana.

TheConventionConcerningtheProtectionofWorldCulturalandNaturalHeritage(TheWorldHeritageConvention)IUCN is uniquely identified in the World Heritage Convention as the official advisory body to the World

Heritage Committee on natural heritage. This distinctive and high profile role means IUCN is centrally

placed to respond to the challenge to enhance the role of the World Heritage Convention in protecting

the world’s biodiversity. A new initiative, known as World Heritage Agenda for Nature (WHAN),

involving all parts of IUCN and its partners has recently been developed as a vehicle for mobilizing

increased support for conservation and management of natural and mixed Natural Heritage sites around

the world.

The World Heritage sites in the ESA region include some of the most iconic national parks in Africa,

many of which are of great importance for biodiversity conservation: e.g. the Serengeti National Park,

the Simien Mountains, Aldabra Atoll, Cape Floral Region, Bwindi Impenetrable Forest and the

Rainforests of the Atsinanana. These sites are considered to have Outstanding Universal Value which

underscores their importance not just to the countries in question but to the world at large. A full list of

current and potential World Heritage sites is provided in Annex 1.

The IUCN ESARO CASD programme receives support from the Mava Foundation, the main donor of the

WHAN. The main priority objectives and activities identified for Africa in the WHAN include

strengthening of the monitoring in World Heritage sites; capacity building e.g. through improving

management effectiveness and mentoring; training in preparing nominations; improving the capacity of

IUCN national and regional offices to provide support to World Heritage sites; selection of ecologically

representative sites from the tentative list of new WH sites (gap analysis); establishment of climate

change learning sites. For more details – see Annex III.


TheRamsarConventiononWetlandsThe Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) ‐ called the "Ramsar Convention" ‐ is an

intergovernmental treaty that embodies the commitments of its member countries to maintain the

ecological character of their Wetlands of International Importance and to plan for the "wise use", or

sustainable use, of all of the wetlands in their territories. Unlike the other global environmental

conventions, Ramsar is not affiliated with the United Nations system of Multilateral Environmental

Agreements, but it works very closely with the other MEAs and is a full partner among the "biodiversity‐

related cluster" of treaties and agreements (source: http://www.ramsar.org/ ). IUCN has been closely

involved in the Ramsar convention since its inception.

The Ramsar Contracting Parties, or Member States, have committed themselves to implementing the

“three pillars” of the Convention: to designate suitable wetlands for the List of Wetlands of International

Importance (“Ramsar List”) and ensure their effective management; to work towards the wise use of all

their wetlands through national land‐use planning, appropriate policies and legislation, management

actions, and public education; and to cooperate internationally concerning transboundary wetlands,

shared wetland systems, shared species, and development projects that may affect wetlands.

The Ramsar Convention sponsors and hosts a number of wetland‐related programmes and activities

directed to the Ramsar and wetland community and to the general public. These include:

Communication, Education, Participation, and Awareness; wetlands awards; a small grants programme;

advisory missions; the Ramsar sites information service and private sector partnerships.

Sixteen of the 22 ESA states have designated Ramsar sites (see table below). There is an interesting

overlap between these sites and key biodiversity areas (particularly important bird areas) as well as

current and potential World Heritage sites. There is potential scope for the CASD and ESARO water and

wetlands programmes to work with these conventions, as well as members such as Birdlife International

to improve delivery on conservation objectives.

Table 5 – Ramsar sites in ESA region

Contracting party Number of Ramsar sites Surface area (ha)

Botswana 1 5,537,400

Comoros 3 16,030

Djibouti 1 3,000

Kenya 5 101,849

Lesotho 1 434

Madagascar 7 1,146,066

Malawi 1 224,800


Mauritius 2 379

Mozambique 1 688,000

Namibia 4 629,600

Seychelles 3 44,022

South Africa 20 553,178

Sudan 4 8,189,600

Tanzania 4 4,868,424

Uganda 12 454,303

Zambia 8 4,030,500

Source: http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar‐about‐parties‐contracting‐parties‐to‐23808/main/ramsar/1‐36‐123%5E23808_4000_0__

ConventionontheConservationofMigratorySpeciesofWildAnimals(CMS)The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn

Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range.

Migratory species threatened with extinction are listed on Appendix I of the Convention. CMS Parties

strive towards strictly protecting these animals, conserving or restoring the places where they live,

mitigating obstacles to migration and controlling other factors that might endanger them. Besides

establishing obligations for each State joining the Convention, CMS promotes concerted action among

the Range States of many of these species. Several Agreements have been concluded to date under the

auspices of CMS including an agreement on gorillas and their habitats. In addition, several Memoranda

of Understanding (MoU) have been concluded to date under the auspices of CMS, aiming to conserve a

number of species. Of relevance to the ESA region are the following: Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast

of Africa; Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South‐East Asia; Dugongs and their

Habitats; Birds of Prey of Africa and Eurasia; and Sharks. Signatories include Angola, Djibouti, Eritrea,

Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa,

Tanzania and Uganda.

UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange(UNFCCC)The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international

environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

(UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from June 3 to 14, 1992. All

countries in the ESA region have signed the UNFCCC.

The objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level

that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The UNFCC provides

for updates (called "protocols") that set mandatory emission limits. The principal protocol is the Kyoto

Protocol which sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for


reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels

over the five‐year period 2008‐2012. Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily

through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting

their targets by way of three market‐based mechanisms:

Emissions trading – known as “the carbon market"

Clean development mechanism (CDM)

Joint implementation (JI).

The Kyoto Protocol, like the Convention, is also designed to assist countries in adapting to the adverse

effects of climate change. It facilitates the development and deployment of techniques that can help

increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. Funding for adaptation is provided through the

financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, currently operated by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and

the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB). The Adaptation Fund was established to finance adaptation projects

and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is financed

mainly with a share of proceeds from CDM project activities.

The National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) provide an important way to priorities urgent

and immediate adaptation needs for Least Developed Countries. The NAPAs draw on existing

information and community‐level input. Twelve of the 23 ESA countries have so far submitted their

NAPAs to the UNFCCC (UNFCC, 2011).

UnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification(UNCCD)The UNCCD arose from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED),

which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was spurred on by the realization that desertification is a

major economic, social and environmental problem of concern to many countries in the world,

particularly in sub‐Saharan Africa.

National Action Programmes (NAP) are one of the key instruments in the implementation of the

Convention. They are strengthened by Action Programmes on Sub‐regional (SRAP) and Regional (RAP)

level. National Action Programmes are developed in the framework of a participative approach involving

the local communities and they spell out the practical steps and measures to be taken to combat

desertification in specific ecosystems. SADC and IGAD developed their SRAPs in 2000 and 2001

respectively. Seventeen of the 22 countries in the CASD region have developed NAPs.

Otherrelevantglobalinitiatives

TRAFFICSince TRAFFIC was founded as a joint programme of WWF and IUCN in 1976, it has won widespread

recognition for its expertise and objectivity on matters relating to the conservation of species subject to

local and international wildlife trade. It has played a key role in many international fora – most notably

CITES) ‐ and when it speaks on controversial issues, such as ivory trade, its views are listened to with

respect. Currently, the TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa (TESA) programme is primarily structured around:


two Flagship Species (elephants, rhinos), plus a little work on Marine Turtles in Mozambique and

a new push to look at lion bone trade issues under the Big Cats part of the programme:

four Resource Security themes (timber, fisheries, wild meat and medicinal plants);

one (yet unfunded so still in planning phase) Early Warning project on zebra skin trade; and

attention to the Africa/China footprint issue under the Wildlife Trade Routes theme.

TheUnitedNationsCollaborativeProgrammeonReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandForestDegradationinDevelopingCountriesReducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is an effort to create a financial

value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions

from forested lands and invest in low‐carbon paths to sustainable development. “REDD+” goes beyond

deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of

forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Incorporation of biodiversity conservation and

sustainable use considerations is important, as this helps maintain forest ecosystem resilience and the

long‐term stability of the carbon pool, as well as providing co‐benefits in terms of the delivery of other

ecosystem services, including supporting sustainable livelihoods (CBD, 2011). Tanzania and Zambia are

among the nine REDD pilot countries. Both countries have developed national REDD programmes

TheEconomicsofEcosystemsandBiodiversitystudyIn recent years there has been an increasing understanding of the value of biodiversity to national

economies. In this respect The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study‐initiated in 2008

and supported by a wide range of partners including IUCN‐has been particularly influential. The aim of

TEEB is to provide a bridge between the multi‐disciplinary science of biodiversity and the arena of

international and national policy as well as local government and business practices. A number of case

studies presented in TEEB have helped to highlight the case for maintaining ecosystem services and the

values of biodiversity by using economic figures. Globally TEEB has shown that natural capital worth

US$4.5 trillion is being lost each year because of unsustainable practices. It has drawn attention to the

values of ecosystems such as coral reefs which provide food, storm protection, jobs, recreation and

other income sources for more than 500 million people worldwide with an average annual value

estimated at US$172 billion. Such economic arguments carry weight as economic goals are the top

priority of most governments, the raison d’être of business, and an abiding preoccupation of most

individuals. By revealing the economic value of nature, TEEB can help increase public awareness and

support for biodiversity conservation generally. TEEB has also shown that consumers around the world

are increasingly conscious about how their choices affect biodiversity. Over 80 per cent of consumers

surveyed in America and Europe said they would stop buying products from companies they consider

unethical.

