The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are the key international instruments which address climate change (Mburia 2015; UNFCCC Secretariat 2008). Provisions for inclusion of biodiversity and wildlife–related aspects are highlighted in Table 2.

Although the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol do not directly mention biodiversity and wildlife–related terms, the United Nations under its subsidiary organisations, that is UNEP and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), has been committed to addressing environmental challenges across the globe. The UNEP conducts complementary programmes and initiatives to encourage the development and implementation of environmental law by states. UNEP’s work on climate change is shaped by the negotiations process of the UNFCCC (UNEP 2011). However, UNEP is also scaling up its role and response to climate change under three priority areas that match calls for international guidance, the urgent need for action at a national level on climate change and the organisation’s skill set, experience and mandate, that is Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (Eba), Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus (REDD+) and Clean Technology (UNEP 2011).

The UNDP emphasizes the need for Eba to biodiversity conservation (UNEP 2012b). A technical paper on interlinkages between climate change and biodiversity, released in 2002, was prepared at the request of the CBD (IPCC 2001). The CBD has been actively involved in the UNFCCC process, exchanging information and expertise on activities and outcomes from their processes (UNEP 2012b). Despite the existence of such institutions and policies, the Rio conventions, particularly the UNFCCC, are yet to enhance synergies with biodiversity constituencies and countries are yet to come up with a binding agreement at 3rd Conference of Parties 21 in Paris, which will also take into consideration the role of healthy, resilient ecosystems in addressing climate change mitigation agenda (UNEP 2012b).

The African Union (AU) under the AMCEN has the mandate to develop climate change adaptation and mitigation policy as well as frameworks for low carbon development technology (Mburia 2015). The AMCEN provides political guidance and monitoring to the development of Africa’s position towards climate change adaptation policy formulation into specific national states. However, the AU does not have a stand-alone climate change policy (Mburia 2015). The region has several strategic climate change working papers under the 2003 AU-NEPAD Environment Action Plan (EAP) (Mburia 2015). Although the document includes eight sectoral priority areas including the environment and programmes related to the environment in general, part of the agenda mentions biodiversity. For instance, the initiative notes that ‘climate change is the latest threat to biodiversity in Africa’ (AMCEN 2014:74). In 2014, the region developed the draft African Climate Change Strategy (AMCEN 2014). Section XI.10 of this document focuses on biodiversity and ecosystems. The strategy stipulates that ‘biodiversity degradation largely occurs outside protected areas and is under threat from habitat loss and over-exploitation of natural resources, amongst others, whose effects are exacerbated by climate change’ (AMCEN 2014:41–42). A summary reflecting how biodiversity mainstreaming in the draft African Climate Change Strategy will take place is shown in Table 3.

The East African Community (EAC) Climate Change Policy is complementary to various international conventions and protocols related to climate change and biodiversity management such as the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. The policy is further linked to other multilateral environmental agreements such as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), CBD, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Chapter 2 of the EAC Climate Change Policy contains policy statements and actions under sectoral planning and implementation of climate change adaptation measures in key sectors such as wildlife and tourism (EAC Secretariat 2010). A summary of the provisions is highlighted in Box 1.

Under cross-cutting actions, the EAC Climate Change Policy specifies the need for research and development which ‘promote periodic climate change related research and exchange of information in conservation and sustainable use of wildlife’, (EAC Secretariat 2010:24). The policy also highlights the need for information management and sharing through the development of ‘a database and information sharing system for purposes of monitoring of wildlife resources in the region’, (EAC Secretariat 2010:24). A Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats analysis of the ecosystems and biodiversity section in the EAC Climate Change Master Plan reveals that one of the strengths is that the region has ‘good policies and institutions for wildlife management’, (EAC 2011a:96). In response to the sectoral challenges highlighted in the EAC Climate Change Strategy, the EAC Climate Change Master Plan (EAC 2011a) includes key strategic interventions for the wildlife sector as indicated in Table 4.

This review shows that the continental and EAC, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa-COMESA-EAC-Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional policies for climate change address biodiversity/wildlife management issues. The EAC had detailed provisions on how biodiversity issues should be mainstreamed in the implementation of climate change policies. However, the SADC region does not have stand-alone policies which mainstream climate biodiversity/wildlife issues. Figure 3 shows the frequency counts of the terms ‘biodiversity’ and ‘wildlife’ in international, continental and regional climate change policies.

The AU has made progress in addressing biodiversity issues in the draft African Strategy on Climate Change. The EAC Climate Change Master Plan has the highest frequency of the term ‘biodiversity’ (33), whilst the EAC Climate Change Strategy has the highest count for ‘wildlife’ (26). The COMESA-EAC-SADC climate change policies have low counts of the term ‘biodiversity’ and ‘wildlife’, whilst key international climate change policies, that is the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, do not even mention the terms.

