Country Malawi  Environmental Analysis January 2019 Report No: AUS0000489 © 2019 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Photo Credits Page xvii (clockwise, from left): Dietmar Temps, Andrea Willmore, Oxford Media Library, Andrea Wilmore; Page 15 (clockwise, from left): Dietmar Temps, Oxford Media Library, Julian Bayliss, M. Henrion; Page 20: Oxford Media Library; Page 22: Ross Hughes; Page 41: Yury Birukov; Page 50: Francis Nkoka; Page 54: Ross Hughes; Page 66: Karl Beeney; Page 73: Julian Bayliss; Page 80: Dereje; Page 83: Julian Bayliss; Page 86: Crispin Hughes, Practical Action; Page 90 (top, bottom): Katherine Forsythe, Dietmar Temps; Page 97: Vlad Siaber; Page 98: Ross Hughes; Page 106: Shutterstock; Page 110: Cribe/Shutterstock. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2019. Malawi Country Environmental Analysis. © World Bank.” All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522- 2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv The purpose of this document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv The approach to the analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv How is this document organized?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi Malawi at a glance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Malawi’s environment: The drivers, challenges, and positive developments . . . . . . . . . . 1 The drivers and challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Strategic recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A complex web of interrelated factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Poverty and inequality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Population growth is the underlying driver of environmental degradation. . . . . . . . 5 How sustainable is Malawi’s development trajectory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Policy and institutional frameworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Climate change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Key environmental themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Land degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Forests and woodlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Biomass energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Household air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Biodiversity and fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Water resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Solid and liquid waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CONTENTS iii An agenda for change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Productive land, forest, and fisheries resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Environmental management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Environmental accounting and expenditure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Knowledge, information and awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The State of the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A complex web of interrelated factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Malawi’s overall environmental situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Cross-cutting issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1. Population, poverty, and livelihoods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. Wealth and natural capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. Institutions, policies, and expenditure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4. Climate change and resilience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Key environmental and natural resources management themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5. Land degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6. Forests and woodlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 7. Biomass energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 8. Household air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 9. Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 10. Biodiversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 11. Water resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 12. Waste management (solid and liquid) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 An Agenda for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Productive land, forest, and fisheries resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Recommendation 1: Address land degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Recommendation 2: Overhaul fisheries management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Recommendation 3: Support implementation of the National Charcoal Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Environmental management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Recommendation 4: Implement the new legal and institutional framework for the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Recommendation 5: Accelerate and support the decentralization of environmental management functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Recommendation 6: Address household air pollution through education and subsidies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 iv Environmental investment and expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Recommendation 7: Value natural capital in economic planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Recommendation 8: Increase private sector investment to address environmental challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Recommendation 9: Strengthen climate information services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Recommendation 10: Boost environmental awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Annex 1: Summary of Priority Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Annex 2: International and Regional Agreements to Which Malawi Is a Party . . . . . . 141 Annex 3: A Summary of the Shared EIA Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Annex 4: EIA Process Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Annex 5: An Overview of Natural Disasters Since 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Annex 6: Sustainable Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Annex 7: Forest and Land Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Annex 8: ROAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Annex 9: Biomass Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Annex 10: Changes in Fish Catch 2006–2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Figures Infographic 1. Environmental drivers, pressures, and impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 17 Infographic 2. A journey toward more effective environmental management . . . . . 4, 18 Figure 1. Malawi’s EPI scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 2. Malawi total population by variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 3. Malawi’s growth in GDP closely follows growth in agriculture . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 4. The assets and capitals that drive wealth and development . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 5. Change in wealth versus renewable natural capital per person in Africa, 1995–2014 (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 6. Africa: wealth per capita in 2014 (constant 2014 USD per capita) . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 7. Where is the wealth of Malawi (USD per capita)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 8. Growth in total and per capita wealth in low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1995–2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 9. Change in wealth per capita from 1995 to 2014 (USD per person) . . . . . . . 28 Figure 10. Value of renewable natural capital per capita, 1995 and 2014 . . . . . . . . . 29 CONTENTS v Figure 11. Sources of change in natural capital per person in Malawi between 1995 and 2014 (USD per person) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 12. Structure of the EAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 13. Distribution of public environmental expenditures by ministries and institutions, 2007–2012 (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 14. Historic climate variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 15. Time series of mean annual temperature (C°) for 34 CMIP5 models . . . . . 43 Figure 16. Changes in heat extremes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 17. Percentage change in annual mean rainfall across Malawi between the GCM-simulated current period (1976–2005) and 2070–2099 for 34 GCMs . . . . . 44 Figure 18. Malawi’s growth in GDP closely follows growth in agriculture . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 19. Annual precipitation and GDP growth rates, 1980–2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 20. Malawi’s GHG profile for 2015 and projected profile for 2040 . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 21. Map showing hot spots of land degradation across Malawi . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 22. Change in land use and cover, 1990–2010, in km2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 23. Quantity of soil loss per slope class projected to 2030 assuming high population growth and wet climate scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 24. Land degradation in Malawi: Cost of action and inaction (USD, millions) . . . 57 Figure 25. Priority sub-catchments targeted under the Shire River Basin Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 26. Malawi landscape restoration multicriteria analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 27. Land cover, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 28. Change in tree cover, 2000–2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 29. Change in forest cover—national, subnational, and local . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 30. Malawi forest reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure 31. Composition of Malawi’s GHG emissions, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure 32. Urban household cooking energy demands 1998–2017 . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Figure 33. Comparison of CPUE between Usipa and Cichlids over 30 years, showing rise of Usipa and decline of Cichlid species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Figure 34. Number of threatened animal species in Malawi and neighboring countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure 35. Map of Malawi showing extent of lakes and rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Figure 36. Malawi’s availability of water per capita compared to other Zambezi River Basin countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Figure 37. Graph of total renewable water resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Figure 38. Trash disposal practices, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 vi Tables Table 1. Proportion of households obtaining income from the various sources, 2004, 2010, and 2013 (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2. Wealth per capita in Malawi, low-income countries, and Sub-Saharan Africa in 2014 (constant 2014 USD per capita) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 3. Institutions with responsibilities for environmental management and a brief summary of their legal mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 4. Specific responsibilities of the divisions of the EAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 5. Land use/cover in km2 and change as % of total area of Malawi, 1990–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Table 6. Potential effects of climate on fish stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Table 7. Current annual funding per unit area of protected areas in the Shire Valley, Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Table 8. How climate change affects solid waste management practices . . . . . . . . 111 Table A.1. Priority sectoral and thematic recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Table A.2. Focal points of the EAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Table A.3. Other agreements and their focal points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Table A.4. Shared EIA roles and responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Table A.5. Malawi’s natural disasters 1990­ –2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Table A.6. Change in Malawi forest cover 1972–1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Table A.7. Land cover 1990–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Table A.8. Forest land by tenure type, 2002 (or earlier) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 Table A.9. Load losses and cost imposed on hydropower system by soil erosion . . . . 151 Table A.10. Forest sector budgets and revenue in millions of Malawi kwacha, 2006–2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Table A.11. Projected estimates for urban household charcoal demand (2008–2016) with corresponding employment and market estimates . . . . . . . . . . 154 Table A.12. Energy demand trends (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Table A.13. Wood fuel consumption by household (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Table A.14. Wood fuel summary data, 2008–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Table A.15. Fish catch by water body, 2006–2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 CONTENTS vii Boxes Box 1. Gender, poverty, and livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Box 2. The emergence of a robust institution for environmental management . . . . . . 36 Box 3. SPCR: Priority investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Box 4. Land degradation in Shire River basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Box 5. Creating incentives for farmer adoption of SLM practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Box 6. REDD+ readiness and forest monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Box 7. Forest co-management in Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Box 8. Experience of FMNR in Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Box 9. Seven pillars supporting the National Charcoal Strategy (2017–2027) . . . . . . 84 Box 10. The Elephant Marsh wetland of international importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Box 11. Mulanje Cedar: The national tree of Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Box 12. The transformative impact of protected areas management concessions . . . 100 viii Acknowledgments The report was prepared by the Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice (ENR GP), World Bank, in close coordination with the Government of Malawi (GoM). The World Bank team authors were Ross Hughes (Task Team Leader), Simon Croxton, and Louise Croneborg-Jones. Other key con- tributors were Dr. Julian Bayliss, Hasita Bhammar, Glenn-Marie Lange, Joy Hecht, Sibani Karki, Francis Nkoka, Matthew Owen, Harriet Smith, Peter Tarr, Michael Vaislic, and Johannes Wölcke. The team would like to thank colleagues of GoM who provided guidance and technical inputs to this work. From the Environmental Affairs Department (EAD): Tawonga Mbale (Director), Brighton Kum- chedwa (Director), Shamiso Najira, Benon Yassin, Clement Tikiwa, Golivati Gomani, Dorothy Tembo Nhlema, Lilian Chimphepo, M. Makonombera, Boniface Chimwaza, Yasinta Ganiza, and Christo- pher Manda. Nations Msowoya from the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development (­ MoFPED). Maurice Makuwa from the Department of Fisheries (DoFi). Chiukepo Luhanga from the National Audit Office. Austin Theu from the Department of Energy. Zuzeni Lemani from the Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Urban Development. Peaches Phiri from the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development (MoIAWD). The report also benefited from advice and comments from colleagues in academia and civil society, in particular Chifundo Dalireni, David Mkwambisi, Dalitso Kafumbata, Ranzy Kannaan, Julius Ng’oma, C. Kachingwe, David Chapita, Mshawa Tembo, C. Chinoko, and Tadala Kaledzera. The World Bank peer reviewers were Diji Chandrasekharan Behr, Carter Brandon, and Urvashi Narain. Cath Croxton compiled and edited the report. Will Kemp provided the document design and layout. This publication was produced under the guidance of Magda Lovei, Practice Manager. Additional funding support for land degradation aspects was provided by the TerrAfrica Leveraging Fund. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix Abbreviations AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use ANS Adjusted Net Saving APN African Parks Network BEST Shire Basin Ecosystem Environmental Support Trust CEA Country Environmental Analysis CECF Community Environmental Conservation Fund CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents CMC Catchment Management Committee CWON Changing Wealth of Nations DNPW Department of National Parks and Wildlife DoCCMS Department of Climate Change and Meteorological Services DoDMA Department of Disaster Management Affairs DoFi Department of Fisheries DoF Department of Forestry DoT Department of Tourism EAD Environmental Affairs Department EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMA Environment Management Act ENR Environment and Natural Resources ENRM Environment and Natural Resources Management ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPI Environmental Performance Index ESIA Environment and Social Impact Assessment FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FISP Farm Input Subsidy Program FMNR Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration FRIM Forest Research Institute of Malawi GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse Gas GoM Government of Malawi HAP Household Air Pollution HDI Human Development Index ICT Information and Communication Technology ABBREVIATIONS xi ITCZ Intertropical Convergence Zone IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature kt CO2e Kiloton of CO2e LCA Life-cycle Assessment LDF Local Development Fund LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas LUCF Land Use Change and Forestry LULC Land Use/Land Cover MK Malawian Kwacha MGDS Malawi’s Growth and Development Strategy MoNREM Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy, and Mining MEPA Malawi Environmental Protection Agency MoAIWD Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development MoFEPD Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning, and Development MoH Ministry of Health MoLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development MoTPW Ministry of Transport and Public Works MSW Municipal Solid Waste NBSAP II National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NCCIP National Climate Change Investment Plan NCCMP National Climate Change Management Policy NCCP National Climate Change Program NCE National Council on Environment NDC Nationally Determined Contribution NEAPW National Elephant Action Plan for Malawi NEP National Environmental Policy NFLR National Forest Landscape Restoration NGO Nongovernmental Organization NWRA National Water Resources Authority PES Payments for Ecosystem Services PPP Public-Private Partnership REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Programme ROAM Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology SADC Southern African Development Community SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SLM Sustainable Land Management SPCR Strategic Program for Climate Resilience TCE Technical Committee on Environment UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VDC Village Development Committee xii VNRMC Village Natural Resources Management Committee WCIU Wildlife Crime Investigation Unit WHO World Health Organization ZAMCOM Zambezi Watercourse Commission Agreement ABBREVIATIONS xiii Preface The purpose of this document This Country Environmental Analysis (CEA) compiles and reviews existing analyses on Malawi’s environment and natural resources (ENR) and explores what this evidence means for poverty and economic development. The report is designed to provide information in an accessible manner that can guide the development of policies and interventions. The CEA also identifies opportunities for managing natural resources to deliver improvements for livelihoods, reducing poverty, and building climate change resilience across all the environmental sectors. Malawi’s natural capital—its natural resources and environment—is under significant pressure on many fronts including population growth, agricultural expansion, and climate change. The Govern- ment of Malawi (GoM) recognizes the importance of the challenges posed by environmental deg- radation and climate change and includes these as key priorities in the latest Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS III) 2017–20211 and National Resilience Strategy.2 The approach to the analysis The CEA is based on a review of recent literature, expert analysis, and technical consultations in Malawi with the government and other key stakeholders in 2017 and 2018. Rather than address every possible environmental variable, the report focuses on the key sectors that have the greatest impact on the current state of the environment in Malawi. It also explores where support for policy and institutional reforms and investments may also have the greatest influence over the next few years. 