At a macroeconomic level, biodiversity valuations can give a much more accurate picture of national

economic performance, through ‘green accounting’ systems that include natural wealth as well as

physical capital. Similarly, at a project level, valuation of ecosystem services can help inform natural

resource management, such as whether and how much to charge tourists for visits to national parks.

Economic valuation can also reveal the distribution of costs and benefits of biodiversity loss, and

highlight inequitable outcomes that require action or compensation. For example, valuation can clarify


the impacts of protected areas on surrounding communities e.g. due to crop damage by wildlife,

people’s loss of access to resources and other effects.

In the ESA region, South Africa is among countries that will be carrying out TEEB studies to put economic

value on national ecosystems and biodiversity.

Regional

Regionalandsub‐regionalbiodiversitystrategiesandactionplans

NEPADActionPlanfortheEnvironmentInitiativeIn 2003 the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) developed an Action Plan for its

Environmental Initiative. This plan, prepared through a consultative and participatory process under the

leadership of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN), is a framework for the

African Union’s priorities for environmental conservation and management. A central premise of the

plan is the recognition of environmental issues as a pre‐condition for achieving goals of sustainable

growth and development. The Environment Initiative of NEPAD has identified eight sub‐themes, which

are believed to be of critical relevance to most African countries, including conservation of wetlands;

prevention, control and management of invasive alien species; conservation and sustainable use of

marine, coastal and freshwater resources; and transboundary management of natural resources. Priority

actions relevant to the CASD programme include: establishment and enhancement of protected area

networks, including marine and transboundary protected areas; promoting role of protected areas as

carbon sinks; development of alternative activities around protected areas; addressing transboundary

problems of freshwater ecosystems biodiversity; promotion of biodiversity research; effective

implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (e.g. CBD, CITES) and regional biodiversity

agreements.

The NEPAD plan also advocated the development of a strategy and action plan for the African Protected

Areas Initiative (APAI). APAI is an African‐led initiative designed to help mobilize African institutions and

expertise to work effectively towards the enhancement of the role of protected areas as vital tools for

safeguarding biodiversity, sustaining ecosystem processes and contributing to livelihoods and

sustainable development across the continent.

SADCRegionalBiodiversityConservationStrategyandBiodiversityActionPlanIn an effort to further the conservation of biodiversity in the region, the SADC member states under the

coordination of the Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) and IUCN Regional

Office for Southern Africa (IUCN ROSA) developed and produced a regional biodiversity strategy in 2005.

This regional biodiversity strategy provides a framework for national, sub regional and regional actions

on biodiversity conservation. To implement the strategy a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is being

produced with assistance from IUCN ESARO. The development and implementation of a regional

biodiversity strategy also provides a regional framework for the implementation of the NBSAPs. Priority

actions include:

Capacity Building and Networking for Improved Biodiversity Management


Generating Biodiversity Knowledge Base and Wisdom

SADC Biodiversity Stakeholder forum ‐ A Platform for Biodiversity Conservation

Enabling Policy and Legislative Environment for Improved Biodiversity Conservation

Sustainable use of medicinal plants for socio‐economic development in the SADC region

Vulnerability Assessment of Key Biodiversity Habitats and Species to Climate Change

Communicating the Potential Impacts of Bio‐fuel Development on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services;

MEAs and Regional Protocols Domestication and Implementation; Capacity building for

domestication

Improving TFCA Governance Frameworks

Establish and Implement Effective TFCA Structures

Diversifying Biodiversity Based Community Livelihood Options

Improving biodiversity conservation and ecotourism in TFCA

Improving protected area management system effectiveness

Achieving Financial Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Management of human‐wildlife conflicts

Support to the expansion of PA system and representativeness

Biodiversity Valuation and Natural Resources Accounts ‐ building skills for biodiversity valuation

and accounting, EIA and SEA, and Ecosystem Approach

Prevention, Control and Management of Invasive Alien Species Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Ecosystems and Biodiversity Restoration for Climate Change Mitigation

Biodiversity Adaptation to Climate Change

Monitoring the Impact of Energy Development on Biodiversity

SADCRegionalTransfrontierConservationAreaprogrammeThe SADC secretariat with support from the GTZ Project on Sustainable Forest Development is

developing a 5‐year Programme on TFCAs. The programme aims to become “a new development model

to foster regional cooperation and integration, to enhance the development of rural areas and promote

economic opportunities therein”. Priorities include:

Resource mobilization and fund raising

Harmonisation of policies and legislation

Capacity building

Communication and networking

IGADEnvironmentalandNaturalResourcesStrategyThe Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) region comprises the countries of Djibouti,

Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda. The region covers an area of about 5.2 million

square kilometres; and has an estimated population of over 190 million people (IGAD strategy). The

IGAD strategy identifies several priority conservation actions, including:


joint control of IAS;

mainstreaming cross‐cutting issues into development plans, programmes and projects;

promotion of the ecosystem approach;

domestication of MEAs;

sharing lessons in developing local environment action plans; natural resource accounting and

valuation;

developing capacity to plan, implement and monitor integrated ecosystem and biodiversity

management;

climate change modeling

To date, some of the programmes and projects developed, or partially or totally implemented, include:

reforestation projects to control erosion in some member states, off‐farm employment projects,

projects on alternative sources of energy, development of a water programme, and development of an

Environment Information System. IGAD is also planning to develop a biodiversity action plan; discussions

are underway on how IUCN ESARO could assist with this effort.

EastAfricanCommunityProtocolonEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesManagement(Draft5,June2005)The East African Community includes Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The EAC

Development Strategy 2006‐2010 (EAC, 2006) recognizes the need for environmental management and

economic utilization of natural resources for sustainable development. To this effect, the Strategy is

aimed at reducing threats to human health and ecosystems, promoting sustainable development, and

managing natural resources on a sustainable basis. The development objective is to establish sustainable

environmental management and economic utilization of natural resources. The Development Strategy

identified the implementation of the Protocols on Environmental and Natural Resource Management as

one of its key strategic interventions for the region (EAC, 2006). Articles 10 (Biodiversity), and

12(Management of Wildlife Resources) are the most relevant for the CASD programme. See boxes 2 & 3

below.


TheNairobiConventionThe Nairobi Convention for Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal

Environment of the Eastern African Region covers the marine and coastal areas from Somalia in the

north to the Republic of South Africa in the south, covering 10 states, five of which are island states in

the Western Indian Ocean. The Nairobi Convention has involved ministries and national institutions

across the environment sector with a focus on critical habitat and integrated coastal zone management.

The Convention has catalyzed the establishment of the "Consortium for Conservation of Coastal and

Marine Ecosystems in the Western Indian Ocean" (WIO‐C). This is a consortium between major NGOs in

the Western Indian Ocean, which have developed marine programmes. The aim is to enhance

Box 2 EAC Protocol on Environment and Natural Resources Management ARTICLE 10 BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

1. The Partner States shall develop, harmonise, adopt and implement common policies, laws, strategies, plans and programmes relating to the conservation and use of all forms of biological resources, in the Community. 2. The Partner States shall: (a) collaborate in the conservation of transboundary biological diversity; (b) integrate biological diversity issues into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies; (c) adopt measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological diversity; (d) protect and promote the use of indigenous knowledge that is compatible with conservation or sustainable use of biological resources; (e) manage populations plants, animals and micro-organisms in conservation areas according to the objectives of such areas; (f) manage biological resources outside conservation areas in a sustainable manner; (g) establish or strengthen facilities for ex situ and in situ conservation to perpetuate animal or plant species of particular interest; (h) manage and protect all forms of aquatic biodiversity; (i) promote protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings based on results of continued scientific research and monitoring; (j) establish a system of protected or conservation areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity; and (k) regulate and control the introduction of alien species and eradicate invasive species. 3. The Partner States shall develop common guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of protected or conservation areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve the biological diversity in the Community.

Box 3 ARTICLE 12 MANAGEMENT OFWILDLIFE RESOURCES 1. The Partner States shall develop, harmonise and adopt common policies, laws and strategies for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wildlife resources in and outside protected areas in the Community and integrate such management into national development plans. 2. The Partner States shall: (a) assess and control activities which may significantly affect the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife so as to avoid or minimize negative impacts to wildlife resources; (b) manage wildlife and wildlife habitats to ensure the maintenance of viable wildlife populations; (c) promote sustainable utilization of wildlife resources; (d) restrict the taking of wildlife, including but not limited to restrictions on the number, sex, size or age of specimens taken, locality and season; (e) strengthen capacity for compliance to international trade agreements; (f) promote community-based wildlife management and incorporate indigenous knowledge; (g) raise public awareness on issues of conservation and sustainable use of wildlife; (h) take measures to build national and regional capacity for wildlife management and enforcement of wildlife laws; (i) promote research and exchange of information in conservation and sustainable use of wildlife on regular basis; and (j) develop common guidelines for the management of wildlife resources. 3. The Partner States shall harmonise and enforce national policies, laws and programmes to promote sustainable wildlife management. 4. The Partner States shall adopt common national policies and programmes that allow local communities to effectively participate in wildlife management activities and to benefit from the wildlife resources; 5. The Partner States shall cooperate, and where necessary, enter into agreements or other arrangements, in the management of transboundary wildlife ecosystems and protected areas. 6. The Partner States shall cooperate in promoting management of shared wildlife resources and wildlife habitats across international borders including the conservation of species and populations, marketing of their products and development of trans-boundary conservation and management programmes. 7. The Partner States shall cooperate in promoting economic and social incentives in the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife resources. 8. The Partner States shall adopt common national policies and programmes that allow local communities to effectively participate in wildlife management activities and to benefit from the wildlife resources.


collaboration, exchange of information and synergy towards a joint programmatic approach in

addressing marine and coastal environmental issue in the region.