East and southern African countries have developed national climate policies and NAPAs in line with the recommendations from the UNFCCC. To establish whether national climate change policies mentioned ‘biodiversity’ and ‘wildlife’, a scan was completed of selected policy documents. An analysis was then done using advanced search for Microsoft Word 2007 to get simple frequency counts using the terms ‘biodiversity’ and ‘wildlife’ (Figure 4). Generally, there is a higher incidence of citations related to ‘wildlife’ than to ‘biodiversity’ within the selected national climate change policies. For instance, all the selected countries, save for Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, have higher counts of the term ‘wildlife’ as compared to biodiversity (Figure 4). The Ugandan National Programme of Action (2010) has the highest frequency for ‘wildlife’ followed by the Botswana National Development Plan 10 (2009–2016) (Government of Botswana 2009), whereas the South African National Climate Change Response White Paper (DEA 2011) and Rwanda National Adaptation Programmes to climate change (Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines 2006) do not even mention wildlife. On the other hand, Zimbabwe National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) (Government of Zimbabwe 2014) and Namibia Climate Strategy and Action Plan (CCSAP) (Mfune et al. 2009) have almost equal counts for the term ‘biodiversity’, that is 36 and 35, respectively, whilst Botswana National Development Plan 10 (2009–2016) (Government of Botswana 2009) has the lowest count of 6. Overall, all the selected policies mention the term ‘biodiversity’.

Climate policies are coordinated by designated units within respective ministries. For example, in Zimbabwe, the National Steering Committee on Climate Change was established in 1996 to assist the government in designing of climate change policies and coordination of specific climate change projects (Chagutah 2010). The country also signed and ratified the UNFCCC in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 2009 (Brown et al. 2012). According to Stringer et al. (2009), the UNFCCC requires least developed countries to undertake NAPAs as policy frameworks dedicated to the identification and prioritisation of critically important adaptation activities. However, Zimbabwe has not provided such policies. Instead, the country has provided national communications to the UNFCCC with regards to detailing activities that have been undertaken to implement climate change activities. The country submitted its first national communication on impacts and adaptation in the agriculture, forestry water resources and human and health sectors in 1998 (Lotz-Sisitka & Urquhart 2014). In 2009, Zimbabwe began to prepare and submitted its second national communication which included vulnerability and adaptation on ecosystems, human settlements, public health water resources and wildlife (Brown et al. 2012). In 2013, Zimbabwe launched the draft NCCRS (Lotz-sisitka & Urquhart 2014), which provides a framework for a comprehensive and strategic approach on aspects of adaptation, mitigation, technology, financing, public education and awareness. The strategy further includes a National Action Plan for Adaptation and Mitigation. The strategy mentions biodiversity and wildlife in several sections as the sector underpinning the tourism industry.

For completeness, a detailed analysis of climate change policies for Uganda and Botswana was done. The selection is based on the fact that these countries had the highest frequency counts of the term ‘wildlife’.

Climate change issues in Uganda are coordinated by the Climate Change Unit, which is hosted by the Ministry of Water and Environment. The Unit was established alongside with the Climate Change Policy Committee (CCPC). The CCPC, which comprises government ministries and departments, provides policy guidelines to the unit. The Uganda National Climate Change Policy (Ministry of Water and Environment 2013) makes explicit reference to the need to mainstream climate change adaptation into the wildlife and tourism sectors. The Policy presents and objects ‘To ensure the conservation of wildlife resources and plan for improved resilience of tourism resources and infrastructure to climate change’ (Ministry of Water and Environment 2013:vii). A summary of the policy response in relation to the wildlife and tourism sector is presented in Table 5.

The National Development Plan 10 (NDP) and Vision 2016 are the central policy documents that contain the country’s responses to the challenges posed by climate change (Nachmany et al. 2015). The NDPs are grand scheme policy frameworks, which define the country’s medium-term development goals and strategies. The current NDP 10 (2009–2016) plan stipulates that climate change–relevant initiatives and programmes need to be mainstreamed in development processes and in all sectors of the environment such as forestry, energy and including forestry and Community-Based Natural Resource Management Programme (Nachmany et al. 2015).

Botswana is currently developing a National Climate Change Policy and Strategy and Action Plan(NCCPSAP). The policy will be implemented through the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism in co-operation with the United Nations Development Programme. Amongst other objectives, the NCCPSAP aims to develop and implement appropriate adaptation strategies and actions that will lower the vulnerability of Botswana and various sectors of the economy to the impacts of climate change.

Findings from the other climate change documents (not included in the graphical analysis) revealed that the South African standing legislation for climate change, that is the National Climate Change Response White Paper (DEA 2011), as well as Rwanda Vision 2020 do not even mention the term ‘wildlife’. However, the Zambian NCCRS (Government of the Republic of Zambia 2010) has the highest frequency count of the term ‘wildlife’ (46), followed by the Malawi’s National Adaptation Programmes of Action (Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment 2006) with 27 counts and then the Zimbabwe NCCRS (Government of Zimbabwe 2014) with 26 counts.

Generally, National Adaptation Programmes of Action and climate change strategies from both the EAC and SADC region climate change policies have highest frequencies of the terms ‘wildlife’ and ‘biodiversity’. An exception is the Rwanda NAPA which does not mention the term ‘wildlife’. However, National Development Plans and Visions, for example South Africa’s National Development Plan Vision for 2030, do not even mention the terms ‘wildlife’ or ‘biodiversity’. However, other national visions such as the Botswana Vision 2016 mention ‘wildlife’ but do not mention ‘biodiversity’.