adminJeffrey Gogo Climate Story
He said “ . . . climate change-induced droughts and erratic rainfall distribution patterns” were hurting food security badly. He went on to emphasise that “increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as droughts and gradual increases in average temperatures and declines in precipitation, are adversely affecting key sectors of the economy, especially agriculture.”
However, despite the minister’s acknowledgement of the escalating dangers posed by climate change, the sector remains one of the most under-funded by Government.
For 2014, the budgetary allocation for the Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate was cut 8 percent to US$93,5 million from US$101,5 million last year, indicative of Government’s existing liquidity problems but also its general lukewarm approach towards the environment.
As matter of fact, the bulk of the ministry’s current budget was channelled towards water, taking up US$76,1 million. Of the remainder, only US$8,4 million was sunk into the environment and climate proper, while the rest went towards administrative expenses.
To highlight the inadequacies of environmental funding, by November 2013, a month before that fiscal year ran out, the Ministry had already spent US$661 000 ahead of its budget.
But climate change funding remains a nightmare. There is no specific mention of money directed towards specific climate change concerns as is the case with other eco-issues such as water, forests or wildlife, according to the 2014 Estimates of Expenditure, which records blow by blow Government’s current and capital expenses across different ministries.
Whereas the Budget categorically states that water issues such as dam construction and maintenance will be funded to the tune of US$66,9 million and forests US$4,6 million this year, the Budget is silent on specific pressing climate matters such as adaptation and mitigation.
Without committing specific funds, Mr Chinamasa only mentioned in a generalised statement that “like most other developing countries, Zimbabwe is also focusing on adaptation strategies to climate change through embracing appropriate technologies in agriculture, industries, among others.”
The general impression from the 2014 Budget is that climate change is a less important sub-sector better addressed by tackling inefficiencies in other broader environmental heads such as forestry, water and meteorology. While it may be true that climate change results from a cycle of different anti-environment activities from numerous economic sectors, the Budget’s impression is wrong and uncomforting. Climate change is greatly disruptive and comes at great socio-economic costs. The failure by Government to mainstream climate change into the budget process despite recognising its difficult complex impacts is retarding efforts at building climate resilience among vulnerable communities countrywide.
The sector hardest hit by climate change in Zimbabwe is agriculture. This is bad news because agriculture supports 70 percent of the population and contributes over 20 percent to the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Agriculture anchors most of the manufacturing that takes place in Zimbabwe’s industries.
Therefore, failures in agriculture are more than likely to cause faults in the wider economy giving rise to social and economic losses and distress.
By under-funding climate change and reacting slowly to the problems brewed by the science, Government is actually stalling economic growth and fomenting social suffering.
However, the problem of inadequate climate change funding does not lie with Mr Chinamasa alone. It poignantly depicts a political and economic system that has over many years dragged its feet on effectively addressing the challenge of rapidly changing climates at policy level.
The minister said Government was now finalising the National Climate Change Response Strategy “to mitigate climate change issues.” This Strategy is long overdue. It has taken longer than is necessary to complete owing to poor funding.
But the Strategy’s successful completion could change Government’s handling of climate change in some very important ways. The Strategy will be a crucial instrument for guiding co-ordinated national responsive action to climate disasters and disbanding fragmented individual actions, which have been the order of the day until now.
It will position the country firmly on the green growth path, that new paradigm in economic development, which guarantees social and environmental equity and help shape approaches to local climate change adaptation and mitigation, and in designing new community-based mechanisms to national climate change responses.
The strategy will also provide for and promote sustainable development by offering regulated governance frameworks, which improve accountability and the efficient use of resources.
The Climate Change Response Strategy was expected to “provide a framework for a comprehensive and strategic approach on aspects of adaptation, mitigation, technology, financing as well as public education and awareness.” It would also help Government to determine whether there was need for a policy or another legal framework on climate change.
Government’s thrust now should be on speeding up its finalisation and help those most affected by changing climates here.
In other areas, the 2014 Budget showed general concern about environmental ills such as land degradation and wildlife poaching. To help curb the increasing incidents of illegal wildlife killings, Mr Chinamasa allotted US$1,5 million to the Parks and Wildlife Authority. This money will improve the Authority’s capacity to dealing with poachers but is very inadequate for an entire department, in a whole year, faced with the threat of sophisticated poachers.
Even when the Authority is semi-autonomous, capable of raising income from other activities, by comparison, the 2014 Budget allocation only represents the cost of at least two rhino horns.
Wildlife murderers, such as those seen in Hwange last year, book at least US$65 000 per kg for a rhino horn. On the average, each horn weighs 10kg and for two horns, the illegal dealer can pocket US$1.3 million with ease, just US$200 000 shy of the Government’s entire funding to the Wildlife Authority for the whole of 2014.
Since 2011, over 60 rhinos have died in Zimbabwe due to poaching. Using the above averages, those poachers earned US$39 million from illegal rhino killings alone. Many more elephants are being killed the same way while trade in several animals, particularly the endangered species, goes on undetected.
It can never be said enough that Government seriously needs to show greater commitment to funding activities that protect Zimbabwe’s wildlife from the marauding poachers. In these wild elements, Government is dealing with well-organised and adequately funded criminal syndicates, which can be difficult to put out.
Yet, the impact caused by increased animal loss, particularly in the big-five, a unique selling point for drawing tourists, will ripple through the tourism sector causing widespread losses, even in downstream industries.
God is faithful.
Online Reporter
dyton mupawaenda