The Convention also created the Western Indian Ocean Addressing Land‐based Activities in the Western

Indian Ocean (WIO‐LaB) project. The first base of WIO‐LAB was completed between 2004 and 2009. The

project coordinated a region‐wide assessment of transboundary problems and issues affecting the

marine environment in the WIO Region. The outputs of these assessments led to the formulation of a

comprehensive Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), detailing key problems and causes of

degradation of the coastal and marine environment in the WIO region, with a special emphasis on land‐

based sources and activities. The TDA, completed by late 2008, provided the basis for the formulation of

the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for addressing the challenges faced by governments in the region

in dealing with increasing pollution of coastal waters, the destruction and degradation of critical

habitats, changes in freshwater flow including sediments loads, as well as challenges resulting from

global climate change. The second phase aims to implement the SAP which has several environmental

quality objectives including: critical coastal habitats will be protected, restored and managed for

sustainable use; water quality will meet international standards; and river flows will be wisely and

sustainably managed. Finally, there will be effective collaboration at regional level in addressing

transboundary challenges.

In the past IUCN played an important key role as convenor and facilitator of multi‐stakeholder dialogues

under the Nairobi Convention; however this engagement has largely ended since the demise of the

EARO Marine Programme.

Otherrelevantregionalprogrammes

AHEADAnimal & Human Health for the Environment And Development (AHEAD) was launched by WCS and a

consortium of organizations at the 2003 IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa. AHEAD is a

convening, facilitative mechanism, working to create enabling environments that allow different and

often competing sectors to literally come to the same table and find collaborative ways forward to

address challenges at the interface of wildlife health, livestock health, and human health and livelihoods.

AHEAD convene stakeholders, helps delineate conceptual frameworks to underpin planning,

management and research, and provides technical support and resources for projects stakeholders

identify as priorities. AHEAD recognizes the need to look at health and disease not in isolation but within

a given region's socioeconomic and environmental context.

Around the world, domestic and wild animals are coming into ever‐more‐intimate contact, and without

adequate scientific knowledge and planning, the consequences can be detrimental on one or both sides

of the proverbial fence. But armed with the tools that the health sciences provide, conservation and

development objectives have a much greater chance of being realized – particularly at the critical

wildlife/livestock interface, where conservation and agricultural interests meet head‐on. AHEAD efforts

focus on several themes of critical importance to the future of animal agriculture, human health, and

wildlife health (including zoonoses, competition over grazing and water resources, disease mitigation,


local and global food security, and other potential sources of conflict related to land‐use decision‐

making in the face of resource limitations). Historically, neither governments, nongovernmental

organizations, the aid community, nor academia have holistically addressed the landscape‐level nexus

represented by the triangle of wildlife health, domestic animal health, and human health and livelihoods

as underpinned by environmental stewardship.


Nationalresponses

Nationallawsandpolicies

Most of the countries in the region have policies and laws that guide conservation of biodiversity. A

selection of laws relevant to protected areas and species diversity is listed in the table below.

Country Laws and regulations

Botswana Chapter38‐01 Wildlife Conservation and National Parks

Djibouti Décret n°2004‐0065/PR/MHUEAT Portant protection de la biodiversité

Loi n°45/AN/04/5ème L portant création des Aires Protégées Terrestres et

Maritimes

Kenya Environmental Management and Co‐ordination Act 1999

Environmental Management And Co‐ordination (Conservation Of Biological

Diversity And Resources, Access To Genetic Resources And Benefit Sharing)

Regulations, 2006

Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act (Chapter 376)

Madagascar LOI nº 96‐025 du 30 septembre 1996 relative à la gestion locale des

ressources naturelles renouvelables

LOI nº 2001‐05 Code de gestion des aires protégées

Malawi Environment Management Act (No. 23 of 1996)

Malawi National Park and Wildlife Act (1992)

Mauritius Wildlife And National Park Act 1993

Environment Protection Act 2002

Environment Protection Amendment Act 2008 (no 6 of 2008)

Mozambique Law 1999 ‐ 10 Forest and Wildlife Act

Namibia Environmental Management Act, No 7 of 2007

Nature Conservation Amendment Act , No 5 of 1996

Seychelles National Parks and Nature Conservancy Act 1991

Wild Animals Birds Protection Regulations 1991

Wild Animals Protection Act 1991

South Africa National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act Act 10 of 2004

National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003

National Parks Act 57 Of 1976

Protected Areas Amendment Act , [No. 15 of 2009]


Sudan Environmental Protection Act of 2001

Swaziland Game Control Act No. 37 of 1947

The Flora Protection Act, 2000

The Game (amendment) Act, 1991

The Protection of Fresh Water Fish Act

Tanzania The Environmental Management Act, 2004 ‐ (Act No. 20/04)

The Wildlife Conservation Act, 2009

Uganda Environment Management Act No. 23 of 1996

Zambia The Zambia Wildlife Act, No.12 Of 1998

Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Act (CH 20:14)

Table 6 – Laws Source: http://www.lexadin.nl

Most countries also have extensive environmental assessment legislation in place. Provisions for

strategic environmental assessment also exist but in general SEA is still in its infancy in the region.

It is not practical to give an exhaustive account of all these laws here, but on a general level, one can

generally distinguish between more traditional “command and control” type protected area and wildlife

management legislation, as characterized by several eastern African countries, and the more inclusive

and participatory approaches in southern African states. In general, there has been a shift toward laws

and policies that devolve a greater degree of authority from central to local levels with attempts to link

protected area and natural resource management more closely with the needs of local communities.

However, despite the introduction of policies and legislation that are conducive to biodiversity

conservation, in many countries implementation is slow, due to a lack of political will. Indeed, and as

mentioned earlier, a general trend towards recentralization of control over natural resources has

become apparent in recent years in a number of countries in the region.

ConservationtrustfundsTrust funds have been established in a number of ESA countries (e.g. Mozambique, Kenya, South Africa

and Madagascar) to help alleviate the financial burden of running protected area management systems.

Conservation trust funds can provide sustainable financing that can be used to finance conservation

program costs over many years through debt swaps, grants or donations, or other financing mechanisms

such as earmarked taxes and fees. Conservation trust funds can take the shape of endowment funds

(where the interest, but not the capital is spent); sinking funds (where the income and part of the capital

is spent every year, eventually sinking the fund to zero over a pre‐determined time); and revolving funds

(which continually receive new revenues from earmarked taxes or fees and continually spend these

revenues). South Africa has recently initiated a land revolving fund for protected areas, where

institutions can buy land and donate it with a restriction on land use. The donor can then deduct the

cost of the land from his taxes through the National Treasury. There also have wetland mitigation

banking; if wetlands are destroyed, the person responsible has to pay to protect another wetland.


In general, conservation trust funds have a mixed record and their long term success and impact on

conservation and sustainable development remain difficult to ascertain. Sustainable funds need to look

beyond the conventional donor channels to finance their activities e.g. domestically via “ecosystem

service” charges, carbon funds, user fees, and dedicated taxes (Bayon et al., undated). Global financial

instability, poor governance and lack of transparency present challenges to the sustainability of

conservation funds.

Non‐governmentalorganizationsThere is a multitude of NGOs involved in the field of protected areas and species diversity in the ESA

region. Some of the large international NGOs active in the region include African Wildlife Foundation,

Birdlife International, CORDIO, Frankfurt Zoological Society, Wildlife Conservation Society, and WWF.

Each of these organizations has multi‐country programmes focusing on various aspects of protected

areas and species diversity:

AfricanWildlifeFoundationThe African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) works “to ensure the wildlife and wild lands of Africa will endure

forever”. AWF approaches its work at the “landscape level” concentrating on key landscapes or

“heartlands” which are considered “essential to conservation—thanks to their unmatched

concentrations of wildlife and their potential to sustain viable populations for centuries to come”. AWF

works with stakeholders to design land conservation strategies, protect species through applied

research and conservation efforts and empower people through training and economic development.

The AWF Heartlands include:

Kazungula (Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe)

Kilimanjaro (Kenya and Tanzania)

Limpopo (Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe)

Maasai Steppe (Tanzania)

Samburu (Kenya)

Virunga (Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda)

Zambezi (Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe)

The AWF headquarters is based in Nairobi, Kenya.

BirdlifeInternationalBirdlife International is a global member and a key strategic partner of IUCN. National members in the

ESA region include Birdlife Botswana, Birdlife South Africa and Birdlife Zimbabwe. BirdLife International

is a global Partnership of conservation organisations that strives to conserve birds, their habitats and

global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. BirdLife's

global aims are to:

prevent the extinction of any bird species

maintain and where possible improve the conservation status of all bird species

conserve and where appropriate improve and enlarge sites and habitats important for bird

help, through birds, to conserve biodiversity and to improve the quality of people's lives


integrate bird conservation into sustaining people's livelihoods.

Birdlife’s Africa secretariat is based in Nairobi, Kenya. Birdlife’s Important Bird Areas (IBA) programme is

a worldwide initiative aimed at identifying and protecting a network of critical sites for the conservation

of the world’s birds.