1 GoM. 2017(a). The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) III. 2 DoDMA. 2018. National Resilience Strategy [Draft unpublished]. PREFACE xv How is this document organized? The report has three main sections: ●● The Executive Summary offers an overview of the environmental issues and challenges that Malawi faces and lists 10 key recommendations. It also shows in graphical form: • How the key drivers, pressures, and related environmental consequences work together in a complex and evolving environmental situation • How targeted interventions can support Malawi’s journey toward more effective environmen- tal management. ●● The State of the Environment section provides a more detailed analysis of the cross-cutting issues and key ENR management themes ●● The Agenda for Change section outlines the forward-looking agenda identified in each of the deep dive sections. xvi A well-managed environment protects and builds livelihoods benefiting all Malawians. Malawi at a glance Malawi is a small agriculture-dominated country in Southern Africa with a total geographical area of 118,484 km2, 20% of which is Lake Malawi. Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world, ranked 170 of 188 countries on the global United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI). Malawi’s total population, urban populations, and population density have increased steadily since 1990. The population is currently around 18 million and growing at a rate of about 3% a year. Natural resources underpin Malawi’s productive sec- tors and are the main source of livelihood for most of the population. Renewable natural capital makes up 43% of Malawi’s wealth. Malawi has a tropical climate with relatively cool tem- peratures and rainfall patterns that are dependent on the movements of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Malawi is one of the world’s most vulnerable coun- tries to severe climate-related events. With more than 80% of Malawi’s population dependent on rainfed agriculture, fluctuating weather patterns can have a disastrous impact on food security. Mobile phone technologies are rapidly improving communication and services, with growing opportuni- ties for informing Malawians of environmental issues. Executive Summary Malawi’s environment: The drivers, challenges, and positive developments THE DRIVERS AND CHALLENGES Malawi currently faces an environmental cycle of decline and degradation. The challenges it faces are complex and interrelated, but there are two underlying drivers behind this decline. Population growth places huge demands on natural systems with more land being converted to agriculture and more forests being harvested for the wood fuel supply. Cli- mate change magnifies these impacts by putting greater strain on land and forests due to increased incidents of natural disasters and extreme weather events. Proximate drivers of environmental degradation include weak land tenure secu- rity, unsustainable land management practices (driven in part by poorly designed and targeted agricultural subsidies), chronic shortages of public funding for environmental management, and weak institutions, particularly those at decen- tralized levels. These are discussed in more detail in the thematic sections that follow. Land degradation is widespread and severe. Up to 60% of Malawi’s land is currently affected by soil erosion and nutri- ent loss, and Malawi loses around 29 tons of soil per hectare per year.3 This is extremely costly to the economy with an estimated annual cost equivalent to around 6.8% of gross domestic product (GDP). Renewable natural resources are also under severe pressure. Over the last 40 years, more than half of Malawi’s forests and woodlands have vanished, and those that remain are being ‘thinned’ through overextraction and more frequent forest fires. Yet, forests make a substantial contribution to livelihoods and the economy and are needed to protect vital ecosystem services. They also provide the bulk of Malawi’s energy supply in the form of charcoal and firewood—a con- tribution worth USD 352 million in 2017, equivalent to 4.7% of GDP. Fish stocks and biodiversity are also declining, driven by overharvesting and illegal trade, and exacerbated by weak governance. Household air pollution (HAP) and poor solid and liquid waste management turn everyday activities into health hazards for large numbers of people. These environmental challenges have placed Malawi onto an unsustainable development trajectory. The returns from the drawdown of natural capital have not been used to invest sufficiently in human and produced capital, such as educa- tion, health, and resilient infrastructure. There are also positive trends and opportunities, and the introduction of bold new policy and institutional reforms could underpin a transformation toward more sustainable management of ENR. Land reforms introduced in 2016 should boost land tenure security and offer the prospect of increased investment in land stewardship if these reforms are implemented effectively. Pilot investments in sustainable land management (SLM) have also demonstrated that it is possible to restore degraded land back into productive use. Such investments have been shown to be inclusive, directly 3 Vargus and Omuto. 2016. Soil Loss Assessment in Malawi. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 benefiting some of the poorest households, and have also boosted agricultural productivity. If taken to scale, SLM inter- ventions in combination with stronger land tenure security could make a substantial contribution to addressing and reversing land degradation and protecting vital ecosystem services. Another significant reform is the introduction of a new National Charcoal Strategy4 that seeks to reduce the pressure that leads to forest degradation by promoting alterna- tive cooking fuels, efficient cook stoves, and sustainable charcoal production opportunity. This shift in policy provides, for the first time, an opportunity to legalize the charcoal value chain and move toward more sustainable charcoal production. Malawi has made good progress in attracting private sector investment in protected areas. This has been achieved through the introduction of concessions, some of which are ‘fully delegated’ to private sector operators. These have demonstrated impressive results in terms of conservation outcomes and boosting revenues from tourism that benefit conservation management and local communities. Malawi has also made good progress in addressing wildlife crime driven by increasing international demand for illegally sourced wildlife products. The recently approved Environment Management Act (EMA) 2017,5 if implemented effectively, will be one of the most powerful legal instruments for environmental management introduced so far in Africa. This progressive legislation provides for the creation of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with broad and substantial powers to strengthen environmental planning and risk management at national and decentralized levels. Whether the promise of improved environmental risk management is realized will depend to a large extent on whether the new agency will be provided with sufficient resources to ensure that the new legal framework is implemented effectively. The CEA identifies the following 10 strategic recommendations to address the degradation of natural resources and the environment and to promote improved environmental management, investment, and expenditure practices: STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS Productive land, forest, and fisheries resources 1. Address land degradation: Reform incentives for farmer-level scale-up of SLM practices through strengthening land tenure security and adjusting input subsidies. 2. Overhaul fisheries management systems: Strengthen fisheries comanagement arrangements in tandem with stron- ger enforcement against illegal fishing technologies and overfishing. Environmental management 3. Implement the new legal and institutional framework for the environment: Provide sufficient public financing to sup- port effective implementation of the new EMA (2017) and the creation of a semiautonomous EPA. 4. Strengthen climate information services: Implement a national and integrated program for improved uptake of cli- mate information services. 5. Support implementation of the National Charcoal Strategy: Promote legalized charcoal value chains. 6. Address Household Air Pollution (HAP) through education and subsidies: Support and encourage markets and incentives for fuel switching for cooking to affordable clean fuels, including liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity. 7. Strengthen decentralized environmental management: Accelerate and support the decentralization of environmen- tal management functions. 8. Boost environmental awareness: Support GoM’s environmental communication and education strategies. 4 GoM. 2017(f). National Charcoal Strategy 2017–2027. 5 GoM. 2017(i). Environment Management Act, Act 19 of 2017. 2 Environmental investment and expenditure 9. Value natural capital in economic planning: Develop natural capital accounts and use these to mainstream the val- ues of key natural resources in national economic policy and planning. 10. Increase private sector investment to address environmental challenges: Use scarce public financing efficiently to leverage additional private sector investment to address natural resources management and environmental challenges. A complex web of interrelated factors Infographic 1 shows the causal relationships between the drivers (in orange), the environmental pressures (in blue), and impacts (in green) that work together to create an environmental cycle of decline. INFOGRAPHIC 1. Environmental drivers, pressures, and impacts Reduced fish Biodiversity Increased yields & loss, reduced Forest loss and degradation indoor air incomes tourism income pollution Degradation Reduced of wetlands & household fisheries energy security Unsustainable natural resource extraction Rising Climate Loss of soil fertility, land degradation, population change and watershed protection will increase exacerbates demand for other impacts environmental resources and food Reduced Loss of life, hydropower incomes, & generation resilience Increased need for water, sanitation, & solid waste Reduced Reduced management economic agricultural Expansion of agriculture into marginal areas, system: output and yields and forests, and wetlands health risk from national income incomes unsafe systems EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Infographic 2 shows how targeted interventions, reforms, and capacity building can support Malawi’s journey toward more effective environmental management and reduced environmental challenges. INFOGRAPHIC 2. A journey toward more effective environmental management Environmental Interventions challenges Environmental challenges Policies and Policies and Reforms institutions institutions Capacity Capacity Capacity building Background This Country Environmental Analysis (CEA) provides an up-to-date systematic, evidence-based analysis of the state of Malawi’s environment and natural resources. It is designed to inform the World Bank’s strategy of engagement in Malawi and the government’s own State of Environment reporting. It presents recent findings and trends on key envi- ronmental challenges and opportunities facing Malawi, the core of which lie at the nexus of high population growth, high dependence on resource-based incomes, and limited land. These and other drivers contribute to substantial challenges of natural resources and environmental degradation. It is possible to reverse this pattern of decline by bringing multiple economic, livelihood, and environmental benefits to the lives of the poor and to the economy as a whole. This document offers an agenda for change that can be used to guide policymakers. POVERTY AND INEQUALITY Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world, ranked 170 of 188 countries on the global United Nations Devel- opment Programme (UNDP) HDI.6 More than 70% of the population lives below the international poverty line of USD 1.90 per capita per day and GDP per capita is just USD 372 (2015). Both inequality and poverty rates are high.7 About 20.7% of the people are so poor that they cannot afford to eat a minimum daily recommended food intake, and at least 37% of children under five are chronically undernourished and stunted (low weight for age).8 Poverty is also unequally distributed. The intra-regional variation is more pronounced in the south, where some districts have poverty rates over 80% and others under 20%.9 6 UNDP. 2016. The Human Development Report 2016—Human Development for Everyone. 7 World Bank. 2017(a). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment. 8 Concern Worldwide US. 2016. Global Hunger Index—Getting to Zero Hunger. 9 World Bank. 2017(b). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment. 4 POPULATION GROWTH IS THE UNDERLYING DRIVER OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION Malawi’s population is growing quickly—having increased from just under 3 million in 1950 to over 18 million in 2017. At current rates, it is projected to more than double to over 40 million by 2050.10 This growth is creating an ever-larger demand for agricultural land and natural resources, which is driving the rapid degradation of Malawi’s land and natural resources. Unsustainable agriculture and land use practices and climate change create and exacerbate further environ- mental vulnerabilities. HOW SUSTAINABLE IS MALAWI’S DEVELOPMENT TRAJECTORY? While there are some indicators of growth, Malawi’s wealth story is mixed. Wealth per capita increased by 52% between 1995 and 2014, mostly driven by growth in the value of cropland. However, this growth is based on an unbalanced port- folio of assets and gains in natural capital and thus total wealth. In addition, land value statistics do not capture declining soil fertility. For Malawi to experience growth going into the future, it needs improved productivity, sustainable manage- ment of its natural capital, and more efficient conversion of natural capital into human and produced capital. Malawi’s wealth per capita, USD 8,409 in 2014, is much lower than the average for other low-income countries (USD 13,629) or for Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole (USD 25,562). Much of Malawi’s wealth is renewable natural capital (43%), mainly cropland with smaller shares contributed by pastureland, forests, and protected areas in 2014.11 Malawi’s development pathway is not following a conventional trajectory. Usually, the transition from a low- to m ­ iddle-income economy starts with an abundance of natural capital which is used to invest in infrastructure (produced capital) and education and health (human capital). At middle-income levels, produced capital roughly doubles its share and human capital grows rapidly to become the main asset. In Malawi, the opposite development occurred. Malawi is still highly dependent on its natural capital, which remained constant at 43% from 1995 to 2014, while human capital increased only slightly and produced capital shrank. Without complementary investments in produced capital (that is, transport, power, and water supply infrastructure) investments in human capital and improved natural capital manage- ment will struggle to contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction. In addition, the full impacts of climate change are not yet factored in. POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS Malawi policy and institutional frameworks relating to environmental management are diverse and elaborate. Environ- mental protection is enshrined in the Constitution and quoted as a long-term objective in Malawi’s Vision 2020 docu- ment. In addition, recent legislation has been enacted to further strengthen environmental management and protection. However, the ability to implement policy and legislation, both nationally and locally, is weak. Monitoring is often limited and ineffective, compliance is low, and the structures necessary for providing guidance and procedures are not in place. In addition, GoM’s program of decentralization is struggling to make progress. Land and agricultural policies play an important role in shaping natural resources management. The recent introduc- tion of new land policies, including those for customary land, reflects a recognition that the lack of tenure security on customary land generates limited incentives for smallholders and businesses to invest in SLM practices. Agricultural policies and accompanying state interventions have also worked against crop diversification and sustainable agricultural development in various ways—contributing to land degradation and reducing resilience. 10 United Nations. 2017. World Population Prospects 2017. 11 The wealth accounts do not include fisheries or water at this time. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 Expenditure analysis also shows that by 2012 the share of agricultural sector spending for extension support had declined to just 5%.12 This is significant because extension support is crucial for promoting the uptake of SLM practices. One reason for this apparent drop in spending might be that historically national spending in the agriculture sector was dominated by the Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP), which accounted for 75% of the budget for agriculture in FY2014/15.13 This ‘crowded-out’ expenditures for other forms of agricultural spending that could have helped farmers address land degradation. However, more recent reforms have partially addressed this issue. Weak institutional capacity for natural resources management is an issue, particularly at district and local levels. There appear to be two related reasons for this weak capacity. First, the slow pace of implementation of the government’s decentralization policies constrains the extent to which district councils and extension services can support farmers to adopt SLM practices or Village Natural Resources Management Committees to protect and restore forest resources. Second, severe underresourcing constrains the effective functioning of institutions at district and local levels, limiting their ability to implement policy. The last available public expenditure reviews to 201214 indicated that Malawi allocated less than 1% of annual GDP on environment-related expenditures and that less than 1% of this is decentralized to the district level.15 The effectiveness of Malawi’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework is also constrained by weak capac- ity. There have even been a number of examples where projects have been authorized before an EIA was conducted. In addition, there are concerns that political considerations have undermined the integrity of the EIA system. These are some of the factors that led to the development of the EMA in 2017 and the ongoing review of Malawi’s EIA guidelines and regulation of practitioners. However, an ambitious new EMA (2017)16 was approved recently by Parliament, and this represents an important new development. It is not yet clear when this act will come into force, but when it does, and if implemented effectively, it will be one of the most powerful legal instruments for environmental management introduced so far in Africa. The Act will enable the proposed Malawi Environmental Protection Agency (MEPA) to oversee the activities of all branches of govern- ment that have some environmental responsibilities. It will even provide this agency with a mandate to “enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment.” CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is likely to increase other environmental stressors and make the job of reducing poverty and boosting inclusive growth more difficult. Future climate change scenarios discussed in the Climate change and resilience section suggest that Malawi will see increasing climatic variability, higher temperatures, longer dry periods, and more erratic and intense rainfall events.17 More intense flood events will cause greater soil erosion and land degradation. Hotter and drier periods will contribute to forest fire risks. Droughts will continue to negatively affect food production. About 90% of Malawi’s food production comes from one rainfed crop per year so drought can quickly increase the risk of food insecurity and poverty. Increased poverty then results in greater demands for more land and natural resources and puts extra pressure on the economy in general. Climate shocks affect all economic sectors and geographical areas. For example, losses for agricultural GDP due to tively.18 The agricultural droughts are estimated to range from 1.1% to 21.5% for return periods of 5 and 25 years, respec­ 12 The last year for which agriculture sector expenditure analysis is available is 2012. In 2005, the share of agricultural sector on extensions services was 25%. 13 Record, Kumar, and Kandoole. 2018. From Falling Behind to Catching Up: A Country Economic Memorandum for Malawi. 14 This was the last date for which data is available. 15 In Mozambique, the comparable figure is 1.4%. 16 GoM. 2017(i). Environment Management Act, Act 19 of 2017. 17 GoM. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Malawi, Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR). 18 Pauw et al. 2011. The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events: A Hydro-Meteorological CGE Analysis for Malawi. 6 sector is the most at risk from direct climate change stressors19 because it is highly sensitive to changes in temperature and precipitation. The increased frequency of extreme weather events compounds these impacts. Between 2015 and 2017, floods in southern districts were followed by countrywide drought conditions, with the resulting loss and damage estimated at USD 335 million, equivalent to approximately 5% of GDP.20 Infrastructure is also affected substantially. For the roads sector, median climate scenarios for temperature and precipitation changes through to 2050 suggest that, without adap- tation measures, Malawi is facing a potential total annual average cost of USD 165 million21 for maintenance and repair. Greenhouse gas emissions By global standards, Malawi has very low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of around 1.4 tons CO2 equivalents (CO2e) per capita in 2015. Malawi’s main GHG contributing sectors are agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU); energy; and industrial processes. Between 2015 and 2040, Malawi’s total annual GHG emissions are expected to rise by around 38%. This means an increase from the current level of approximately 29,000 kt CO2e to around 42,000 kt CO2e. GoM’s goal is to save between 14,000 and 16,000 kt of CO2e per year by 2030 if a robust low emission development path can be followed.22 Key environmental themes LAND DEGRADATION The evidence presented in this report confirms that land degradation in Malawi is widespread and severe. The average annual national soil loss rates in 2014 were estimated at 29 tons per hectare,23 and soil erosion and nutrient depletion are reported to affect more than 60% of Malawi’s land area.24 The key drivers of degradation are unsustainable farming prac- tices, coupled with the increasing demand for agricultural land and wood fuels associated with a growing population.25 Chemical land degradation, including soil pollution and salinization/alkalization, has led to 15% loss in the arable land in Malawi in the last decade alone. The annual costs of land degradation between 2001 and 2009 have been estimated at USD 244 million per year26—an amount equivalent to 6.8% of Malawi’s country’s GDP. The same study also estimated that each dollar spent addressing land degradation would return about USD 4.3 over a 30-year period. The government’s 2017 Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment estimated that restoring 2.4 million ha of degraded cropland would increase maize production by 1.55 million metric tons (mt) per year, an increase of 40%. These are broad and possibly high estimates as achieving scale-up in the adoption of SLM in practice can be chal- lenging, to say the least. Experience elsewhere in Southern and East Africa indicates that poorer farm households (the majority of Malawi's rural households) often do not have the resources to gain the full benefits of investments, and there are high de-adoption rates for techniques such as conservation agriculture and agroforestry. This is usually because labor requirements are high and/or subsidies have ended. In Malawi, high levels of interventions in the markets for key agricultural crops may also play a role. 19 GoM. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Malawi, Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR). 20 GoM. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report. 21 Chinowsky et al. 2015. Infrastructure and Climate Change: A Study of Impacts and Adaptations in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia. 22 GoM. 2015(b). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. 23 Vargus and Omuto. 2016. Soil Loss Assessment in Malawi. 24 Davies et al. 2010. Perceptions of Land-degradation, Forest Restoration and Fire Management: A Case Study from Malawi. 25 UNIQUE. 2018b. Land and Natural Resources Degradation in the Upper and Middle Shire Valley, Malawi. 26 Nkonya et al. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 FORESTS AND WOODLANDS Forest and woodlands provide a substantial contribution to Malawi's economy. They account for 5% of the country’s total wealth and 12% of natural capital. However, these values will decline steadily as forest resources continue to be depleted. It is estimated that harvests exceed sustainable yield from forests by about 71%. The national income accounts suggest that the forest sector contributed only 1% of value added in 2010. Yet, if noncommercial uses are included, nota- bly firewood and charcoal (which 98% of the population depends on for household energy), the figure rises to 7.9%.27 Over half of the natural forests of Malawi were lost between 1972 and 1992—a rate of 2.5% per year for this period. Since 1992, this rapid rate of decline did slow to an annual rate of 0.85%, and between 2000 and 2010 the annual rate of loss was only 0.08%.28 Empirical data are not yet available on forest degradation, but observational evidence and infor- mation reported in Malawi’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submission29 suggest that forest degradation, caused largely by overharvesting of remaining forests for firewood and charcoal, now accounts for a much larger share of forest-sourced emissions than those from forest clearance and conversion. Forests provide important environmental and economic benefits, and their depletion results in a range of adverse environmental and economic impacts. Loss of forests contributes to Malawi’s emissions of GHGs and black carbon. Forests and trees make substantial contributions to livelihoods, jobs, and the economy, through the supply of biomass fuels, sources of soil fertility, prevention of land degradation, and protection of watersheds. Forests provide habitats for biodiversity and wildlife. Ecosystem services are not easily quantified and therefore tend to be overlooked in economic planning. Plantation forests, which have decreased in area since 1990, contribute royalties, concession fees, and license fees to the government. Finally, a decrease in natural forests could lead to higher prices of wood fuel and charcoal as supplies diminish. BIOMASS ENERGY Biomass energy (firewood, charcoal, and crop residues) dominates Malawi’s energy sector and is used by 98% of the population, primarily for cooking.30 Households use 92% of Malawi’s biomass energy, while just a few industries— including tobacco processing and brick burning—use the remaining 8%.31 Rural households rely almost exclusively on firewood, which is mostly self-collected. Inaccessible, unreliable, and unaffordable electricity supplies are the main reason for this high dependency on bio- mass fuels. There is also a strong cultural preference for cooking with charcoal for certain foods.32 As a result, up to 90% of households with access to electricity continue to use charcoal. The only other source of fuel suitable for cooking is LPG. However, market penetration is extremely low because it is relatively expensive compared to biomass energy. Malawi has one of the lowest rates of consumption of LPG in the world—ranked 163 out of 173 countries.33 There have been some advances in the uptake of ‘improved’ cookstoves, though the overall impact on biomass fuel consumption remains unclear. Charcoal is a fully commercialized commodity produced almost exclusively for urban markets. There are highly orga- nized charcoal value chains, and yet around 80% of charcoal producers are rural based and operate on a small scale.34, 35 Between 2008 and 2016, urban household demand for charcoal increased by 35%. Household demand was worth more than USD 66 million in 2016 and provided employment opportunities for over 235,000 people. The production and 27 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of forest valuation systems in Malawi. 28 FAO. 2013. Atlas of Malawi Land Cover and Land Cover Change. 1990–2010. 29 It is understood that NDC data are based on assumptions made on the basis of analysis in other countries of the region. 30 GoM. 2017(b). Integrated Household Survey 2016–17. 31 GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 32 Holmes. 2015. Understanding Urban Fuel Choice. The Case of Zomba, Malawi. 33 The Global Economy. 2012. LPG Consumption—Country Rankings. 34 Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 35 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of Forest Valuation Systems in Malawi. 8 transport of charcoal also provides rural households with additional and flexible livelihood options. It can help them earn more than the national minimum wage and can reduce their vulnerability to poverty, financial insecurity, and food inse- curity.36 However, corruption within the value chain is rife, and an estimated USD 38 million37 is lost to bribes each year. Historically, Malawi has implemented a punitive approach to wood fuel governance with politicians and law enforce- ment agencies actively discouraging the practice. Until recently, this negative perception of wood fuels made it impos- sible to enact policies that supported formalization and modernization of the sector. However, the 2017 National Charcoal Strategy38 has introduced a considerably more coordinated and holistic approach and one that acknowledges the impor- tance of cross-sectoral engagement to achieve national energy security. HOUSEHOLD AIR POLLUTION With almost the entire population (98%) using biomass fuels for energy, the level of HAP is extremely high. HAP is the world’s number one environmental cause of death and affects two-thirds of the world’s population.39 Among the different sources of air pollution in Malawi, HAP poses the greatest threat to Malawians.40 The levels of fine particulate matter in households are far above guidelines for outdoor air toxicity levels.41 Medical research has identified a strong correlation between HAP and the occurrence of pneumonia among children across the developing world. In Malawi, pneumonia is the single biggest killer of children under five,42 and the risk of contracting pneumonia in children is increased by a factor of 1.8 because of exposure to HAP. The health burden of HAP for Malawians is significant, particularly for women and children. Lower respiratory infec- tions are the second-highest cause of death and premature death in Malawi (after HIV/AIDS). Air pollution is considered the second-highest risk factor that drives death and disability (after poor water and sanitation) and is ranked the fourth- highest risk factor overall (after malnutrition, unsafe sex, and poor water and sanitation). BIODIVERSITY AND FISHERIES Wildlife is an important draw for tourism, providing a valuable source of livelihoods for a significant number of people— yet, terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in Malawi is in decline. This decline is due to the same combination of underlying factors that have driven forest loss and degradation—a combination of increasing human pressure and poor governance of natural resources. For some particular species of wildlife (for example, African elephant Loxodonta Africana, listed as globally ‘vulnerable’) and tree species (for example, Mulanje cedar Widdringtonia whyei, listed as ‘critically’ endangered), illegal trade is also driving population declines. In addition, populations of conservation important species are increas- ingly confined to protected areas. Over 50% of Malawi’s elephant population, a terrestrial keystone species, has been lost in the last 25 years. According to the National Elephant Action Plan for Malawi (NEAPW),43 elephant populations have only been increasing in Liwonde National Park and Majete Wildlife Reserve. The remaining elephant populations have gradually declined in numbers and in range due to habitat loss. 36 Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 37 This figure is derived from the author’s projections based on data from Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 38 GoM. 2017(f). National Charcoal Strategy 2017–2027. 39 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels prematurely kills 4 million people worldwide every year. 40 WHO. 2018. World Health Statistics Data Visualizations Dashboard. 41 Jary et al. 2017. Household Air Pollution, Chronic Respiratory Disease and Pneumonia in Malawian Adults: A Case-control Study. 42 WHO. 2013. Progress on Tackling Pneumonia and Diarrhoea in Malawi. 43 GoM. 2017(g). Malawi’s National Ivory Action Plan 2015–2025. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 It is also now generally accepted that the fish stocks in Lake Malawi are declining. Decreasing catch rates (catch per unit effort) suggest this is the case, and in particular there is a decline of the endemic Oreochromis (Nyasalapia), or Chambo, of which there are three species. Chambo is listed as an endangered species according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. The total Chambo catch (for Lake Malawi, Upper Shire River, and Lake Malombe combined) has declined by over 70% over the last 10 years. A failure to properly regulate fisheries offtake lies at the heart of the decline of Lake Malawi’s fish stocks. Lake Malawi supports internationally significant aquatic biodiversity. It is the ninth-largest lake in the world and the third-largest in Africa. The lake is over 2 million years old and a center of endemism for the Cichlid fish with at least 800 species, of which 117 are classified as threatened by the IUCN. The lake contains the largest number of fish species in the world, 30% of all known cichlid species,44 and 4% of the world’s fish species. However, in recent years, GoM has introduced new approaches that have made a substantial impact on conservation outcomes. For example, it has partnered with the African Parks Network (APN) through concessions to manage several of the protected areas in Malawi, and these arrangements have dramatically improved park management, resulting in growing wildlife populations and increasing wildlife-based tourism revenues. Malawi has also adopted a much stronger stance on combating wildlife crime and strengthening law enforcement. Malawi now has some of the toughest penalties in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and has committed to enforcing a moratorium on domestic ivory sales, tougher penalties for wildlife crimes, and putting ivory stockpiles out of economic use.45 There have also been notable policy reforms and some high-profile wildlife crime court cases. These have resulted in higher numbers of arrests of wildlife traffickers and traders and increased rates of convic- tion.46 In January 2015, Malawi joined the Elephant Protection Initiative and agreed to implement a NEAPW. WATER RESOURCES Malawi’s water availability is rapidly decreasing and has the lowest water availability per capita of its neighboring countries.47 The rate of population growth, and thus water demand, far outpaces water availability. As a result, soon the country is likely to experience water stress (that is, when demand for water exceeds the available and accessible amounts of sufficient quality water). This situation could be made worse by climate change and insufficient water infra- structures and management systems such as dams, wells, and municipal extension services. Deforestation and land degradation also put pressure on water resources. These are causing high rates of erosion and sedimentation, which, in turn, leads to high sediment loads and negative impacts on aquatic life. Biological and chemical pollution from urban areas and industrial waste are additional concerns. So is runoff from the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides (particularly during wet seasons). The compounded economic impact of degraded water resources in Malawi is hard to estimate, but poor sanitation alone is estimated to cost the country USD 57 million per year (or 1.1% of GDP). For example, a cost-benefit analysis of increased investments in water supply and sanitation infrastructures estimates 1.4 times return for water supply and 1.2 times return for sanitation.48 Flooding in recent years has cost the country the equivalent of 5% of GDP—a financial burden exacerbated by the absence of water regulating infrastructures and encroachment in high-risk flood zones. 44 UNESCO. 2018. Lake Malawi National Park. 45 In response to Malawi’s listing as a country of ‘primary concern’ in terms of elephant ivory trafficking. 46 By contrast, between 2010 and 2014, approximately 60 trafficking convictions were made with an average fine of just USD 40 and no prison sentences. 47 GRID-Arendal. 2013. Zambezi River Basin—Atlas of the Changing Environment. 48 WSP. 2012. Malawi—Economic Impacts of Poor Sanitation in Africa. 