CoastalOceansResearchandDevelopmentintheIndianOcean(CORDIO)CORDIO was initiated in 1999 as a direct response to the El‐Niño related mass bleaching and mortality of

corals in the Indian Ocean in 1998, focusing initially on Eastern Africa, Western Indian Ocean Islands and

South Asia. Since the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 the programme also covers the Andaman Sea, and

from 2007 has started work in the Red Sea. CORDIO's goals are to:

conduct research on coastal and ocean ecosystems relevant to conserving, sustaining and

restoring healthy and productive marine environments;

strengthen social and economic assessment and research to support Integrated Coastal

Management, poverty alleviation and sustainable development;

foster integration of science, practice and policy at local, national and regional levels;

educate and build the capacity of coastal people to improve their livelihoods and long term well‐

being;

build human and technical capacity, and foster networking and partnerships

FrankfurtZoologicalSocietyThe Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) was established in 1858 and is an internationally operating

conservation organisation based in Frankfurt/Main. The Society’s main focus lies in eastern Africa. Main

activities include:

Logistical support of National Parks and other Protected Areas worldwide

Assisting public authorities and other organizations in the establishment and implementation

of protected areas

Advising government agencies on conservation queries

Financing and assisting animal census surveys

Individual protection programmes for highly endangered species

Reintroduction programmes for endangered species

Conservation education

Land acquisition to secure valuable habitats for flora and fauna

Protection and regeneration of natural landscapes

WildlifeConservationSociety(WCS)The Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, global

conservation, education and the management of the world's largest system of urban wildlife parks, led

by the flagship Bronx Zoo. WCS has projects in the following parts of the region:

Greater Virunga Landscape

Kidepo Valley, Uganda


Murchison Falls, Uganda

Luangwa Valley, Zambia

Madagascar: Makira‐Masoala Landscape

Ruaha, Tanzania

Tarangire, Tanzania

Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Boma‐Jonglei, Southern Sudan wildlife

WorldWideFundforNature(WWF) WWF is one of the world's largest and most respected independent conservation organizations. It is a

global organization acting locally through a network of over 90 offices in over 40 countries around the

world. On‐the‐ground conservation projects managed by these offices are active in more than 100

countries. WWF has been involved in active conservation work in eastern Africa since 1962. The Eastern

and Southern Africa Programe Office, based in Nairobi, Kenya, helps coordinate activities Kenya,

Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It also works closely with projects in Namibia

and WWF's office in South Africa.

GreatApeconservationinitiatives

GreatApeSurvivalPartnershipThe Great Apes Survival Partnership (GRASP) is a project of the United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its mission is

to “lift the threat of imminent extinction faced by gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans across

their ranges in equatorial Africa and south‐east Asia”. The GRASP secretariat is based at the UNEP

headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya.

InternationalGorillaConservationProgrammeThe goal of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP) is to ensure the conservation of

mountain gorillas and their regional afromontane forest habitat in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic

Republic of Congo (DRC). Formed in 1991, IGCP comprises three coalition partners: African Wildlife

Foundation (AWF), Fauna & Flora International (FFI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The

partnership also incorporates the respective protected area authorities of the three countries in which

IGCP works: the Rwanda Development Board (RDB), the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and the

Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN). ICGP’s mission is to “conserve the critically

endangered mountain gorillas and their habitat through partnering with key stakeholders while

significantly contributing to sustainable livelihood development” (ICGP, 2011).

MountainGorillaConservationFundThe Mountain Gorilla Conservation Fund (MGCF) runs veterinary programs offered to the local

Ugandans and Rwandans. Their current facility is in Makerere University. Other activities include

educational projects and promoting alternative livelihoods.


TheDianFosseyGorillaFundInternationalThe Dain Fossey Fund's programs are dedicated to gorilla conservation in Africa, and to helping people

who live near those habitats in Rwanda and Congo. The Fund's programs include:

Conducting monitoring and anti‐poaching patrols

Scientific research on gorilla behavior/ecology

Supporting park authorities and reserves

Caring for young gorillas rescued from poachers

Teaching at local universities to build capacity

Addressing the health issues of people near gorillas

Rebuilding and supplying local clinics

Supporting economic development projects

Protein access projects

Conservation education

TheJaneGoodallInstituteFounded in 1977, the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) continues Dr. Goodall’s pioneering research on

chimpanzee behavior. In the ESA region JGI works in the Greater Gombe and the Masito‐Ugalla

Ecosystems in Tanzania, and in the Albertine Rift Region and Mt. Otzi Central Forest Reserve in Uganda.

Activities include:

Ecosystem restoration for the benefit of people and chimpanzees;

Capacity building of local ecoguards and government employees to manage protected areas;

Engaging local communities in land‐use and natural resource‐use planning;

Development of ecotourism operations;

Promoting sustainable livelihoods, and educating students about wildlife and the importance of

healthy ecosystems.


5. Opportunitiesandprioritiesforengagement

StakeholderconsultationsA number of stakeholders were consulted during this situation analysis. These included:

IUCN Global Species Programme

IUCN Global Programme on Protected Areas

IUCN World Heritage Programme

IUCN Pan African Protected Areas Initiative

IUCN members in the ESA region

Other IUCN ESARO thematic programmes

The IUCN Technical Coordination Group (TCG)

The IUCN Pan Africa Protected Areas Initiative

IUCN Invasive Species Initiative

All stakeholders were consulted on their priorities in protected areas and species diversity work. Views

were solicited on the best way that IUCN could engage and add value to protected areas and species

diversity work in the ESA region. Where face to face consultations were not possible stakeholders were

consulted by email. A special consultation took place with organizations and individual experts involved

in great ape conservation in the ESA region.

SummaryoffindingsThis situation analysis shows that there are a large number of conservation organizations, including

IUCN members, already working on various aspects of protected area management and species

conservation. There are many different ways in which the CASD programme could complement and add

value to these efforts. In general, most of the priority areas engagement identified in this situation

analysis focus on wider landscapes and ecosystems, extending beyond the boundaries of Category I‐IV

protected areas. This is for the following reasons:

The main pressures on protected areas and species diversity emanate largely from outside the

boundaries of the established protected areas; just dealing with individual protected area

management issues will not be sufficient to help alleviate these pressures;

A unique feature of the ESA region is the existence large areas outside formal government‐

designated protected area systems, primarily in the vast dryland biome, which harbor

important biodiversity and which support important ecological processes, but where there are

comparatively few efforts to strengthen protected area and species diversity work;

Ecological connectivity issues (e.g. management of corridors and buffer zones) is vital and will

grow in importance as the impacts of climate change manifest themselves;

Much of the existing key biodiversity and important ecological processes are poorly covered by

the existing protected area systems, and there is an opportunity for IUCN to apply its technical


expertise to provide solutions to how these gaps could be plugged by using the full spectrum of

IUCN protected area categories and governance types, including Indigenous and Community

Conserved Areas;

There are a large number of organizations already working on “traditional” protected area

management in the ESA region; the CASD programme would generally add more value by

focusing on larger landscapes that also include unprotected and informal community‐managed

areas.

CriteriaIn order to identify the priority areas of engagement for the CASD programme, the following general

criteria were used:

Need

The priority activities should help address one of the major threats identified in this situation

analysis;

There should be sufficient demand for the activity by IUCN members and partners in question to

make IUCN involvement worthwhile;

The activities should complement and not compete with existing efforts; in particular, the

planned activities should add value and build on synergies, without competing with IUCN

members in the region;

IUCN value proposition

The activities should be in line with the IUCN value proposition.

Technical capacity

It should be clear that IUCN has the necessary technical capacity to engage in the identified

priority areas of intervention. This needs to take into account the level of experience within the

IUCN secretariat in the region, and the level of presence and influence of IUCN in the target

countries. The capacity of IUCN’s members, commissions and partners to engage in the

proposed activities also needs to be carefully considered.

PreliminarypriorityareasofengagementBased on the above criteria taking into account the stakeholder consultations and the general

conclusions of this situation analysis, the following preliminary priority areas of engagement have been

identified:


HarnessingtheexpertiseandthedataoftheIUCNmembersandcommissions,toeffectivelyassistcountrieswithlanduseplanningforsustainabledevelopment

Main threats addressed: Habitat loss and degradation; capacity and resource constraints

Possible partners: other IUCN ESARO thematic programmes, IUCN SSC/SP, WCPA/GPAP, UNEP

WCMC, SANBI, KWS, AWF, EAWLS, Birdlife, Conservation International, etc.