10 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT The management of solid and liquid waste in Malawi is limited and inadequate. Only 10–15% of urban waste­ water is col- lected through sewerage, and an estimated 70% of municipal solid waste (MSW) is not officially disposed of. The country has only two municipal landfills, no publicly managed trash incinerators, and few waste transfer stations. The major cities of Blantyre, Lilongwe, and Zomba and a few districts and municipalities have wastewater treatment plants, but their con- ditions are generally not known, although most are old, are poorly maintained, and do not have the capacity to deal with current levels of wastewater. Most district and municipal councils have no sewerage networks, and often sludge ponds or old quarry sites are used to dispose of sludge pumped from septic tanks.49 The rise in the number of people moving into urban environments adds a further challenge. Malawi is urbanizing at a slower rate than comparator counties.50 However, while the growth rate of Malawi’s urban centers remains slow, Malawi’s population is still expected to double by 204051 so urban populations will rise accordingly. This means there is still a window of opportunity to invest in sustainable urban planning and development, including investments in solid waste management and sewerage. There has been no detailed analysis of the costs of Malawi’s current solid waste management status. The major environmental cost of poor waste management is the pollution of surface and groundwater and corresponding health hazards. Often household refuse is mixed with medical and industrial waste, unregulated dumping in unsuitable locations creates dust and litter, and untreated sewage pollutes waterways and groundwater. Malawi has the necessary legislation to make waste management work, but there is a chronic lack of finance to man- age waste effectively. The new EMA (2017) provides clear guidance and authority for waste management. The National Water Policy aims to ensure water of acceptable quality for all needs in Malawi. The Integrated and Sustainable Waste Management Framework calls for multi-stakeholder engagement. In addition, formalized national effluent standards exist. However, there is a limited capacity to enforce regulations, and implementation remains inadequate. 49 Chipofya et al. 2018. Comparison of Pollutant Levels in Effluent from Wastewater Treatment Plants in Blantyre, Malawi. 50 World Bank. 2017(a). Malawi Economic Monitor: Harnessing the Urban Economy. 51 United Nations. 2017. World Population Prospects 2017. An agenda for change The CEA identifies priority actions for different environmental sectors to address environmental challenges. These include policy and institutional reform measures as well as specific actions at sector levels. Ten strategic recommenda- tions for transformational impact are presented below. These are by no means comprehensive, but a longer list, orga- nized by sector and theme, is included in Annex 1. PRODUCTIVE LAND, FOREST, AND FISHERIES RESOURCES Recommendation 1: Address land degradation Reform incentives for farmer-level scale-up of SLM practices by strengthening land tenure security and reforming input subsidies. The priority is to reform incentives for farmer-level scale-up of SLM practices by implementing land tenure reforms at scale in tandem with reforms to subsidy regimes. If land tenure reforms are implemented effectively, and at EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 scale, this will increase tenure security and incentives for landholders to invest in SLM measures. Improved land tenure security will reduce land degradation and increase productivity. Unfortunately, poorly targeted input subsidies currently work in the opposite direction and contribute to land degradation, directly (for example, by constraining crop diversifica- tion) and indirectly (for example, by crowding out fiscal space for investments in extension services). Therefore, reforms to subsidy regimes are also needed that better target limited public resources and create incentives for better land stewardship. Recommendation 2: Overhaul fisheries management systems Strengthen fisheries co-management arrangements in tandem with stronger enforcement against illegal fishing technologies and overfishing. Effective fisheries governance is prioritized in the revised Fisheries Policy, along with the recognition that improved institutional arrangements must be based on co-management with fishing communities. Successfully implemented, co-management interventions will empower primary stakeholders (mostly local fisherfolk) to manage the fishery on which their livelihood depends. These arrangements will enable the development of participa- tory Fisheries Management Plans, including regulations and penalties, and enforcement of these regulations to control access. Recommendation 3: Support implementation of the National Charcoal Strategy Support this ambitious and progressive reform (including its proposals to promote fuel switching to cleaner and alter- native fuels such as LPG) to develop legal and sustainable charcoal value chains. There are opportunities to promote greater efficiency in consumption and a switch to alternative clean fuels. There are high-quality, modern cooking appli- ances that can be encouraged, and commercial and social enterprises could be encouraged to invest in Malawi’s clean cooking sector. Simplify or remove regulations to allow the wood fuel industry to transform from the informal to the formal economy. This ambitious and progressive reform should be supported, including its proposals to promote fuel switching to cleaner and alternative fuels (such as LPG) and to develop legal and sustainable charcoal value chains. For the latter, this would involve simplifying or removing regulations, reducing barriers to securing licenses for charcoal production and trade, and promoting sustainable practices through incentives. Examples of this include providing planting and tree stewardship grants and supporting co-management efforts. A functioning and legal charcoal industry could deliver significant fiscal returns to the state through the formal taxation system, which are not currently being captured, and encourage invest- ment in modernization and efficiency improvement. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Recommendation 4: Implement the new legal and institutional framework for the environment Provide sufficient public financing to support implementation of the new EMA (2017) and the creation of a semiautono- mous EPA. These linked reforms provide an important window of opportunity for strengthening environmental manage- ment in Malawi. The aim of the new EMA is to align Malawi’s management of environmental and natural resources with modern global standards. It also allows for the creation of a semiautonomous EPA with broad and substantial powers. Successful implementation of the new legal framework will depend in large part on whether the new agency is provided with sufficient resources to operate efficiently. Recommendation 5: Strengthen decentralized environmental management Accelerate and support the decentralization of environmental management functions. GoM is committed to decentral- ization but progress has been slow. The EMA (2017), along with the forthcoming establishment of the EPA, provides for a more localized distribution of funding and decision-making and an opportunity to speed up the decentralization process and improve coordination between officers and institutions at district levels and below. Decentralization will need to be 12 supported by strengthening capacity of local-level institutions, taking into account the fiscal/financial, political economy, and capacity constraints this may face. Recommendation 6: Address HAP through education and subsidies HAP can be tackled by raising public awareness through education and subsidies. Chronic and acute respiratory diseases resulting from HAP are preventable. Addressing these requires supporting and encouraging markets and incentives for fuel switching for cooking to affordable clean fuels, including LPG and electricity (links to strategic recom- mendation 3). In the short term, immediate interventions should include education and public awareness-­ raising strate- gies that make the severe health risks apparent. A continued emphasis is needed for urban and rural electrification, and for fuel switching to cleaner fuels such as LPG. However, affordability issues hamper uptake of both these technologies for many households. Subsidies for more efficient stoves and improved ventilation should be prioritized and supported at a greater scale making sure analysis is done to cost this carefully, as there may be little budgetary space for Malawi to fund such subsidies. ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING AND EXPENDITURE Recommendation 7: Value natural capital in economic planning Develop natural capital accounts to mainstream the values of key natural resources in national economic policy and planning. Natural capital accounting is the process of measuring natural capital, recognizing its value, and incorporating that information directly into national economic accounts and statistics. For Malawi, this would require sufficient capacity in the National Statistical Office to produce these accounts. A good starting point would be the preparation of accounts that could best inform policy on priority environmental ­challenges—for example, land, forest, and water accounts. The accounts could then be used to generate analysis by the Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development (MoFEPD) on key policy issues and questions—for example, to quantify the real contribution of natural assets and the ecosystem services they provide to the national economy; to quantify and track economic losses associated with land degradation, or to quantify the impact of the informal economy (for example, wood fuels extraction or fish harvesting) on the underlying resource base (for example, forests or fish stocks). Recommendation 8: Increase private sector investment to address environmental challenges Use scarce public financing efficiently to leverage additional private sector investment to address natural resources management and environmental challenges. Current levels of public investment in the forest sector for the foresee- able future will be inadequate to support effective management of Malawi’s remaining forests and other natural capital. However, economic analysis shows that investments in sustainable forest management yield large public benefits to other economic sectors, particularly for hydroelectricity generation. Such investments would also help sustain Malawi’s principal source of domestic energy in the face of growing deficits between supply and demand. For this reason, find- ing ways to increase forest sector financing will be needed if the National Forest Policy (2016) and the National Forest Landscape Restoration (NFLR) Strategy (2016) are to move from paper policies into implementation. Three examples of leveraging mechanisms are suggested: 1. Developing institutional and licensing frameworks for ‘legalized’ sustainable charcoal value chains52 2. Developing payments for ecosystem services (PES) mechanisms 3. Developing public-private partnership (PPP) for plantation forestry 52 Recent policy reforms have now made this possible. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 Opportunities also exist for increased private sector investments in managing protected areas, marketing agricul- tural commodities, and recycling plastics and other solid waste. Small farmers and other rural producers are key pri- vate sector actors. Support for, and investment in, their productive activities could increase their economic contribution considerably. KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND AWARENESS Recommendation 9: Strengthen climate information services Enhance climate resilience by implementing a national and integrated program for improved uptake of climate infor- mation services. There is global consensus that climate services play a critical role in decision-making and planning for resilience and that more robust and timely data are required to support effective decision-making.53 Several studies con- firm that the returns on investing in climate services are high, on average 1:3, and for warning services the cost-benefit ratio is much higher.54 In Malawi, improving the uptake of climate information is essential considering the country’s exposure to climate change and extreme events. Climate information is vital for short-term decision-making (for example, responding to extreme events) as well as longer term planning across sectors—especially in agriculture, disaster risk reduction, land and water use, and energy. Improved climate services could be achieved through the concerted integration of ongoing investments in climate services, alongside financing the emerging gaps across meteorology and hydrology information management. This would cost an estimated USD 17 million55 although increased investments will also lead to increased maintenance and upkeep costs, so this figure would increase. Strengthening Malawi’s climate services should focus on three key priorities: 1. Improving institutional cooperation (both between the core climate service agencies and between these agencies and the private and public sectors) 2. Operationalizing information and communication technology (ICT) tools and collaborative platforms for data process- ing to produce sector/user-relevant information 3. Mobilizing additional funding to expand the infrastructures for collecting and processing weather and water data. Recommendation 10: Boost environmental awareness Support GoM’s environmental communication and education strategies. Policies and institutional changes will not, on their own, bring about the major changes required to address key challenges. Wider behavior change is required that shifts citizens’ understanding of environmental challenges and raises awareness of both the positive and negative roles they can play. Effective communication strategies and activities should be an integral part of all environmental interventions. Incorporate the Internet and social media into traditional communication channels to accommodate their ever-­ increasing global communication role. The use of the Internet and social media is increasingly common, and communi- cation strategies and activities should accommodate this. 53 IPCC Special Report. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 54 World Meteorological Organization. 2015. Valuing Weather and Climate: Economic Assessment of Hydrological and Meteorological Services; World Bank. 2018 (b). Assessment of the State of Hydrological Services in Developing Countries. 55 Government of Malawi. 2017c. Strategic Program for Climate Resilience. 14 Malawi is highly dependent on renewable natural capital that includes forests, fisheries, agricultural land, biodiversity and water. The State of the Environment A complex web of interrelated factors The drivers and pressures contributing to the current and future state of Malawi’s environment are complex and inter- related. They cannot be viewed or tackled as single issues. Infographic 1 provides a visual representation of how these relationships work. It shows two distinct drivers (in orange) that exacerbate environmental pressures (in blue) that Malawi is experiencing. The impacts (in green) are a result of these drivers and pressures. In addition, some of these impacts make the environmental pressures worse, and hence the cycle of decline intensifies. Breaking this cycle is possible only if Malawi has the institutional capacity to implement these policies. At present, GoM has policies in place and in the pipeline to tackle the environmental challenges it faces. Yet, institutional capacity and policies are often weak, and these constrain the effectiveness of Malawi’s response to these challenges. Infographic 2 conceptualizes a transformation that could be achieved through targeted interventions that strengthen institutional capacities, adjust policies, and hence subsequently reduce environmental challenges. INFOGRAPHIC 1. Environmental drivers, pressures, and impacts Reduced fish Biodiversity Increased yields & loss, reduced Forest loss and degradation indoor air incomes tourism income pollution Degradation Reduced of wetlands & household fisheries energy security Unsustainable natural resource extraction Rising Climate Loss of soil fertility, land degradation, population change and watershed protection will increase exacerbates demand for other impacts environmental resources and food Reduced Loss of life, hydropower incomes, & generation resilience Increased need for water, sanitation, & solid waste Reduced Reduced management economic agricultural Expansion of agriculture into marginal areas, system: output and yields and forests, and wetlands health risk from national income incomes unsafe systems THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 17 INFOGRAPHIC 2. A journey toward more effective environmental management Environmental Interventions challenges Environmental challenges Policies and Policies and Reforms institutions institutions Capacity Capacity Capacity building Malawi’s overall environmental situation Malawi is ranked 128 out of 180 countries by the 2018 Environmental Performance Index (EPI).56 The EPI scores coun- tries on 24 performance indicators across 10 categories that cover ‘environmental health’ and ‘ecosystem vitality’.57 Malawi’s EPI scorecard is shown in Figure 1. Malawi ranks particularly poorly on ‘environmental health’ indicators58—at 151 out of 180 countries. For household air quality, Malawi ranks 140 out of 180 and for water and sanitation, Malawi has a total score of just 8.28 out of 100. Malawi fares better for ‘ecosystem vitality’ indicators, with an overall ranking of 73 out of 180, but this is largely due to a high score on ‘biodiversity and habitat’—a reflection of the legal framework for protecting species and habitats, rather than FIGURE 1. Malawi’s EPI scorecard Issue categories Rank Environmental health 151 39.93 Air quality 140 54.79 Water & sanitation 167 8.28 Heavy metals 135 36.52 Ecosystem vitality 73 55.39 Biodiversity & habitat 26 91.89 Forests Fisheries 127 5.52 Climate & energy 29 64.88 Air pollution 79 51.51 Water resources 143 0 Agriculture 62 34.26 0 25 50 75 100 Environmental performance index score Source: EPI. 2018. Environmental Performance Index. 56 EPI. 2018. Environmental Performance Index. 57 ‘Environmental health’ aggregates air quality, water and sanitation, and heavy metals while ‘ecosystem vitality’ aggregates water resources, agriculture, forests, water resources, biodiversity, climate, and energy. 58 EPI. 2018. Environmental Performance Index. 18 what happens in practice with habitat and species conservation and management. The scores for forests and water resources are particularly poor, and this provides a strong rationale for the further analysis included in this review. While the EPI ratings provide a useful reference point and suggest that Malawi needs to improve on many important environmental indicators, care is needed when interpreting these ‘broad-brush’ indicators. The scores and ratings pro- vide insufficient depth to understand the drivers of environmental change in Malawi and how these play out at national and subnational levels. This CEA fills this gap by focusing on specific themes considered most important to Malawi’s sustainable growth. The selection of these themes was guided by global indicator sets, such as the EPI, as well as through discussions with experts and various consultations—including in-country discussions held during the stocktaking exercise that preceded the drafting of the CEA. The report includes an analysis of natural capital and wealth, institutional and policy frameworks, and constraints to policy implementation. Together, these provide the broader macro-level picture of natural capital and the policies and institutions that shape the management of these resources. Climate change magnifies vulnerabilities in all sectors. The analysis presented here includes the specific impact of changes in climate and weather patterns on each key environmental resource. The interrelated themes of land degrada- tion and the loss of forest and tree cover emerge repeatedly as priority themes throughout the analysis—driven by the ever-growing demand for agricultural land and (to a lesser extent) biomass fuels. This pattern of drivers, pressures, and consequences creates a complex web of interrelated factors (see Infographic 1) that eventually affects livelihoods, resil- ience, and vulnerability. Reversing this cycle of decline, for example, by increasing the productivity of land and forests managed and productive biomass fuels subsector, could bring multiple economic, liveli- and by transitioning to a well-­ hood, and environmental benefits. Fisheries59 is an important economic sector that plays a key role in nutrition and livelihoods in Malawi. Malawi supports the highest freshwater fisheries biodiversity worldwide and fish stocks and fishery biodiversity are at risk from overhar- vesting and poor fisheries management (exacerbated by substantial capacity challenges). Biodiversity and habitats are looked at in some depth because of the role that habitat conservation can play in main- taining ecosystem services. Well-maintained ecosystem services provide numerous benefits, including the provision of water, prevention of floods, and support for Malawi’s tourism sector. Sound management of protected areas provides a cost-effective means of protecting ecosystems services and, for global public goods, sequestering carbon, and protect- ing globally important biodiversity.60 Water resources underpin all economic sectors and the sustainable, and sound management of water resources is vital for energy generation, food production, and building resilience to climate change. The effectiveness of water management also has a strong impact on human health. Solid and liquid waste management is often overlooked as an environmental challenge in Malawi. It is an issue of growing concern and one that will become more significant with increasing urbanization. Household air pollution (HAP) is also reviewed. It is an important significant public health chal- lenge, and yet Malawi scores near the bottom of the global rankings for HAP. The following sections in this report provide a detailed analysis of the drivers, the resulting pressures these have on the environment, and the subsequent social and economic consequences. It concludes with a set of recommendations based on the analysis for addressing Malawi’s key environment challenges. 59 Fisheries is not included in the EPI data sets. 60 IUCN. 2016. Protected Planet Report 2016: How Protected Areas Contribute to Achieving Global Targets for Biodiversity. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 19 Malawi’s population is young and growing rapidly. Cross-cutting issues 1. POPULATION, POVERTY, AND LIVELIHOODS Over the past 20 years, Malawi has faced rapid population growth and steadily increasing population density. The population is growing quickly having increased from just under 3 million in 1950 to over 18 million in 2017. It is anticipated that by 2050 the population will be over 40 million.61 Figure 2 shows how Malawi’s population has grown since 1950 and the direction it is predicted to take. Population density has also grown. Apart from Rwanda and Burundi, Malawi has the highest population density in the region, currently over 180 people per square kilometer. The population is also very young with a median age of 16.5.62 FIGURE 2. Malawi total population by variant 110 100 90 80 Medium variant Total population (millions) High variant 70 Low variant 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1950 2000 2050 2100 Source: United Nations. 2017. World Population Prospects 2017. 61 United Nations. 2017. World Population Prospects 2017. 62 World Population Review. 2018. Malawi Population 2018. 20 BOX 1. Gender, poverty, and livelihoods ●● The majority of women in Malawi are informally employed in the natural resource sector, and their livelihood and food security are more likely to be adversely affected by deforestation, land degradation, and resource depletion. ●● 90% of women above the age of 15 state they are reliant on natural resources for domestic activities (for exam- ple, collecting firewood, fetching water, and wild fruits for home consumption) in comparison to 24% of men. ●● 24% of households in Malawi are headed by women. When resources are scarce, these households are disproportionately affected and more likely to fall into the poverty trap. ●● It is reported that plots managed by women produce 25% less per hectare on average than male-headed households.63 ●● It is estimated that gender inequality in the agriculture sector alone is costing the country USD 100 million and 7.3% in crop production annually. Closing this gap has the potential to alleviate poverty for as many as 238,000 people.64 Malawi is urbanizing at a slower rate than comparator countries. The majority of the population are still rural-based, and it is anticipated that only 20% of Malawi’s population will live in an urban environment by 2040.65 Today, 83% of Malawi’s poor still live in rural parts of the country and these numbers are rising.66 Some regions face greater poverty issues than others and nearly half of Malawi’s poor population live in the southern part of the country. Growing population pressure is increasing environmental pressures and stress on the country’s natural resource base. Forests, wetlands, and hillsides are converted into agricultural land, and because this land is often unsuitable for crop- ping, greater soil erosion occurs and water courses are silted up. Wildlife habitats and forests are lost or become more vulnerable to extreme events. Farm plots are split across generations and become unsustainable, causing increased poverty and reduced livelihoods. Poverty and livelihoods67 In Malawi, over 20% of the population is ‘ultra-poor’ and over 50% of the population is moderately poor. The country as a whole is extremely poor. The impacts of poverty are exacerbated by limited access to education, employment, and markets, as well as high prevalence of diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS (9.2% infection rate).68 Natural resources are the main source of livelihood for most of the population. The majority of rural families depend directly and heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods, in particular woodlands and forests, for providing wood fuel (supplying nearly 90% of national domestic energy needs), enhancing soil fertility, generating cash income (for example, from charcoal), and supplying protein (for example, from fisheries). Most Malawian households, including most of the poorest ones, are involved in agriculture. Diversifying income sources is an important livelihood strategy that spreads risk and increases income-earning opportunities. But in Malawi, 63 USAID. 2015(b). Protecting Ecosystems and Restoring Forests in Malawi (PERFORM). 64 World Bank. 2015. The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda. 65 World Bank. 2017(a). Malawi Economic Monitor: Harnessing the Urban Economy. 66 World Bank. 2017(b). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment. 67 This section draws on World Bank. 2017(b). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment 68 AVERT. 2018. HIV and AIDS in Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 21 TABLE 1. Proportion of households obtaining income from the various sources, 2004, 2010, and 2013 (%) Malawi Urban Areas Rural Areas 2004 2010 2013 2004 2010 2013 2004 2010 2013 Agricultural Crop 77.2 85.9 83.8 35.7 43.1 52.2 83.4 93.2 89.3 Livestock 58.4 18.1 20.6 12.7 6.5 7.9 65.2 20.02 22.8 Agricultural wage 50.8 44.6 47.0 26.8 30.1 39.4 54.4 47.04 48.3 Nonagricultural Nonfarm wage 21.1 21.4 19.3 53.8 58 48.6 16.2 15.2 14.2 Self-employment 30.6 22.2 30.8 35.9 38.2 49.7 29.8 19.5 27.5 Transfers 85.9 28.4 36.5 64.4 34.1 52.2 89.1 27.5 33.8 Other 9.5 6.2 7.6 24.7 19.6 22.2 7.3 3.9 5.0 Source: World Bank. 2017(a). Malawi Poverty Assessment team calculations based on IHS2 and IHS3. Note: IHS2 and IHS3 are household surveys conducted in 2004/05 and 2010/11, respectively, by the National Statistical Office, Malawi. income sources are anything but diverse and about 85% of the population depend on farming.69 Table 1 shows that in rural populations 89% of income came from cropping, over 20% from livestock, and 47% from agricultural wages. Despite the large numbers of people engaged in farming, agriculture contributes just 30% of gross domestic product (GDP). How- ever, growth in GDP has historically followed growth in agriculture (see Figure 3). Urban households’ income sources are more diverse, with most income coming from wage labor and self-employment. However, a significant proportion of urban households still receive some income from agriculture, and this increased between 2004 and 2013, perhaps reflecting limited income-earning opportunities in the wider economy. This empha- sizes how important natural capital assets are for both rural and urban households. The overall picture confirms the importance of agriculture to rural and urban household incomes. It is a major driver of the continued pressure on land and other natural resources across the country, and this pattern does not appear to be changing at present. The relatively slow pace of urbanization suggests that this pattern will continue over the next few years, and any environmental policy reforms and investments need to be set in this context. FIGURE 3. Malawi’s growth in GDP closely follows growth in agriculture 60 GDP growth (annual %) 40 Agriculture, value added (annual % growth) 20 0 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 –20 –40 Source: World Bank. 2016. Malawi Economic Monitor: Absorbing Shocks, Building Resilience. 69 Record et al. 2017. Policy and Institutional Actions for Moving beyond “Business as Usual” to Achieve Stable and Sustained Growth and Poverty Reduction. 22 2. WEALTH AND NATURAL CAPITAL70 While there are some indicators of growth, Malawi’s wealth story is mixed. Much of its wealth is dominated by renew- able natural capital (43%), mainly cropland, and produced capital is in decline. In addition, the extra pressures of land degradation, reduced forest land area, climate change, and other unpredictable and unforeseen impacts could further negatively affect Malawi’s wealth. The recent introduction of cheetah by African Parks at Liwonde National Park will make a welcome contribution to increasing natural capital. This section explains the methodology used in defining how we measure wealth and what this means in the context of Malawi. Why we measure wealth National income and well-being are underpinned by a country’s assets or wealth—measured comprehensively to include produced capital, natural capital, human capital, and net foreign assets. Viewed through the lens of wealth, development is a process of building and managing a broad portfolio of assets. Although a macroeconomic indicator such as GDP provides an important measure of economic progress, it measures only income and production and does not reflect changes in the underlying asset base. Used alone, GDP may provide misleading signals about the health of an economy over the long term. It does not reflect depreciation and depletion of assets, whether investment and accu- mulation of wealth are keeping pace with population growth, or whether the mix of assets is consistent with a country’s development goals. If we want to maintain GDP in the future, we need to maintain the assets that produce it. GDP measures current national income—wealth measures the prospects for generating that income into the future. These are complementary indica- tors, and both should be measured to provide a more complete picture of national economic health and sustainability. It is for this reason that we measure wealth—it is a better measure of sustainability. Figure 4 illustrates how these assets 70 Lange et al. 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. Figures and tables in the Wealth and Natural Capital section were calculated using data from this database. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 23 FIGURE 4. The assets and capitals that drive wealth and development Long-term prosperity and well-being National income/GDP Total wealth Net Produced Natural Human foreign capital capital capital assets Machinery Agriculture: Forests: Male/female and Total assets— Urban Energy/ timber, Protected equipment cropland, employed/ total land minerals non-timber areas structures pastureland services self-employed liabilities and capitals come together to form a measurement of total wealth that supports national income and the potential future prosperity and well-being of a country.71 Wealth accounts include the following asset categories, all measured in market prices and converted to 2014 U.S. dol- lars using market exchange rates: ●● Natural capital: • Nonrenewable resources: 14 types of minerals and fossil fuels • Renewable resources: cropland, pastureland, forest timber, forest services (an estimate of non-timber forest products), watershed services, recreation values), protected areas (value estimated as the opportunity cost of converting to agriculture). ●● Produced capital and urban land: infrastructure, machinery, buildings, equipment, and urban land72 ●● Human capital: measured as the discounted value of earnings over a person’s lifetime ●● Net foreign assets: the sum of a country’s external assets and liabilities Natural capital and development Overall Natural capital is the most important asset for low-income countries, averaging 47% of wealth in 2014, and a major part of wealth in lower-middle-income countries as well (27%). As a ‘gift from nature’, natural capital has been the most abundant asset available to all countries at one point in their development. At low incomes, economies are largely built around this relatively abundant asset, mainly renewables, forests, and agricultural land. They can only move beyond sub- sistence production of food and shelter to manufacturing and services with the addition of scarce capital—human capital, infrastructure, other produced capital. 71 Measuring national wealth and changes in wealth is part of an ongoing effort by the World Bank to monitor the long-term economic well-being of nations. ‘The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018’ builds on two previous World Bank reports and provides wealth accounts for 141 countries for the period 1995 to 2014. All data are estimated from globally available data sets, such as those provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or the Penn World Tables. They may be less accurate than more detailed information available within a particular country. 72 For brevity, we use the abbreviated term ‘produced capital’ to include both. 24 However, development is about using natural capital more efficiently and making sure the management of renewable natural capital is sustainable. It is not about liquidating natural capital to purchase other assets. The value of renewable resources can increase by bringing more land into productive use or by using the resource more productively. Examples of this include improving crop yields and developing nature-based tourism on forest land. Figure 5 shows that on a per capita basis, as renewable natural capital grows, so does the growth of total wealth (and by implication GDP). Malawi, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Mozambique all show this growth of both total wealth and renewables per person, while coun- tries such as Burundi, Madagascar, and Tanzania show that total wealth and renewable natural capital both declined. A small number of countries such as Liberia and Chad achieved growth while depleting renewables, but these are typically resource-rich countries with economic growth that depends heavily on nonrenewable resources—mostly large energy and mineral resources. FIGURE 5. Change in wealth versus renewable natural capital per person in Africa, 1995–2014 (%) 200% Low income Lower middle income GIN Upper middle income Change in renewable natural capital per person 150% Linear (low income) Malawi Linear (lower middle income) Linear (upper middle income) 100% SLE GMB MOZ 50% ETH NER CAF MLI ZWE TGO RWA COM BFA 0% UGA –50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% MDG TCD TZA BDI –50% LBR COD –100% Change in wealth per person Source: Calculated from the database from Lange et al. 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. Malawi Adjustments to Malawi’s wealth accounts for agricultural land have been made to better reflect land degradation and how that might affect future crop yields and the value of agricultural land. The agricultural land accounts for Malawi, like all countries in the Changing Wealth of Nations (CWON) database, use data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and reflect the very broad assumptions needed to construct a global database for 141 countries over 20 years. Yet, the FAO data do not include an estimate of land degradation at present, as it is not possible to incorporate much country-specific information in global calculations. However, in the course of this CEA, we were able to access critical country-specific information to provide a more accurate assessment of Malawi’s wealth. The greatest concern for Malawi’s wealth accounts is agricultural land degradation. FAO data indicate growth in the value per hectare of Malawi’s agricultural land. This may explain any number of factors from gains in yields to a change to higher-value crops or other improvements. But such gains will be temporary if the land is not managed sustainably and is, in effect, mined for its soil and nutrients. An in-depth assessment of land degradation in this report documents severe soil erosion and loss of nutrients. This land degradation undermines the ability to maintain crop production at such levels in the future. Additionally, the potential impacts of climate change may further threaten Malawi’s agricultural productivity. The global wealth accounts assume cropland productivity growth of 1.94%. However, to better reflect concerns about land degradation and any potential negative impacts of climate change in Malawi, we replaced the figures for cropland THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 25 value in the CWON with figures under the assumption of no future gains in crop productivity after 2014. Under this sce- nario, the total value of cropland in 2014 is reduced by nearly half relative to the CWON figure–from USD 71,445 million to USD 37,494 million. Having defined the lens through which we will make the analysis, we will now look at Malawi’s national wealth and what that reveals about the country’s growth trajectory, keeping in mind that the data are the best available from global data sources and should be interpreted in light of other more detailed country information provided in this CEA. Malawi’s national wealth In 2014, Malawi’s wealth per capita (USD 8,409) was much lower than average compared to other low-income countries in Africa (USD 13,629) and Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole (USD 25,562). (See Figure 6 and Table 2). Overall, in Africa per capita wealth ranges widely, but Malawi belongs to the small group of 24 countries that remained low-income countries over the 20 years from 1995 to 2014. This is in contrast to another 28 countries that were low-income countries in 1995 but developed to middle-income countries by 2014. In 2014, 43% of Malawi’s wealth was renewable natural capital. The majority of this was cropland with pastureland. Forests and protected areas accounted for 24% of natural capital (see Figure 7).73 This is similar to the average for low- FIGURE 6. Africa: wealth per capita in 2014 (constant 2014 USD per capita) Gabon 199,901 Mauritius 97,018 Botswana 95,797 Namibia 84,398 South Africa 77,348 Congo, Rep. 68,779 Swaziland 52,670 Zambia 40,965 Nigeria 37,408 Cameroon 31,398 Mauritania 29,380 Ghana 25,044 Côte d’Ivoire 24,485 Rwanda 21,619 Central African Republic 21,055 Chad 20,077 Kenya 19,412 Zimbabwe 18,958 Togo 18,924 Tanzania 17,451 Mali 17,165 Sierra Leone 14,742 Uganda 13,732 Ethiopia 13,125 Senegal 13,085 Burkina Faso 12,323 Congo, Dem. Rep. 12,256 Niger 11,623 Liberia 10,227 Madagascar 9,237 Guinea 8,943 Comoros 8,836 MALAWI 8,409 Mozambique 7,718 Burundi 7,579 Gambia, The 5,208 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Source: Calculated from the database from Lange et al. 