A large amount of species assessment data is available for the ESA region e.g. the recent freshwater

biodiversity assessments for eastern and southern Africa, important and endemic bird area data sets,

mammal assessments and important plant area data. However, these data are not being optimally

utilized in area‐based conservation initiatives. By bringing in the data and expertise of its Commissions,

the SSC and the WCPA, IUCN would be well placed to assist in developing ecologically representative

and climate‐change resilient protected area networks that protect important biodiversity and ecological

processes. Specific activities could include:

Where this work has not yet been done, using data from the IUCN/SSC and WCPA, in

collaboration with partners, such as the UNEP WCMC, to map protected area coverage, key

biodiversity areas and key environmental services (water towers, carbon storage, etc); carry out

or compile a gap analysis to help prioritize conservation action in selected countries or

landscapes, taking into account possible impacts of climate change, need for ecological

connectivity and current land use trends;

Providing guidance on achieving the CBD Strategic Plan Target 11 to expand protected area

coverage;

Providing advice on land use planning to governments and the private sector, including on

investments in energy (e.g. biofuels, oil & gas) and agriculture to mitigate the impacts of land

conversion; helping to improve cross‐sectoral collaboration (agriculture, water, fisheries, etc.);

Providing guidelines for land use in key biodiversity areas and incorporate these into

appropriate policies and instruments e.g. SEA and EIA;

Promoting spatial planning to alleviate human wildlife conflict;

Working with local communities and NGOs in a wider production landscape to help conserve

biodiversity;

Disseminating best practice case studies and tools, and providing training on spatial planning for

biodiversity conservation;


Improvingthegovernanceandmanagementofprotectedareas

Main threats addressed: capacity and resource constraints

Possible partners: National Protected Area management authorities, Southern African Wildlife

College, Mweka Wildlife College, African Field Rangers Training Service, PAPAI, GPAP, CEESP, World

Heritage Programme, FZS, AWF, WWF, WCS, etc.

The expertise of IUCN Commissions, especially the IUCN WCPA and CEESP should be harnessed better to

provide technical support to improve the governance and management of protected areas. There is

inadequate awareness in the region of the use of the full range of IUCN protected area categories and

governance types, particularly the use of categories IV‐VI, shared governance and governance by local

communities. This limits the opportunities for protected area expansion and sustainable use. More

should be done, especially in the eastern African region, to promote best practice examples of

community‐based protected areas.

There is a need to share lessons learned from the expansion of transboundary protected areas

throughout southern Africa and to do more to promote transboundary PA management in eastern

Africa.

IUCN is also well placed to do more to support rights‐based approaches to PA governance in the ESA

region, thus contributing to the implementation of Element II of the PoWPA and Target 11 of the CBD

strategic plan.

Lack of capacity and resources for effective protected area management is a common constraint

throughout the region. Many protected areas, including World Heritage sites, do not have adequate

management plans and/or resources to implement them. Modern protected area managers are

expected to carry out a multitude of roles ranging from anti‐poaching, communications, fundraising and

local community work. It is difficult to find staff who have all the necessary attributes and chronic

staffing and funding shortages mean that many of the protected area management functions get

neglected. Many protected area managers in the region are selected on the basis of academic

qualifications, and lack the necessary field experience. IUCN commissions and members could play a

greater role in building the institutional capacity for protected area management in the ESA region. This

includes improvement of financial capacity; policy, law and regulatory frameworks; identification of

specific skills lacking in protected area management institutions, improving management effectiveness

at site level, etc.

There are clear opportunities to move ahead with some of this work through the EC‐funded BIOPAMA

project, the AfD‐funded Pan Africa Protected Areas Initiative and the World Heritage Agenda for Nature

programme. There also are synergies with the initiative by the CITES MIKE programme to roll out the

“MIST” monitoring system in protected areas in the region.

Specific activities could include:


Carrying out assessment of protected area management institutions to identify institutional

capacity constraints and recommend improvements; share successful models from other parts

of the region;

Carrying out comparative management effectiveness assessments and cost/benefit analyses of

different protected area categories and governance types to promote wider awareness and

acceptance of a broader range of management options; identifying policy and legislative

bottlenecks to the application of the full use of PA categories and governance types, and

recommend and promote changes; organizing workshops and meetings in the region to

disseminate information of the application of different protected area categories and

management types; developing and disseminating policy briefs and case studies to demonstrate

how the full spectrum of protected area categories and governance types can be applied to

maximum effect;

Piloting the use of different tools and guidelines for “rights based” governance of protected

areas;

Intensifying the use of IUCN WCPA management effectiveness tools, such as the Enhancing Our

Heritage toolkit for World Heritage sites, to strengthen existing management practices;

Setting up guidelines for fire management; training managers at the site level and/or at the PA

system level; setting up national fire management strategies with high level managers; sharing

lessons with stakeholders;

Developing guidelines and best practices for restoration of degraded areas to maintain

ecological connectivity between protected areas;

Establishing forums to exchange lessons learned from transboundary protected area initiatives

throughout the ESA region, including also the eastern African countries;

Improving protected area management training in close collaboration with relevant training

institutes;

Carrying out financial analyses and economic valuations of protected areas/protected area

systems; determining the total cost of managing protected areas, quantifying current gaps in

funding, using total economic valuation (TEV) to capture true values of PAs and using the

findings as a tool to make the case for funding protected areas as “a good return on investment”

and encouraging sustainable financing strategies;

Promoting different and innovative sustainable financing models for PA management e.g.

payments for ecosystem services;


Promotingtheroleofprotectedareasinclimatechangemitigationandadaptation

Main threats addressed: Climate change

Possible partners: IUCN GPAP/WCPA, IUCN World Heritage Programme, IUCN PAPAI, SADC, EAC,

IGAD, National Protected Area Management authorities

Protected areas are an essential part of the global response to climate change. Well managed protected

areas can provide a cost effective option for implementing climate change response strategies because

start‐up costs have already been met and socio‐economic costs are offset by other services that

protected areas supply. Protected areas can help to reduce the impact of all but the largest natural

disasters (Dudley et al., 2010).

Possible activities could include:

Incorporating the role of protected area systems into national climate change strategies and

action plans, including for mitigation by reducing the loss and degradation of natural habitats,

and for adaptation by reducing the vulnerability and increasing the resilience of natural

ecosystems;

Working to help protected areas to function more effectively as a climate change response

mechanism by promoting connectivity of protected areas within landscapes/seascapes. This can

include buffer zones, biological corridors and ecological stepping stones, which are important to

build connectivity to increase ecosystem resilience to climate change at the landscape/seascape

scale and to increase the total amount of habitat under some form of protection;

Recognizing and implementing the full range of governance types to encourage more

stakeholders to become involved in declaring and managing protected areas as part of

community climate response strategies, particularly through indigenous and community

conserved areas and private protected areas;

Encouraging development of tools and methods to support countries to evaluate climate

impacts and increase resilience of their protected areas systems, and ensure that their role in

mitigation and adaptation is fully explored;

Providing guidelines and training to modify management of protected areas to increase carbon

sequestration e.g. active restoration and encouragement of natural regeneration.

Designing effective communications of the role of protected areas in climate change mitigation

and adaptation, and natural disaster alleviation; target communications to policy makers to help

support for protected areas.


Supportthedevelopmentandimplementationofbiodiversitypolicies,conservationstrategiesandactionplans

Main threats addressed: capacity and resource constraints

Potential partners: SADC, EAC, IGAD, IUCN SSC Specialist Groups, Species Programme, wildlife

management authorities, etc.

IUCN plays an important role in supporting the development and implementation of regional, national

and species conservation strategies and action plans. On a regional level, IUCN has been fairly successful

in building up a strong relationship with SADC to help develop a regional biodiversity conservation

strategy and action plan. Efforts should be made to develop a similar approach in eastern Africa.

On a national/species level, IUCN Specialist Groups play an important role in catalyzing and providing

technical backstopping to the development of national and regional species conservation strategies.

However, there is often inadequate follow up and insufficient resources and/or political will to

implement many of these plans. One problem may be the sheer number of different species plans and

strategies that exist.

Specific actions could include:

Supporting implementation of existing regional conservation strategies and plans e.g. the SADC

Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan;

Helping with the development of an IGAD/EAC Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action

Plan (the new EAC environmental protocols could be a good starting point to begin engaging in

this);

Supporting the implementation of national species conservation strategies and action plans (e.g.

the Eastern Chimpanzee Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, the Lion Conservation

Strategy for East Africa and the African Elephant Action Plan); building on synergies between

different plans e.g. identifying issues or threats that feature in a number of strategies and plans;

helping to link IUCN/SSC Specialist Groups or individual SG members to the national

conservation stakeholders, especially in eastern Africa, to ensure that the gap between research

recommendations and conservation action is breached;

Supporting and helping to coordinate species surveys and assessments in the ESA region; for

example, coordinating Red List assessments of marine species in the Mozambique channel

biodiversity "hotspot”

Supporting the revision and implementation of NBSAPs in the ESA region.


Addressingthewidespreadproblemofhuman‐wildlifeconflictbypromotingandpilotingintegratedconflictmanagementapproaches

Threats addressed: Human‐wildlife conflict

Potential partners and collaborators: wildlife and protected area management authorities, NGOs (e.g.

WWF, WCS), IUCN/SSC Specialist Groups, research institutions (e.g. Colorado State University), local

communities, development agencies, FAO, IUCN CEESP, AHEAD, etc.

A great deal of work has been undertaken in Africa to try and address the problem of human‐wildlife

conflict (HWC). Most of this work has concentrated on technical interventions at the site level e.g.

testing and promoting various deterrent methods, such as using barriers or repellents to reduce damage

caused by specific species. Although there have been some notable successes, these site‐level

approaches have tended to focus more on the symptoms and less on the root causes of the conflict, and

therefore have not been able to reduce the problem in the long term. This has led several experts to

conclude that HWC needs to be framed in the overall context of “governance” of wildlife, which looks

more closely at the distribution of costs and benefits from human‐wildlife co‐existence, as well as

general “conflict psychology”, in addition to building capacity to mitigate HWC using different deterrent

methodologies. Furthermore, as HWC is primarily a spatial problem the importance of land use planning

at different levels from village zoning to district and national land use planning processes has become

increasingly evident. Finding sustainable outcomes to HWC therefore requires a multi‐pronged

approach that simultaneously tackles the practical conflict challenges facing rural communities and

addresses the root causes of the problem through better distribution of costs, benefits, and the

responsibilities for managing conflicts. This calls for action at multiple scales from the conflict site to

district/provincial, national and even international levels. These actions need to be vertically and

horizontally integrated to deliver optimal results.