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. 73 The wealth accounts do not include fisheries or water at this time. 26 TABLE 2. Wealth per capita in Malawi, low-income FIGURE 7. Where is the wealth of Malawi (USD per countries, and Sub-Saharan Africa in 2014 (constant capita)? 2014 USD per capita) Low-Income Sub- USD per capita (2014) 14% 12% Malawi Countries Saharan Total wealth 8,409 Worldwide Africa 12% Produced capital 939 Total wealth per person 8,409 13,629 25,562 Natural capital 3,608 Produced capital 939 1,967 4,017 Human capital 4,003 62% Natural capital 3,608 6,421 9,225 Net foreign assets –142 Renewable resources 3,604 5,853 6,403 Forests Protected areas Cropland Pastureland Nonrenewable resources 4 568 2,822 Source: Calculated from the database from Lange et al. 2018. The Human capital 4,003 5,564 12,680 Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. Net foreign assets –142 –322 –360 Population 16,695,253 525,385,124 867,222,259 Source: Calculated from the database from Lange et al. 2018 with changes for Malawi as described in the text. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. income countries worldwide (47%) and especially high for a country with no significant mineral or energy resources. Malawi’s renewable asset endowment (USD 3,604 per person) is less than other low-income countries (USD 5,853 per person) and lower than the average for Africa (USD 6,403 per person).74 The wealth gap between the average for other Sub-Saharan Africa countries results from a lack of nonrenewable resources, but even more so, from Malawi’s low levels of human capital and produced capital per person, which are both substantially lower than the averages for Sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income countries. See Table 2. For most low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, growth in wealth between 1995 and 2014 was much higher than the global average—88% versus 66%. This is not surprising because low-income countries need to invest rapidly to catch up. However, population growth is also quite high in many low-income countries, and even countries such as Malawi with fairly strong gains in wealth (159%) saw a much smaller increase in per capita wealth (52%) (see Figure 8). Among the low-income countries where renewable natural capital is most important, Malawi did not do as well as Ethi- opia and Rwanda. However, Malawi matched growth in Uganda and did better than Mali and Burkina Faso. Furthermore, Malawi did particularly well compared to countries such as Tanzania and Burundi, where investment was so low that per capita wealth declined. Growth in per capita wealth was also considerably higher than that achieved by most lower- and upper-middle-income countries in Africa. A closer look at wealth changes in Malawi and several comparator countries On average, per capita wealth increased very little in low-income countries and actually declined in Sub-Saharan Africa overall (see Figure 9). Significant losses in renewable natural capital, both forest and agricultural land, as well as produced capital were partially, but not fully, offset by gains in nonrenewable wealth and human capital. Tanzania and Burundi largely demonstrate the same pattern. Malawi did appear to do better than the average for low-income countries or Sub-Saharan African countries (as did Ethiopia) mainly through gains in renewable natural capital and human capital. However, the decline of produced capi- tal in these countries, including Malawi, is of concern and an indication of unbalanced growth. Some economic gains can be achieved by improving the productivity of natural capital, as well as investing in human capital. In addition, there are huge infrastructure needs in all low-income countries, which means that the contribution of potential economic gains in 74 The figures for other low-income countries and Sub-Saharan Africa do not take into account possible land degradation in some countries, so the comparison may overstate Malawi’s relatively weak performance. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 27 FIGURE 8. Growth in total and per capita wealth in low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1995–2014 400% 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% –50% Rwanda Sierra Leone Ethiopia Guinea Mozambique Uganda MALAWI Chad Mali Liberia Burkina Faso Togo Niger Gambia, The Central African Republic Tanzania Madagascar Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Burundi Zimbabwe Mauritania Congo, Rep. Ghana Cameroon Zambia Senegal Swaziland Kenya Côte d’Ivoire Nigeria Nambia Botswana Mauritius South Africa Gabon Upper middle Low income Lower middle income income Growth in total wealth Growth in per capita wealth Source: Calculated from the database from Lange et al. 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. FIGURE 9. Change in wealth per capita from 1995 to 2014 (USD per person) 7,000 5,000 Total wealth 3,000 Produced capital Natural capital: renewable Natural capital: nonrenewable 1,000 Human capital Net foreign assets –1,000 –3,000 –5,000 Malawi Tanzania Burundi Ethiopia Low Sub-Saharan income Africa Source: Calculated from the database from Lange et al. 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. 28 other assets (human capital, natural capital) will be constrained without complementary investments in produced capital such as roads and transport, water and energy supply, and communications. While the wealth accounts for Malawi seem to indicate slow but steady progress, there are some important caveats. The gains in wealth per capita are, in large part, driven by gains in renewable natural capital, dominated by cropland (see Figure 10). FIGURE 10. Value of renewable natural capital per capita, 1995 and 2014 2,500 2,000 2014 USD per person 1,500 1,000 500 0 Forests Protected areas Cropland Pastureland 1995 2014 To understand this change in per capita asset value between 1995 and 2014, we need to examine further the four renewable natural resources (forests, protected areas, pastureland, and cropland) through the three components of this change in asset value: 1. Change in land area utilized 2. Change in land value per hectare (calculated as land area/land value) 3. Population growth (termed a ‘population dilution effect’) Forests Per capita value declined because the loss of forest land (15% decline during 1995–2014), combined with population growth of 70%, outweighed the gains in the value per hectare. Roughly 80% of wood harvested is used for fuel, a major energy source in Malawi. Higher harvests from shrinking forest area will increase the value per hectare of forest in the short term, but, as noted elsewhere in the report, harvest has exceeded capacity, and this is not sustainable in the longer term. Overharvesting causes forest degradation and will eventually lower harvest per hectare. Forest degradation is not yet captured in the FAO data used to construct the forest asset account, so the loss of for- est natural capital is likely greater than estimated in the wealth accounts for Malawi. The omission of forest degradation figures from global data sets reflects methodological difficulties in estimating this figure at the country level. Further work is ongoing in Malawi that should help quantify losses related to forest degradation. Indeed, according to Malawi’s National Determined Contributions submission,75 forest degradation may account for a larger share of GHG emissions from the forest sector than forest loss. In addition, the economic losses may be much greater because the forest asset account does not reflect all the ecosystem services provided by forests, such as water supply, soil retention, and live- stock grazing. 75 GoM. 2015(b). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 29 Pastureland and protected areas For both these pastureland and protected assets, the value per capita increased as the increase in value per hectare outweighed the population dilution effect. In the case of protected areas, land cover increased slightly (6%), while for pastureland there was no reported change in land area. Cropland The land area under cultivation expanded by 62%, partly due to the conversion of forest land. Land value increased due to an expansion of cultivated land and an increase in the value of crops produced per hectare. The value of cropland per hectare grew 72%. The gains in per hectare yields may indicate gains in crop productivity from 1995 to 2014, a change to higher value crops and/or other improvements. However, if the land is not managed sustainably, these gains will be temporary. Currently, agricultural land is effectively being mined for its nutrients and the resulting land degradation is intense. To understand the concerns about degradation asset value, we need to take a closer look at what goes into the calculation of land value per hectare. Land value is calculated as the discounted sum of the rent it is expected to generate over its lifetime (in effect, in per- petuity). However, future valuations are dependent on assumptions about land productivity in the future. If productivity decreases, land value will decline. If productivity remains the same, land value will also remain the same. If productivity increases, land value increases. Given the documented land degradation, together with the risks from climate change, it is prudent to assume that productivity, as well as land value, will decrease. Figure 10 and Figure 11 do show that the value per hectare of all land increased, and this played a major role in the increased value of forest and agricultural land. The significant increase in the amount of land converted to cropland also played a role, more than offsetting the loss of forest land. FIGURE 11. Sources of change in natural capital per person in Malawi between 1995 and 2014 (USD per person) 200% 150% 100% Per capita asset value 50% Value per hectare Population dilution 0% Land area –50% –100% st nd d s ea n re la la ar Fo pe re d u Co te st Pa c te o Pr Source: Calculated from the database from Lange et al. 2018 with revisions for cropland described in the text. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. Note: The broad blue bar represents percentage change in asset value while the thinner bars represent the components of change: change in land area, change in value/hectare, and population dilution effect (the population growth rate). 30 However, as mentioned earlier, serious concerns about land degradation and its impact on long-term productivity have been factored into wealth estimates, and hence future wealth estimates do not look as positive as the historic data might suggest. Summing up Malawi’s wealth is still dominated by renewable natural capital (43%), largely cropland. Future growth will depend on reversing land degradation to improve productivity and sustainable management of its natural capital, especially forests, to maintain water resources. Its per capita wealth is lower than the average for low-income countries, but between 1995 and 2014 it grew rapidly. At face value, Malawi appears to represent a positive growth story with per capita wealth increasing by 52% between 1995 and 2014. However, several trends suggest that Malawi’s growth may not be as positive as it initially appears: ●● Gains were driven primarily by growth in the value of cropland. ●● Forest land area declined significantly, both in land area and value. ●● Human capital grew modestly. ●● Produced capital declined significantly, from USD 1,303 per person in 1995 to USD 939 per person in 2014. The evolution of composition of wealth from 1995 to 2014 suggests that Malawi has built an unbalanced portfolio of assets that is less likely to support strong economic growth in the future. In most countries, the trajectory from low- income to middle-income often starts with an abundance of natural capital which is used to invest in infrastructure (pro- duced capital), and education and health (human capital). At middle-income levels, produced capital roughly doubles its share and human capital grows rapidly to become the main asset. In Malawi, the opposite development has occurred. Malawi is still highly dependent on its natural capital, which remained constant at 43% from 1995 to 2014, while human capital increased only slightly and produced capital shrank. Without complementary investments in produced capital— transport, power, and water supply infrastructure—investments in human capital and improved natural capital manage- ment will not be able to reach their full potential in terms of contributing to economic growth and poverty reduction. In addition, gains in natural capital, and thus in total wealth, are likely to be overestimated because forest land degradation is not captured in the wealth accounts at present. It must also be noted that the potential impacts of climate change, as well as exogenous impacts on assets such as drought, floods or other natural disasters, civil unrest, or other shocks, are also not factored into valuation of natural capital, and this will only exacerbate any declines in the future wealth of Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 31 3. INSTITUTIONS, POLICIES, AND EXPENDITURE Institutional assessment This section summarizes the findings from an analysis of institutional frameworks undertaken as part of the CEA.76 Constitutional requirements for environmental protection The Constitution of Malawi (1994, as amended) recognizes that responsible environmental management can make an important contribution toward achieving sustainable development, improved standards of living, and conservation of natu- ral resources. The Constitution states that the environment of Malawi should be managed to: ●● Prevent the degradation of the environment. ●● Provide a healthy living and working environment for the people. ●● Accord full recognition of the rights of future generations by means of environmental protection. ●● Conserve and enhance biological diversity. The constitutional provisions do not extend to linking such interventions to the attainment of poverty reduction aspira- tions.77 However, around the same time as the Constitution, the government developed Malawi National Environmental Action Plan in 1994,78 which provided the framework for integrating environmental protection and management in all national development programs with the view to achieving sustainable socioeconomic development. The Action Plan was used as a reference document to guide planners, developers, and donors79 and sought to document and analyze environmental issues. It also was aimed at identifying measures to alleviate them, promote the sustainable use of natural resources, and develop an environmental protection and management plan. More recently, Malawi’s Vision 2020 presents the long-term development perspective: “By the year 2020, Malawi, as a God-fearing nation, will be secure, democratically mature, environmentally sustainable, self-reliant with equal opportunities for and active participation by all, having social services, vibrant culture and religious values and a technologically driven middle-income economy.”80 The limited discussion of poverty-environment links in the Vision 2020 document is reflective of the lack of apprecia- tion of the socioeconomic importance of the environment and natural resources (ENR) sector at household and national levels. This, in turn, results in a weakened cause or justification for ENR interventions.81 Legislation and institutions for environmental assessment and management Malawi’s institutional and policy framework for environmental management dates back over 20 years and is character- ized by an elaborate and diverse set of policies, legal instruments, and institutional arrangements. As in all countries, the responsibility for environmental management is shared by many institutions, each with their own sectoral mandate (see Table 3). 76 Tarr. 2018. Institutional Assessment for Environmental Management in Malawi. 77 PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2016. Overcoming Poverty in Malawi through Sustainable Environment and Natural Resource Management—Identifying Policy Options to Accelerate Poverty Reduction. 78 Subsequently revised a number of times, most recently in 2016. 79 Spong and Walmsley. 2011. Malawi Country Report in Environmental Impact Assessment in Southern Africa. 80 NEC. 2000. Vision 2020—The National Long-term Development Perspective of Malawi: A Summary. 81 PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2016. Overcoming Poverty in Malawi through Sustainable Environment and Natural Resource Management—Identifying Policy Options to Accelerate Poverty Reduction. 32 TABLE 3. Institutions with responsibilities for environmental management and a brief summary of their legal mandates Environmental Responsible Agency Main Legislation Brief Summary of Key Purpose Component Environment Ministry of Natural Resources, National Environmental Policy (NEP) (2004) Integration of planning and management Energy and Mining (MoNREM) The EMA (No. 23 of 1996) Makes Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) a statutory requirement and outlines the EIA process The EMA (No. 19 of 2017) Replaces the 1996 EMA, establishes the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Water resources Ministry of Irrigation and Water Water Resources Act (1969) Water rights, abstraction, pollution control, water Development resources planning and development National Water Policy (2005) Water Works Act (1995) Effluent (disposal) Ministry of Irrigation and Water Water Resources (water pollution control) Controls water pollution Development Regulations Waste MoNREM Various acts, regulations, and local bylaws Waste control, management, transport, control waste management treatment, recycling, disposal Local Authorities Various local authority bylaws Towns manage municipal waste Planning and Ministry of Development Physical Planning Act (2016) District Environmental Action Plans to be zoning Planning and Cooperation drawn up in conformance with the National Part IV of EMA, sections 19 and 23 Environmental Action Plan Forestry MoNREM National Forestry Policy (1996) Forest products, forest reserves, tree planting, and other enterprises Forestry Act (1997) Forest Rules Energy MoNREM National Energy Policy (2003) Energy development, supply, use, distribution, pricing, and governance Energy Regulation Act (2004) Rural Electrification Act (2004) Electricity Act (2004) Mining and MoNREM Mines and Minerals Act (1981) and Regulations Mining and quarrying, exploration and production mineral resources Explosives Act (1966) and Regulations of petroleum, and provides for the protection of the environment Petroleum Regulations (1984) Wildlife and MoNREM Wildlife Policy of 2000 Wildlife conservation and management, benefit natural resources sharing, national parks, and hunting National Parks and Wildlife Act (1992), as amended, and Regulations Plants Ministry of Agriculture Plant Protection Act (1969) Controls the export and import of plants, and Food Security eradication of noxious weeds Noxious Weeds Act (1936) Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture Special Crops Act (1972) Development and marketing of crops and Food Security Tobacco Act (1970) Cotton Act (1951) Land Ministry of Lands, Physical Land Act (1965) Customary, public and private land, and the Planning, and Surveys sustainable use of such land Customary Land Act (1967) Registered Land Act (1967) National Lands Policy (2002) Fisheries Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, Fisheries Conservation and Management Act Regulation and control of fishing, aquaculture, and Water (1997) conservation, and management Development (MoAIWD) Conservation and Management Regulations (2002) Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (2016) Industrial Various Industrial Development Act (1966) Development of industry, clearing of land and urban and for transmission lines, public roads, and Electricity Act (2004) and (2016) development compensation Public Roads Act (1966) Health (including Ministry of Health (MoH) Public Health Act (1948) Prevention of infectious diseases; sanitation and HIV/AIDS) housing, sewerage, and drainage National HIV/AIDS Policy of 2013 Historic Ministry of Culture Monuments Act (1991) Protecting places of distinctive natural beauty, monuments historic sites, and buildings Decentralization Ministry of Local Government and Malawi Decentralization Policy of 1998 Decentralization, accountability, and good Rural Development (MoLGRD) governance Gender Ministry of Gender, Children, Gender Policy of 2008 Mainstream gender and enhance participation of Disability, and Social Welfare women and men, girls, and boys Climate change MoNREM EMA (No. 23 of 1996 and No. 19 of 2017) EAD coordinates but various ministries implement activities THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 33 At present, institutional arrangements are still defined by the 1996 EMA, since substantive recent amendments approved by Parliament in 2017 have yet to come into force. The EMA (1996) established the Environmental Affairs Department (EAD) within the MoNREM. The Act further outlined statutory requirements and important regulatory proce- dures, such as Environment and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) and Environmental Licensing. The EAD is responsible for all issues relating to the environment. Figure 12 shows how the department is structured. However, many institutions have responsibilities and mandates of relevance to environmental management, and these are summarized in Table 3. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the specific responsibilities of the EAD and its divisions. FIGURE 12. Structure of the EAD Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining National Council for the Environment Environmental A airs Department Technical Committee on the Environment Division Division Division Division Division Division Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Finance and Biodiversity Information, Planning, Impact Policy and Administration Education and Monitoring and Assessment and Legal Biosafety Outreach Research Pollution Control Compliance Finances Biodiversity Information and Environmental Environmental Legal Administration documentation policy and impact planning assessment Policy Human Education and resources outreach Monitoring and Environmental management research measurement District environmental Pollution a airs control District Climate environmental change o cers TABLE 4. Specific responsibilities of the divisions of the EAD Division Responsibilities Environmental information, ●● Coordinating and facilitating the implementation of activities on public environmental awareness education, and outreach ●● Facilitating the production of environmental education and training materials ●● Production of National and District State of the Environment and Outlook Reports ●● Mainstreaming of the environment in formal education curricula Environmental planning, ●● Forward planning and coordination review of ENR sectoral policies in line with national goals and international monitoring, and research agreements82 Environmental assessment ●● Overseeing ESIAs and environmental audits, specifically administering the EIA process as outlined in the EMA (2017), and pollution control advising developers on the ESIA requirements, reviewing ESIA application reports, issuing ESIA certificates, and monitoring projects for compliance with ESIA requirements ●● Ensuring that development projects and programs are implemented in an environmentally friendly manner ●● Interacting with the Technical Committee on Environment (TCE) and the National Council on Environment (NCE) on policy decisions associated with development matters Environmental policy and legal ●● Ensuring compliance and promoting enforcement of sectoral environmental legislation and bylaws, international enforcement legislation, conventions, and treaties in the country ●● Advisory services to stakeholders on effective implementation of sectoral legislation Finance and administration ●● Financial management and administration Provision of biodiversity ●● Facilitate the preparation and implementation of programs and projects on biodiversity conservation in the country conservation services ●● Facilitate the preparation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and the National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity ●● Coordinate the implementation of biodiversity management programs and the review and approval of applications on access and export permits for biological and genetic resources. 34 The EAD relies heavily on the expertise and advice of the interagency TCE. For more complicated or controversial mat- ters, the director may seek the advice of the National Council on Environment (NCE). With regard to guiding and manag- ing EIAs, roles and responsibilities are shared within and between institutions (see Annex 3). The EIA process required by the EMA (see EIA Process Flowchart in Annex 4) is straightforward, logical, and similar to other countries in the region and globally. As part of the government’s decentralization efforts, section 20 of the EMA (1996) provides for the appointment of an Environmental District Officer as a member of the District Development Committee. This officer’s tasks include under- taking environmental inspections, supervising the preparation of the five yearly District Environmental Action Plan, and providing environmental advice to the District Environmental Development Committee on natural resources manage- ment and environmental issues. However, as at the central level, these institutions are not operating optimally. Under the provisions of the EMA (1996), the national EIA system suffers from numerous institutional deficiencies, and there are examples of where the EIA process has been circumvented. For example, there is no requirement for inde- pendence of practitioners, no requirement for independent review of EIAs, and no specific requirement for assessment of health and gender issues. In addition, the EMA (1996) is vague on accessibility of reports to the public and makes inad- equate provisions for stakeholder consultation and project post-implementation monitoring by the EAD. There is also a potential conflict of interest since the EAD is part of a ministry that includes energy and mining—both important sectors of the economy and with direct reliance and impact on ENR. It was deficiencies such as these that resulted in Parliament approving amendments to the EMA in 2017. Since there is limited compliance or effectiveness monitoring for the EIA, the existing system has not been ade- quately tested. However, a rapid assessment conducted in 2012 found a number of weaknesses. While a project-level EIA is relatively well understood in both the EAD and other government agencies, Malawi has had very little exposure to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Overall, the decentralization process for the EIA has been slow to take effect and virtually all decision-making on EIAs remains centralized at the national level within EAD. The numerous deficiencies in the EMA (2016) led to Parliament approving substantive amendments in 2017 and the eventual replacement of the EAD with a new EPA. These developments are discussed below. The 2017 Environmental Management Act The EMA (2017) provides every person the right to a clean and healthy environment and imposes a duty upon people to safeguard and enhance the environment. It also seeks to ensure that every person has a right to access environ- mental information. Lead agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also have a duty to provide such information in a timely manner. This is a major step forward and, if implemented, will place Malawi at the forefront of transparency and governance with regard to environmental management. Importantly, the EMA (2017) demands the mandatory establishment of the EPA,83 with broad responsibilities and sub- stantial powers. These include the investigation of any violation or potential violation of the EMA or any other written law relating to environment and natural resources management (ENRM). The Act also allows the EPA to take action to redress violations—similar to powers afforded to an ombudsman in other countries. The most important power given is the ability to enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment and monitor and enforce compliance with ENR-related policies and legislation by lead agencies. Implementing the EMA (2017) and transforming the EAD into the EPA will be a daunting task, possibly requiring months or years of careful planning and skillful negotiation. 82 See Annex 2 for a list of the international agreements Malawi is a party to. 83 Neither the EMA (2017) nor the EPA is operational yet. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 35 BOX 2. The emergence of a robust institution for environmental management The EMA (2017) provides the EPA with a very broad mandate and substantial powers. With proper implementa- tion, it would make the emerging EPA one of the strongest, national-level environmental management institu- tions on the continent. The EMA (2017) empowers the minister to develop a wide range of regulations pertaining to many components of the environment, SEA, and EIA. This should help strengthen the national system for environmental assess- ment and ensure that this becomes more resistant to political economy pressures. Previously, there have been examples of projects with environmental and social impacts that were authorized before an EIA was conducted, and there have been concerns that political considerations have undermined the integrity of the EIA system. The EPA will be a semiautonomous body, and although there are omissions in the EMA (2017) regarding inde- pendence and certification requirements of EIA practitioners, the Minister of Environment is now empowered to proceed and implement the required regulations. How do environmental policy, law, and institutions work together? Malawi’s policy framework governing the ENR sector has many contradictions and gaps. Much of Malawi’s wealth (43%)84 comes from renewable natural capital, which suggests a need for close alignment of policy and legal frameworks that guide the management of the country’s natural resources. Legal frameworks will become considerably stronger once the EMA (2017) comes into force. However, there is a high risk that implementation will be constrained by inadequate resources, resistance from interest groups, and low orga- nizational capability.85 Inadequate intra-ministerial coordination required to address multisectoral challenges hampers integrated management of natural resources. The development partners also need to play a role here by supporting the coordination and harmonization of institutional support for environmental management. Some key sectors, such as agriculture and fisheries, do not yet have a concise national operational policy.86 This leads to subjectivity in resource allocations, compromised inter- and intra-sectoral collaboration, policy inconsistencies along the commodity value chains, and inadequate collaboration between the government and NGOs.87 For example, sustain- able management in fisheries struggles against constraints in the legal framework.88 While local beach village commit- tees organize fishing at local levels, it is the Department of Fisheries (DoFi) and the courts that withdraw fishing licenses. The DoFi, with the support from the chiefs, can seize illegal gear but only with the support of the criminal law courts. Almost all policies express GoM’s commitment to private sector development. Yet there is limited engagement with the private sector and limited private sector participation in forestry investments, agricultural commodity marketing, and the water and energy sectors, among others. Further constraints on private sector development in Malawi include limited access to financial capital, low labor productivity, and delays in obtaining business licenses.89 Most GoM policy state- ments confirming commitment to private sector development in the ENR sector are not backed by practical strategies on how to do it in practice. 84 2014 estimates. 85 Bridges and Woolcock. 2017. How (Not) to Fix Problems that Matter: Assessing and Responding to Malawi's History of Institutional Reform. Policy Research Working Paper. 86 PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2016. Overcoming Poverty in Malawi through Sustainable Environment and Natural Resource Management—Identifying Policy Options to Accelerate Poverty Reduction. 87 Ibid. 88 Kosamu. 2017. Revisiting the ‘three-pillared design’ of a management system for the Elephant Marsh Wetland Fishery in Malawi. 89 GoM. 2015–2018. Financial and Economic Affairs Documents. 36 Decentralization The 1998 decentralization drive, aimed at diffusing overly centralized power and bringing services closer to citizens, has been slow to deliver results. The process of decentralization has been undermined by a slow and fragmented assignment of functions and resources to local authorities. With insufficient resources and weak capacity and incen- tives to perform, the local government has been unable to play an effective role in shaping environmental management, whether for efforts to address land degradation, restore forest cover, or implement effective control over fish stocks. Environmental guidelines Some sectors have produced sector-specific strategies for biodiversity conservation. Examples include the agriculture’s draft Agrobiodiversity Strategy; the Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods, and Agriculture Development Initiative, which includes environmental safeguards for biodiversity conservation;90 the Forest Biodiversity Strategy; the Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; and updated policies for climate change and forestry.91 The Ministry of Education has also integrated Biodiversity as a subject into the secondary school curriculum. Raising public awareness in the media, at schools, and in communities The EAD runs a Public Awareness and Education Programme to inform the public on key environmental issues. The main communications channels are press releases, newspapers, radio/TV, and community meetings. Other media chan- nels are also used to reach people, from the national to local levels. They include school environmental clubs, stake- holder consultative workshops, training workshops, and community meetings through decentralized structures such as District Environment Subcommittees in the 28 districts. Raising the public’s awareness, especially through schools and outreach communication, will be essential for shift- ing the mind-set on key environmental challenges. Building on the government’s existing program of communication activities, it will be important to ensure that budgetary allocations are maintained and increased for communication and that new methods for spreading knowledge are explored—especially using social media. Incentivizing positive behavior in, for example, waste management or protection of forest reserves, also needs to align with economic incentives and disincentives such as ‘polluter-pays’ systems. Environmental expenditures92 Overall, environmental expenditure represents a small share of Malawi’s economy. Total expenditure on ENRM over 2007–2012 recorded in the national budget reached USD 278 million—or 3.15% of the national budget and 0.96% of GDP. ­ ozambique—an economy comparable to Malawi’s—spent from 2007 to 2010, where public ENRM This is lower than what M expenditures were around 4.3% of the national budget and 1.38% of GDP. In addition, all ministries and departments record environmental and climate change expenditures under one code. As a result, it is not possible to distinguish between ENRM expenditures, climate change expenditures, and forestry expen- ditures. Besides, as around 50% of donor support during this analysis was off-­budget, actual environmental and climate change expenditures might be somewhat higher than the cited figures. 90 GoM. 2014(a). Fifth National Report to the Convention of Biological Diversity. 91 Ibid. 92 Available data on environmental expenditures (including those for climate change) are limited and are only available for 2007–2012. This discussion relies on a 2014 analysis of data for 2007–2012 of expenditures related to environmental management and climate change—including land management, water resources, forestry, environmental coordination, meteorological services, fisheries, and wildlife (ENRM). For methodological reasons, care should be taken when analyzing these results as data on budgets and expenditures relied on questionnaires, estimates (for budgetary data, the team used the Approved Estimates of Expenditure on Recurrent and Capital Budget), and feedback provided by ministries and responses from the Accountant General's Office. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 37 Public environmental expenditures over 2007–2012 did follow a period of accelerated growth in the first four years, but this was followed by a period of economic contraction in the last two years. Between 2007 and 2010, expenditure increased by 74%, from USD 37.19 million to USD 64.89 million. However, this figure dropped by 50% between 2010 and 2012 due to governance issues, a series of political miss-steps, and a subsequent withdrawal of donor support. There was also a 50% devaluation of the Malawi Kwacha (MK) against foreign currency during FY2011/12. The majority of the public environment expenditure (75%) was allocated to the Ministries of Water, Lands, and Environ- ment, while the smallest allocation (1%) went to local councils. Over 2007–2012, water resources management accounted for 30% of total ENRM expenditures, the largest share of public environmental expenditures. This was followed by land man- agement at 25%. This level of expenditure was mainly due to the financing of water projects under the National Water Devel- opment Program and the Community-Based Rural Land Development Program by development partners. Local authorities in all the ENRM-devolved sectors received only 1% of total environmental expenditures during the review period (see Figure 13). FIGURE 13. Distribution of public environmental expenditures by ministries and institutions, 2007–2012 (%) Parastatals, 6% Local authorities, 1% MoH, 2% MoTWC, 5% MoIWD, 30% MoAFS, 9% MoLHUD, 25% MoECCM, 22% Source: GoM. 2014(b). Report on Joint Public Expenditure Review of Malawi’s Environment & Disaster Risk Management Sectors. Note: MoTWC = Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Culture; MoIWD = Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development; MoAFS = Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security; MoLHUD = Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Urban Development; MoECCM = Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Management. Since its launch in 2005–2006, the FISP has accounted for 69% of the agriculture sector’s budget and 51% of total public spending over 2007–2012, crowding out spending on important sustainable measures. In addition, the ministry does not have direct oversight of a large share of agricultural spending. During 2007–2012, agricultural expenditure under the supervision of other ministries, as well as off-budget expenditure, accounted for 31% of total agricultural spend- ing. As a result, the Ministry of Agriculture was left with only 19% of total spending to dedicate to agriculture. This limited the ministry’s ability to maintain a minimum level of activity in its traditional missions, which are to increase agricultural productivity and resilience to climate change through the promotion of new high-growth potential orientations such as climate-smart agriculture and SLM practices, as called for by the Agriculture Sector Wide Approach and the Economic Recovery Plan.93 93 World Bank. 2013(a). Malawi Public Expenditure Review. 