The CASD programme is well placed to coordinate an integrated approach to human‐wildlife conflict

(HWC) mitigation using the expertise of its Commissions and members, particularly the SSC Specialist

Groups. There are opportunities to collaborate with several Specialist Groups on, including the African

Elephant Specialist Group, the Cat Specialist Group, and the Crocodile Specialist Group to develop

holistic and integrated solutions to HWC. This could also help contribute to the implementation of a

number of species conservation strategies and action plans which have highlighted HWC as a key

conservation and management priority. There are also potential opportunities to partner with the

Animal Health for Environment and Development (AHEAD) programme to seek win‐win solutions for

wildlife conservation and livestock production.

Priority activities could include:

Establishing district/regional and national level multi‐stakeholder forums for sharing lessons and

coordinating efforts to mitigate HWC drawing on experiences from different mitigation efforts

in‐country and externally;


Identifying policy and legislative bottlenecks to more effective HWC mitigation; promoting

changes to key policies and legislation e.g. through a targeted advocacy campaign to build

support for devolved community based HWC management;

Reducing conflict at the livestock/wildlife interface over zonation and fencing by promoting

better intersectoral dialogue and planning, and addressing root causes of conflict such as export

market veterinary requirements;

Incorporating HWC mitigation considerations into land use planning at local, regional/district

and national scales;

Compiling a conventional and digital libraries consisting of toolkits, methods and case studies on

HWC mitigation; making this material available to all relevant stakeholders including local

communities using appropriate formats;

Providing training in the use of various HWC mitigation techniques;

Improving data collection protocols and data analysis to improve understanding of the

quantitative, temporal and spatial aspects of HWC;

Carrying out research to better understand thresholds of tolerance of HWC and complex the

“conflict psychology” of local communities to help design more effective strategies;

Identifying new potential mitigation methods and techniques and carrying out research and

pilot studies;

Upscalingandmainstreamingworkoninvasivealienspecies

Main threats addressed: Biological invasions

Possible partners: national wildlife and park management authorities, national and regional wildlife

training institutes, relevant RECs, IUCN GISI, CABI, development agencies, Departments of

Agriculture, FAO, EAWLS, etc.

Despite the serious threat that biological invasions present to biodiversity in the ESA region the problem

has not been given sufficient attention. The adoption of a “wait and see” attitude could mean that the

opportunity to prevent invasions from becoming serious will be lost in a number of places. Governments

need to recognize that invasive alien species pose one of the biggest threats to biodiversity in Africa and

can seriously impact livelihoods a well. The CASD programme should therefore work closely with the

IUCN Global Invasive Species Initiative to upscale and mainstream work on IAS.

Work on IAS in the region, including recent IUCN/CABI collaboration to develop national strategies in

Ethiopia, Uganda and Zambia, has made it abundantly clear that successful management of IAS requires

a regional approach. Porous borders and removal of border control between common markets mean

that the spread of IAS is accelerating. The recent Serengeti‐Maasai Mara ecosystem invasion by the

highly aggressive Parthenium weed is a clear example of the importance of a transboundary IAS

detection and control systems.

In addition to the lack of awareness and low priority given to IAS at the regional and national levels, the

capacity to detect and respond to biological invasions at the field level is generally weak. For example,


few protected area managers have the taxonomic skills to identify IAS, especially invasive alien plants.

Managers are largely unaware of their impacts and, do not possess the necessary information and

resources to manage them. Furthermore, legislation in many countries do not allow for the full range of

eradication and control measures, such as removal or use of herbicides, to be used in protected areas.

Consequently, protected areas may inadvertently become protected reservoirs of IAS that help the

further spread of these species.

Another problem is that there are a number of development agencies working to improve livelihoods in

the rural areas of Africa which are, as part of their efforts to diversify livelihoods, introducing invasive

alien species. Typical examples include aquaculture and erosion control methods.

Possible actions to address these problems could include:

Developing and strengthening national and regional protocols to control IAS pathways in close

collaboration with relevant governments and RECs (SADC, EAC, IGAD, COMESA). For example,

Kenya Wildlife Service has expressed an interest in working with IUCN to develop a national IAS

management strategy. The SADC regional protocol on IAS could be strengthened.

Developing a regional early detection and response system that would encompass IAS alerts and

rapid dissemination of information on control methods between countries, backed up with the

necessary capacity to undertake the necessary control measures.

Encouraging sharing lessons of learned on IAS control and management programmes between

countries;

Showcasing innovative approaches, such linking IAS control to job‐creation;

Designing effective and simple communications on IAS and the impact they are have biodiversity

and livelihoods targeted at policy makers. This should include more widespread dissemination of

economic statistics on the costs of IAS to livelihoods and potential solutions;

Building biological invasion monitoring and control into regular protected area management

routines and management plans;

Working to support species conservation strategies by catalyzing joint initiatives with IUCN SSC

Specialist Groups to address threats posed by IAS to specific species e.g. working with IUCN/SSC

RSG on Chromolaena odorata , which is replacing rhino browse;

Developing and improving training courses and curricula on IAS for national and regional

training institutes;

Publishing field guides on identification and control of IAS;

Working with development organizations involved in alternative livelihood generation and

ecosystem restoration work to encourage them to promote species that are not invasive.


Priorityareasofengagementingreatapeconservation

Main threats addressed: habitat loss and fragmentation

Possible partners: UWA, ICGP, TAWIRI, TANAPA, Wildlife Division, WCS, Jane Goodal Institute, TNC,

IUCN PACO, PAPAI, UNEP‐GRASP, SADC, GPAP/WCPA

There are a large number of organizations involved in great ape conservation activities in the eastern

African region:

The main mountain gorilla habitats in Uganda and Rwanda are generally well covered, and it is

not yet clear how IUCN could best engage to add value to these efforts, although a few possible

activities are listed below;

The Wildlife Conservation Society is active in fostering transboundary work in the Nyungwe‐

Kibira landscape, the most important chimpanzee population in Burundi and Rwanda.

The status of Chimpanzees in South Sudan remains uncertain. Further population survey work is

planned by WCS but this constrained by the continued presence of the Lord’s Resistance Army

(LRA) presence in the survey area.

Most of Tanzania’s chimpanzees occur outside protected areas. There seems to be consensus

that the focus on any new chimpanzee conservation actions should be in the larger landscapes

around Mahale and in southern Tanganyika (the most southerly chimpanzee population,

although not a priority on a global scale). These two areas are identified as targets in the new

Tanzania Chimpanzee Conservation Action Plan which was developed in 2010. Other priority

areas include the Greater Gombe and the Ugalla‐Mazito ecosystems. The action plan lists the

Jane Goodall Institute, the Frankfurt Zoological Society, The Nature Conservancy, WCS, TANAPA

and TAWIRI as some of the main implementers of the plan.

In southern Africa great apes occur only in the Cabinda enclave of Angola. Efforts are underway

by IUCN PACO and its partners to try and improve the protection of the great apes in this area.

Based on the situation analysis, and after extensive consultations with organizations involved in great

ape conservation work in the region, the following potential areas of engagement for the CASD

programme have been identified:

MountainGorillas Investigating the Forest Carbon potential in the Virunga‐Bwindi region and exploring REDD+

project sites to help reduce habitat loss and degradation;

Intensifying efforts to mitigate human‐gorilla conflict (a big threat in the Virunga area and

Bwindi and is expected to increase with climate change as human populations may migrate to

areas closer to gorilla habitat, leading gorillas and human populations into increasing conflict).

Possible interventions include better land use planning, increasing benefits accrued to

communities, using buffer crops, etc.;

Reducing the risks of fire to great ape habitats (also expected to increase with climate change).

Priority actions: Developing contingency planning for extreme fire hazard (widespread crown


fire outbreak); building capacity for fire monitoring and management e.g. using WCPA expertise

in management of fire in protected areas; developing fire management plans and mitigation

measures; establishing early warning systems; working with neighbouring communities to

reduce the risk of fires e.g. through encouraging appropriate agricultural practices;

Improving detection, prevention and control of invasive alien species, expected to become an

increasing threat to Mountain Gorillas due to climate change.

EasternChimpanzees Promoting integrated land use planning and integrated land management with villages in

chimpanzee habitat areas in western Tanzania;

Promoting the establishment and effective management of protected areas in priority

chimpanzee habitat in western Tanzania.

Seeking the highest possible economic benefit to local communities, while conserving

chimpanzee populations;

WesternLowlandGorillasandCentralChimpanzees Partnering with IUCN PACO, the government of Angola and relevant national and international

NGOs to help develop a transboundary protected area covering in the Mayombe Forest

straddling the borders Angola, Congo, DRC and Gabon, an area of important global biodiversity

including chimpanzees and lowland gorillas.

IUCNESAROmarineprogrammeA separate situation analysis will be carried out as part of the development of a Marine Programme for

IUCN ESARO. Some potential areas of engagement for the CASD programme identified from previous

situation analyses include:

Supporting the Consortium for the Conservation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystems in the

Western Indian Ocean – a partnership between organizations providing civil society with a

channel for influencing and implementing regional environmental policy.

Collaborating with IUCN Members in the region, including CORDIO;

Supporting the implementation of the Nairobi Convention, WIO LaB and WIOMSA through, for

example, revitalizing the regional Group of Experts on Marine Protected Areas (GEMPA) which

IUCN facilitated and which was recognized as a task force under the Nairobi Convention;

Working with the IUCN Islands Initiative to support, for example, the Global Island Partnership,

Western Indian Ocean Challenge, Island World Heritage Sites and developing a set of activities

on invasive alien species;

Making the linkages with other IUCN Global Initiatives, such as Mangroves for the Future.


ANNEXI

CURRENTANDPROPOSEDNATURALANDMIXEDWORLDHERITAGESITESINTHEESAREGION

Country Sites on World Heritage List Sites on Tentative List Sites on World Heritage in Danger

List

Botswana Okavango delta

Central Kalahari Game Reserve

Chobe Linyanti System

Makgadikgadi Pans Landscape

Gcwihaba Caves

Comores Ecosystèmes Marins de l'Archipel des Comores;

Ecosystèmes terrestres et paysage culturel de l'Archipel

des Comores

Ethiopia Bale Mountains

Konso‐Gardula (paleo‐anthropological site)

Simien Mountains National Park

Kenya Mount Kenya National Park/Natural

Forest

Lake Turkana National Parks

Aberdare mountains

Rift valley lakes (Bogoria, Nakuru & Elementeita)

Mt Kenya/Lewa Wildlife Conservancy extension

The African Great Rift Valley ‐ Hell’s Gate National Park

The African Great Rift Valley ‐ Olorgesailie Prehistoric

Site

The African Great Rift Valley ‐ The Maasai Mara


The Eastern Arc Coastal Forests (Arabuko‐Sokoke Forest

and Shimba Hills National Reserve)

The Kakamega Forest

The Meru Conservation Area

Tana Delta and Forests Complex

Tsavo Parks and Chuylu Hills complex

Lesotho Sehlabathebe National Park

Madagascar Tsingy de Bemaraha Strict Nature

Reserve

Réserve Spéciale d’Anjanaharibe‐Sud (extension des

forêts humides de l’Atsinanana)

Les forêts sèches de l’Andrefana

Falaise et grottes de l'Isandra

Paysage culturel rizicole et hydraulique de Betafo

Sud‐Ouest Malgache, Pays Mahafaly

Rainforests of the Atsinanana

Malawi Lake Malawi Mulanje Mountain Biosphere Reserve

Nyika National Park

Mauritius Black River Gorges National Park

Mozambique Ponta de Ouro Protected Marine Area

The Quirimbas Archipelago

Namibia Brandberg National Monument Area

Fishriver Canyon

Southern Namib Erg


Welwitschia Plains

Seychelles Aldabra Atoll

Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve

South Africa iSimangaliso Wetland Park

uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park

Cape Floral Region Protected Areas

Vredefort Dome

Alexandria Coastal Dunefields

Cape Floral Region Protected Areas (extension)

Succulent Karoo Protected Areas

The Barberton Mountain Land, Barberton Greenstone

Belt or Makhonjwa Mountains

The Prince Edward Islands

Sudan The Dinder National Park

Sanganeb National Park

Wadi Howar National Park

Tanzania The Serengeti National Park

Ngorongoro Conservation Area

Mount Kilimanjaro National Park

Selous Game Reserve

Eastern Arc Mountains Forests of Tanzania

Gombe National Park

Jozani ‐ Chwaka Bay Conservation Area

Uganda Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National

Park

Rwenzori Mountains National Park

Mgahinga Gorilla National Park

Zambia Mosi‐oa‐Tunya / Victoria Falls Kalambo Falls

Zambezi source


Chirundu Fossil Forest

Zimbabwe Mosi‐oa‐Tunya / Victoria Falls

Mana Pools National Park, Sapi and

Chewore Safari Areas

Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list


ANNEXII

CONVENTIONOFBIOLOGICALDIVERSITYSTRATEGICGOALSANDTHEAICHIBIODIVERSITYTARGETS

The Strategic Plan includes 20 headline targets for 2015 or 2020 (the “Aichi Biodiversity Targets”),

organized under five strategic goals. The goals and targets comprise both: (i) aspirations for

achievement at the global level; and (ii) a flexible framework for the establishment of national or

regional targets. Parties are invited to set their own targets within this flexible framework, taking into

account national needs and priorities, while also bearing in mind national contributions to the

achievement of the global targets. Not all countries necessarily need to develop a national target for

each and every global target. For some countries, the global threshold set through certain targets may

already have been achieved. Others targets may not be relevant in the country context.

StrategicgoalA.AddresstheunderlyingcausesofbiodiversitylossbymainstreamingbiodiversityacrossgovernmentandsocietyTarget 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can

take to conserve and use it sustainably.

Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local

development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into

national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.

Target 3: By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated,

phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony

with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio

economic conditions.

Target 4: By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps

to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the

impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.

StrategicgoalB.ReducethedirectpressuresonbiodiversityandpromotesustainableuseTarget 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where

feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.

Target 6: By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested

sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery

plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on

threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and

ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.


Target 7: By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring

conservation of biodiversity.

Target 8: By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not

detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.

Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are

controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction

and establishment.

Target 10: By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable

ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their

integrity and functioning.

StrategicgoalC:Toimprovethestatusofbiodiversitybysafeguardingecosystems,speciesandgeneticdiversityTarget 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 per cent of coastal

and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are

conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected

systems of protected areas and other effective area‐based conservation measures, and integrated into

the wider landscapes and seascapes.

Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their

conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.

Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and

of wild relatives, including other socio‐economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained,

and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding

their genetic diversity.

StrategicgoalD:EnhancethebenefitstoallfrombiodiversityandecosystemservicesTarget 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and

contribute to health, livelihoods and well‐being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the

needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.

Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been

enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of

degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to

combating desertification.

Target 16: By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable

Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national

legislation.


StrategicgoalE.Enhanceimplementationthroughparticipatoryplanning,knowledgemanagementandcapacitybuildingTarget 17: By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced

implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Target 18: By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local

communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use

of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international

obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and

effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.

Target 19: By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values,

functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and

transferred, and applied.

Target 20: By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the

Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011‐2020 from all sources, and in accordance with the consolidated and

agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization, should increase substantially from the current

levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resource needs assessments to be developed

and reported by Parties.


ANNEXIIIWorldHeritageNatureforAgendaComponents,ResultsandOutputs

Component Result Sub‐result Outputs

Component 1: Effective

Management for

Conservation

World Heritage Sites are more effectively managed and the monitoring processes of the World Heritage Committee leads to stronger conservation outcomes through an enhancement of the role of IUCN within the Convention.

1.1 Monitoring that leads to action: IUCN's World Heritage Monitoring processes are strengthened and connected to follow up actions in order to enhance the conservation

outcomes resulting from the decisions of the World Heritage Committee, by enhancing the input of IUCN members, Commissions and staff to

(a) improve the quality of decisions in relation to conservation impact on the

ground and (b) ensure commitments are made to follow up to World Heritage Committee decisions and (c) ensure agreed actions are implemented.

1.1.1 The monitoring processes for World Heritage Sites result in

greater on the ground conservation action through a planned programme of member engagement, and a progressive extension of

monitoring to include all World Heritage Sites.

1.1.2 Effective and consistent use is made of remote sensed data

(especially free to access satellite imagery) to enhance IUCN’s contribution to monitoring and the communication of conservation issues, in close coordination with the UNESCO World Heritage

Centre.

1.3 World Heritage Conservation and Capacity Building Alliances: New alliances of IUCN secretariat, members, Commission members, UNESCO and other partners to support World Heritage Sites where values are threatened, or where there is a significant multiplier potential. The focus will be on capacity building and management effectiveness, using WH Sites as platforms for improved management of protected area systems.

1.3.1 Alliances are formed to enhance the conservation of World Heritage Sites. These will assemble the collective effort and input of IUCN members and Commission members with key relationships with individual World Heritage Sites, through targeted survey work and communications strategies routed through the IUCN Membership Unit, in conjunction with the Partnerships Unit.

1.3.2 Systems of management effectiveness evaluations are used on an ongoing basis to track progress in the field in relation to natural World


Heritage Site management, including an initial focus on World Heritage Sites in Africa.

1.3.3 Projects are developed to implement the recommendations coming out of evaluations of management effectiveness, focused initially on World Heritage Sites in Africa, and marine sites.

1.3.4 The managers of natural WH sites in Africa (and managers other relevant regional and thematic priority sites identified within the IUCN programme) have the training and ongoing support and mentoring required to implement the provisions of the WH Convention in their sites. Quantitative targets set.

1.3.5 IUCN Regional and Country Offices have the capacity to provide key support at the country and site level to implement World

Heritage activities, and to use them to improve national protected area systems. World Heritage features in RCO strategies or protected areas activity in the regions. Programme on Protected Areas provides advice and support to assist this process.

Component 2: Credible Site

Selection

The most important global

sites of Outstanding

Universal Value are included

on the World Heritage

List.

2.1 Science to Support Site

Selection. A rigorous and

transparent thematic science base for natural sites is established that supports the completion of the World Heritage List.

2.1.1 New and updated IUCN strategy for natural World Heritage Sites is produced, and new thematic studies on natural World

Heritage criteria x (species), ix (ecosystems),vii (natural beauty) are completed. Specific regional and


thematic studies in Africa are carried out (West and Central Africa, Great Rift Valley, African Marine Sites)

2.2 Nomination Support

Programme for States Parties. New tools and mentors are provided to support State Parties in nominating sites with high potential to be inscribed on the List, and in the necessary prior work of preparing and prioritizing tentative lists, including publicising alternative mechanisms for site recognition including Ramsar, MAB and Geoparks initiatives.

2.2.1 Training in the preparation of World Heritage tentative lists and

nominations is delivered to States Parties, based on the resource anual for World Heritage nominations, with an initial priority focus

within Africa, in conjunction with ICCROM and the African World Heritage Fund,

2.2.4 A strengthened and more diverse network of World Heritage Evaluators and Advisers is created within WCPA and its partners to support the evaluation processes of IUCN and to advise States

Parties on best practice. Priority focus on Africa and marine sites of the insular Pacific and Caribbean.

2.3 Information Management. An up to date user friendly database on World Heritage Sites relevant to the work of IUCN is created linked to the

World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and UNESCO's World Heritage website.

2.3.3 An easy to use and well disseminated GIS based tool is provided to map Tentative List Sites against thematic priorities and identified gaps within the natural World Heritage properties included in the World Heritage List. The tool is piloted in Africa and for marine sites in the insular Pacific and Caribbean.

Component 3: Climate

Change Response

Strategies

Natural World Heritage Sites

act as beacon sites in

communicating the climate

change issues facing

3.2 Climate Change Learning Sites. World Heritage provides beacon sites to develop, test and disseminate responses to climate change and thus provide platforms to demonstrate climate adaptation strategies.

3.2.1 A programme will be developed to implement this result during project design in 2009. It is anticipated that this will include the

following outputs:


protected areas and as pilot

areas for developing, testing

and disseminating best

practice in climate change

response strategies. These

will be carried out in line with

strategies developed under

the aegis of the World

Heritage Convention and as

a contribution to IUCN

activities on Protected Areas

and Climate Change.

(Project development and

fundraising for this initiative

will be carried out in year 1 of the work programme).

The likely climate change impacts on selected Hot List sites, including a set of African sites, are identified through integrated vulnerability assessments and published as the

basis for designing response strategies at these Climate

Change Learning Sites.

• Effective assessment, planning, management and education approaches for responding to climate change are developed

and tested at the Climate Change Learning Sites, in

conjunction with the relevant States Parties and site

managers.

• Effective assessment, planning, management and education tools for responding to climate change at other natural World Heritage Sites and protected areas are developed and tested

based on the experience at the Climate Change Learning Sites.

• Best practice and tools are made public through a targeted communication campaign, in conjunction with the relevant States Parties and site managers, and shared by establishing training activities at the Climate Change Learning Sites.

Component 5: Sustainable

Finance

The achievements of the

World Heritage Agenda for

5.2 Funding Partnerships. Links are developed with dedicated sources of World Heritage funding and with

5.1.4 An alliance is established between IUCN and the African World Heritage Fund to raise funds


Nature are maintained and

strengthened on a permanent basis after project completion.

private sector partners to support and implement the World Heritage AgendaFor Nature.

on shared priorities.


ReferencesTo be completed

Amnesty International Corruption Perceptions Index Available at:

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results (last accessed 8th

March, 2011).TFCAs

Barakabuye, N., Mulindahabi, F., Plumptre, A.J., Kaplin, B., Munanura, I., Ndagijimana, D. and Ndayiziga,

O. (2007). Conservation of Chimpanzees in the Congo‐Nile Divide Forests of Rwanda and Burundi.

Unpublished report. No. 98210‐G‐GO95/GA 0282. Arlington VA: US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Barnard, P. (ed. 1998). Biological diversity in Namibia: a country study. Namibian National Biodiversity

Task Force / Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek

Bayon, R., Deere, C., Norris, R. and Smith. S.E (undated) Environmental Funds: Lessons Learned and

Future Prospects downloaded from http://www.ecnc.org/ last accessed 29th March 2011.

Burgess, N., D’Amico Hales, J., Underwood, E., and Dinerstein, E. (2004). Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa

and Madagascar:A Conservation Assessment. Island Press,Washington

Butynski, T.M. (2001). Africa’s great apes. In: B.B., Beck, T.S. Stoinski, M. Hutchins, T.Maple, B. Norton, A.

Rowan, E.F. Stephens and A. Arluke (eds) Great Apes and Humans: the Ethics of Coexistence, pp.3‐56.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dudley, N., S. Stolton, A. Belokurov, L. Krueger, N. Lopoukhine, K. MacKinnon, T. Sandwith and N.

Sekhran [editors] (2010); Natural Solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate change,

IUCNWCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and WWF, Gland, Switzerland, Washington DC and New

York, USA

Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86pp. http://data.iucn.org/dbtw‐wpd/edocs/PAPS‐016.pdf

Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) (2011) Invasive Species and Protected Areas ‐ Managing the

increasing threat of Invasive Species in Protected Areas in Africa. Electronic document on www.gisp.org

Last accessed 25th March 2011.

Great Ape Survival Partnership (GRASP)(2011). Gorilla Factsheet. http://www.grasp.org.au. Accessed

30th March, 2011.

Hatfield, R. and D. Mallaret‐King, 2007. The economic value of the Virunga and Bwindi protected forests,

Nairobi, Kenya: International Gorilla Conservation Program, Technical Report.

Hicks, T.C., Darby, L., Hart J., Swinkels, J., van Hooff, J., January N. and Menken, S. (2010). Trade in

orphans and bushmeat threatens one of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s most important

populations of eastern chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, African Primates 7 (in press).


Hulme, D. & Murphee, M. (2001)(eds.) African Wildlife & Livelihoods the promise & performance of

community conservation. James Curry Ltd.

IUCN Tanzania Country Office (2011) Strategic Plan 2011 – 2012

Moyer, D., Plumtre, A.J., Pintea, L., Hernandez‐Aguilar, A., Moore, J., Stewart, F., Davenport, T.R.B., Piel,

A, Kamenya S., Mugabe, H., Mpunga, N. and Mwangoka, M. (2006). Survey of Chimpanzees and Other

Biodiversity in Western Tanzania. Unpublished report. Arlington, VA: United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS).

Pilcher, N. and Alsuhaibany, A. (2000). Regional status of Coral Reefs in the Red Sea and the Gulf of

Aden, p 35‐54 in: Wilkinson, C. (ed), Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2000. Australian Institute of

Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.

Plumtre, A.J.,Rose, R., Nangendo, G., Williamson and others (2010). Eastern Chimpanzee (Pan

trogolodytes schweinfurthii) Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2010‐2020. Gland, Switzerland:

IUCN. 52pp.

Plumtre, A.J. & Cox, D. (2005). Counting primates for conservation: primate surveys in Uganda. Primates

47: 85‐99.

Plumtre, A.J., Cox D. and Mugume, S. (2003). The Status of Chimpanzees in Uganda. Albertine Rift

Technical Report Series No.2 www.albertinerift.org/publications. Accessed 17 March 2010.

Roberts, C. M., McClean, C. J.,Veron, J. E. N.,Hawkins, J. P.,Allen, G. R., McAllister,D. E., Mittermeier, C.

G., Schueler, F.W., Spalding, M.,Wells, F.,Vynne, C.,Werner,T. B. (2002). Marine biodiversity hotspots

and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science. 295, 1280‐4

Scholes, R.J. and Biggs, R. (2005). A biodiversity intactness index. Nature. 434, 45‐9.

Lea M. Scherl et al. (2004). Can Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction? Opportunities and

Limitations. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. viii + 60pp.

Mésochina P., Mbangwa O., Chardonnet P., Mosha R., Mtui B., Drouet N., Crosmary W. and Kissui B.

(2010). Conservation Status of the Lion (Panthera leo Linnaeus, 1758) in Tanzania. Wildlife Division &

Fondation IGF, Paris, 116 pages

United Nations (2010) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, United Nations, New York

UNEP/Nairobi Convention Secretariat, 2009. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of Land‐based Sources

and Activities Affecting the Western Indian Ocean Coastal and Marine Environment, UNEP Nairobi,

Kenya 378P).

UNEP (2006) Africa Environment Outlook 2 – Our Environment, Our Wealth is Environment for

Development Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA) United Nations Environment

Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi 00100, Kenya.


Wilson, M.L., Balmforth, Z., Cox, D., Davenport, T., Hart J., Hicks, C., Hunt, K.D., Kamenya, S., Mitani, J.C.,

Moore, J., nakamura, M, Nixon, S., Plumtre, A.J., and Reynolds, V. (2009). Pan trogolodytes spp.

Schweinfurthii. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009. 1 www.iucnredlist.org.

Accessed 17th March 2010.

WWF(2011a) Conservation Trust funds

http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/howwedoit/conservationfinance/conservationtrustfunds.html

Accessed 29th March 2011.

WWF(2011b)Mountain Gorilla. Threats.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/mountaingorilla/threats.html. Accessed 30th March, 2011.

sitanalysis 2nd draft 10th may - iucn · 2016-05-19 · 6 casd situation analysis for iucn esaro...

Documents