38 Key recommendations EMA (2017) AND THE NEW EPA Robust support is needed to implement the EMA (2017) and the new EPA. Institutionally, the new EPA will have a key role in championing the implementation of environmental policy, including the high-level objectives in the Constitution, and those detailed in the EMA (2017). Therefore, support is needed to ensure the EMA (2017) is operationalized and the EAD is transformed into the new EPA. This support needs to include the devel- opment of a new structure for the EPA, the establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism, and the assignment of staffing and capacity building to match its new mandate. Operational and technical support after initial establishment will be needed to develop internal institutional structures and prepare regulations for SEA, EIA, and the certification of EIA practition­ers. Operational procedures also need to be developed, including guiding and defining relationships with other government agencies and establishing registries of EIAs. DECENTRALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS The EMA (2017) and the establishment of the EPA is a unique opportunity to decentralize environmental management functions. A more concerted approach to promoting decentralization is needed. GoM has given renewed attention to decentraliza- tion since local government elections in 2014, by increasing intergovernmental transfers and initiating the devolution of human resources. The EMA (2017) and the forthcoming establishment of the EPA provide an opportunity to accelerate the decentralization of environmental management functions, as does the integration of the Local Development Fund (LDF) and National Local Governance Finance Committee. The EMA provides for the appointment of environment offi- cers at the district level as members of the District Development Committees. These developments could also provide an opportunity to strengthen compliance monitoring of EIAs and improve coordination with other officers and bodies at district and local levels, such as with District Forestry Officers and Village Natural Resources Management Committees (VNRMCs). The LDF also offers the possibility of increasing investments in interventions that tackle environmental deg- radation, for example, for SLM and forest regeneration. REVIEW PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURE AND THE INSTITUTIONAL USE OF DATA Support can be provided to Malawian institutions to review public environmental and climate change expenditures and use valuation data better to frame policies, identify investments, and set budgets. As discussed in the Wealth and natural capital, we recommend the use of natural capital accounts for key natural resources and ecosystem services. Using a robust and recognized methodology, an up-to-date review of environmental and climate change public expenditures would improve the alignment of policy commitments with sector budgeting. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 39 EIA AND SEA CAPACITY BUILDING Strengthening Malawi’s EIA and SEA capabilities is also an important priority, including the need for regulations and the certification of EIA practitioners. These should include: ●● Procedures to maintain a record of SEAs/EIAs (for example, an interactive website), accessible to stakeholders ●● Guidelines and procedures for project screening94 and applications for environmental clearance95 ●● Guidelines and procedures for EIA review, scoping, and preparation of SEAs, EIAs, and environmental management plans96 ●● Criteria for accepting/rejecting EIA and SEA reports97 ●● Guidelines and procedures for monitoring and reporting (by proponents or others) ●● Procedures for notification (for example, noncompliance) and communication at various levels98 94 There are examples of screening checklists that could be modified for Malawi. 95 Neither the 1996 or 2017 EMA set a limit for the validity of the clearance/authorization, though this may be set in the letter of conditions. In other countries, validity is set (for example, five years) and the proponent must apply for a renewal at the end of that period. This is a good way of revisiting the authorization in light of the proponent’s performance in implementing agreed environmental safeguards. 96 There are examples of such systems, including from other African countries. 97 There are existing criteria, but these need updating. 98 In some countries, there may be dozens of templates that standardize the way that these communications are done. These range from bilateral communications with authorities in neighboring countries and international stakeholders to notices to an interested/affected individual in a project area. 40 Malawi is extremely vulnerable to severe weather shocks and climate change. 4. CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESILIENCE99 Malawi’s changing climate Malawi is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Most of Malawi’s economy and livelihoods are directly depen- dent on rainfed agriculture. However, when climate variability impacts on soil health and land degradation, farm systems struggle to be productive. This can lead to an increase in poverty, and food insecurity in rural populations and coping and resilience strategies are weakened. Current climate variability (as well as future climate change) also has a greater impact due to high and increasing population densities, poor and unsustainable agricultural practices, increased deforestation, degraded ecosystems within watersheds, and the reclamation and degradation of wetlands, floodplains, and protected areas. This puts Malawi’s socioeconomic well-being at greater risk. Malawi does not have the institutional capacity to deal with current or future climate risks. This is made worse by inad- equate databases, tools, and information systems that are unable to factor the risks of climate change into the design of both the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ infrastructural foundation.100, 101 Climate models indicate that extreme weather events, triggering floods and droughts, will increase in both intensity and frequency. Floods and droughts have nationwide repercussions, threatening local and national food security, undermining livelihoods, damaging key infrastructure, and reducing economic activity and output.102 Data from Malawi’s Department of Climate Change and Meteorological Services (DoCCMS) show a noticeable increase in maximum and minimum temperatures over the last 20 years or so. Mean temperatures have risen by an average rate of 0.21°C per decade, with comparative increases in evapotranspiration.103 The largest shifts in maximum temperature are in November and December, with slightly lower increases in the late summer months of January and February. 99 This section draws on: GoM. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Malawi, Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR). 100 ‘Hard’ infrastructure refers to physical items such as bridges, roads, and buildings; ‘Soft’ infrastructure refers to institutions that are essential to the economy and quality of life such as government, education, health, and financial services. 101 GoM. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Malawi, Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR). 102 See: IGAD (ICPAG). 2007. Climate Change and Human Development in Africa—Assessing the Risks and Vulnerability of Climate Change in Kenya, Malawi, and Ethiopia; World Bank. 2017(c). Multi-Sectoral Investment Plan for Climate and Disaster Risk Management in Malawi [draft]. 103 Vincent et al. 2014. Analysis of Existing Weather and Climate Information for Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 41 Changes in rainfall patterns are more variable. Northern and Southern Malawi have experienced a drying trend since the early 2000s, while the center of Malawi has seen slightly increased rains.104 Reports of extreme weather events (that is, droughts, heavy rains, and floods) increased from just one during the 1970s to 19 between 2000 and 2006.105 Farmers have also observed temperature and weather changes that match those officially reported. Weather patterns are important to them because of the impact they have on cropping. Recent community participatory rural appraisal-type assessments confirm that farmers believe that the weather is changing and temperatures are increasing.106 Modelling of climate change scenarios predicts significant medium- and long-term changes to Malawi’s climate, in terms of both temperature and rainfall.107 Changes to climate are not new for Malawi (Figure 14), but most climate mod- els agree that temperatures will rise. Analysis of 34 climate change models projecting up to 2090 suggests more fre- quent dry spells and a reduction in both the number of rainy days and the amount of rainfall on each day.108 It also shows a greater likelihood of flooding. These changes are likely to threaten livelihoods, increase the risk of food insecurity, and negatively affect economic growth. FIGURE 14. Historic climate variability 100 Moderate flood 90 Intermediate flood % Country area impacted by extremes (+ve for flood, –ve for drought) 80 Severe flood 70 Moderate drought Intermediate drought 60 Severe drought 50 40 30 20 10 0 1902 1905 1908 1911 1914 1917 1920 1923 1926 1929 1932 1935 1938 1941 1944 1947 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 –10 –20 –30 –40 –50 –60 –70 –80 –90 –100 Source: The International Resources Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University, derived from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the United Kingdom. Note: Yellow-red shading (drought) shows the percentage of the country that would experience lower than normal rainfall (to different degrees). Blue shading (floods) indicates the percentage of the country that would experience higher than normal rainfall linked to floods. 104 UMFULA. 2017. Malawi Country Climate Brief: Future Climate Change Projections for Malawi; Zulu. 2017. Existing Research and Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Agriculture and Communities in Malawi. Both reports provide an excellent overview of numerous studies of Malawi’s weather patterns and climate. 105 ActionAid. 2006. Climate Change and Smallholder Farmers in Malawi: Understanding Poor People’s Experiences in Climate Change Adaptation. 106 Wood and Moriniere. 2013. Malawi Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment; Zulu. 2017. Existing Research and Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Agriculture and Communities in Malawi. 107 Wood and Moriniere. 2013. Malawi Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. 108 UMFULA. 2017. Malawi Country Climate Brief: Future Climate Change Projections for Malawi. 42 Climate change projections can be uncertain, but there is significant and growing confidence regarding the projected rise in temperature (the changes in rainfall are less certain). Figure 15 shows the projections of 34 climate change mod- els and their ensemble. The bold red line shows the trend for 1950–2099 and the bold black line are observations for 1950–2014.109 The consensus emerging from these multiple models is clear: annual temperatures will rise in the range of 0.5 to 1.5°C by the 2040s.110 The World Climate Research Program also presents similar estimated temperature changes in Malawi for 2030 and 2040. As modelling advances, confidence and consensus on rising temperatures have grown and become more specific. FIGURE 15. Time series of mean annual temperature (C°) for 34 CMIP5 models CCSM4 CESM1-BGC CESM1-CAM5 EC-EARTH FGOALS-g2 MPI-ESM-MR ACCESS1-0 ACCESS1-3 bcc-csm1-1 bcc-csm1-1-m BNU-ESM CanESM2 CMCC-CESM CMCC-CM CMCC-CMS CNRM-CM5 CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 GFDL-CM3 GFDL-ESM2G GFDL-ESM2M HadGEM2-A0 HadGEM2-CC HadGEM2-ES inmcm4 IPSL-CM5A-LR IPSL-CM5A-MR IPSL-CM5B-LR MIROC5 MIROC-ESM MIROC-ESM-CHEM MPI-ESM-LR MRI-CGCM3 MRI-ESM1 NorESM1-M Observed MME 32 32 30 30 Mean annual temperature (°C) 28 28 26 26 24 24 22 22 20 20 18 18 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2043 2046 2049 2052 2055 2058 2061 2064 2067 2070 2073 2076 2079 2082 2085 2088 2091 2094 2097 Source: UMFULA. 2017. Malawi Country Climate Brief: Future Climate Change Projections for Malawi. Note: CMIP = Climate Model Intercomparison Project. Extremes in temperatures (that is, hot and very hot days) are also more likely to occur more frequently. Figure 16 shows the potential highs and lows Malawi may face during 2030s and 2040s. These extremes in temperatures can negatively affect the vulnerable, such as the old, the young, people living in poverty, and those with health issues. Extreme heat can make it harder to work (especially outdoor work) and livestock can suffer causing reduced production of meat, milk, and reproduction rates. Extreme temperatures can also reduce water quality, cause surges in algal growth, and negatively affect aquatic ecosystems, including fish.111 Changes in annual rainfall are less clear with projections showing wetter periods and some showing dryer periods. The UMFULA project112 reviewed 34 models showing that 38% of these models projected reductions in rainfall during 2030s and the other 62% projected more rainfall. However, 58% of the models predicted less rainfall by the 2070s. Figure 17 shows these variable rainfall projections as percentage changes between recent decades and the last three decades of this century. 109 Climate Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. 110 UMFULA. 2017. Malawi Country Climate Brief: Future Climate Change Projections for Malawi. 111 There has not been detailed research on the impact of water temperature on Malawi’s lakes to confirm that warming water temperature affects ecosystems and fisheries. However, recent studies on Lake Tanganyika, in neighboring Tanzania, show that declines in commercially important fishes and endemic molluscs have accompanied lake warming. See: Cohen et al. 2016. Climate Warming Reduces Fish Production and Benthic Habitat in Lake Tanganyika, One of the Most Biodiverse Freshwater Ecosystems. 112 See: http://www.futureclimateafrica.org/project/umfula/ THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 43 FIGURE 16. Changes in heat extremes 2030s 2040s Low warming Change in ratio of a ected months 40 30 20 10 0 High warming –10 Source: World Bank. 2017(c). Multi-Sectoral Investment Plan for Climate and Disaster Risk Management in Malawi [draft]. Note: Projections of exposure to heat extremes, as illustrated for 2025–2045 (‘2030s’) and 2035–2055 (‘2040s’), as the increase in the frequency of historically unprecedented heat extremes (two standard deviations above the historical mean in 1986–2005) is measured for both warming scenarios for the annually warmest three-month period. FIGURE 17. Percentage change in annual mean rainfall across Malawi between the GCM-simulated current period (1976–2005) and 2070–2099 for 34 GCMs 30 25 20 Precipitation change (%) 15 10 5 0 –5 –10 –15 –20 IPSL-CM5B-LR HadGEM2-CC GFDL-ESM2G HadGEM2-ES EC-EARTH CMCC-CMS ACCESS1-0 HadGEM2-AO CMCC-CESM NorESM1-M MIROC-ESM-CHEM BNU-ESM GFDL-ESM2M ACCESS1-3 MPI-ESM-MR GFDL-CM3 MPI-ESM-LR FGOALS-g2 CESM1-CAM5 CCSM4 bcc-csm1-1-m CMCC-CM MRI-CGCM3 CESM1-BGC CNRM-CM5 MIROC5 MIROC-ESM inmcm4 MRI-ESM1 CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 CanESM2 bcc-csm1-1 IPSL-CM5A-LR IPSL-CM5A-MR Source: UMFULA. 2017. Malawi Country Climate Brief: Future Climate Change Projections for Malawi. 44 Developing downscaled (locally specific) climate models for Malawi is challenging due to the limited availability of long-term weather data. More than 50% of Malawi’s 761 rainfall stations have less than 10 years of information.113 Mala- wi’s also sits between Eastern equatorial Africa and Southern Africa, and both these regions have opposing climate responses, making it harder to predict which direction Malawi’s weather may take. An added complication is the influ- ence of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon (which changes the sea surface temperatures of the Indian Ocean) and the movement and location of the ITCZ, neither of which follows a regular yearly pattern.114 Short-, medium-, and long-range weather forecasting made available to farmers, government, and other stakeholders is often not sufficiently reliable, relevant, detailed, and timed. Forecasts made by the DoCCMS and the Water Resources Department are usually made available through newspapers, through district offices, or across the radio, but they often come too late for important decisions such as purchasing seeds or planning harvests. Improving the delivery, accuracy, quality, and timing of these forecasts would go a long way to improving the ability of stakeholders to respond and adapt to Malawi’s changing climate. Projected economic impacts115 Malawi’s economy is vulnerable to climate shocks, and this risk affects all economic sectors and geographical areas. In relative terms, the northern region faces a particularly high risk because of its lower population and high reliance on agriculture. However, in terms of absolute financial exposure, the central and southern regions will be affected the most, with the central region facing the worst overall risk across all the economic sectors. Economic growth is largely depen- dent on expanding agriculture, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, utilities, and transport sectors. Most of these sectors are directly or indirectly adversely affected by the recurring floods. Losses for agricultural GDP due to droughts, for example, are estimated to range from 1.1% to 21.5% for return periods of 5 and 25 years.116 The agricultural sector is the most at risk from direct climate change stressors.117 This is because it is sensitive to the projected changes in temperature and precipitation. Figure 18 and Figure 19 illustrate the close link between rainfall levels, agricultural production, and GDP. For example, between 2015 and 2017 floods in southern districts were followed by countrywide drought conditions, with the resulting loss and damage estimated at USD 335 million, equivalent to approximately 5% of GDP.118 The combination of flood and drought caused a major decline in agricultural production. Maize, the most important crop for food security purposes, had a 30% year-on-year drop in production. However, climate change may result in some winners too. Recent crop modelling projections suggest that between 2040 and 2070, climate change will increase maize production in the Mzimba district, with over 50% of farmers registering increased yields.119 FIGURE 18. Malawi’s growth in GDP closely follows growth in agriculture 60 GDP growth (annual %) 40 Agriculture, value added (annual % growth) 20 0 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 –20 –40 113 Vincent et al. 2014. Analysis of Existing Weather and Climate Information for Malawi. 114 Zulu. 2017. Existing Research and Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Agriculture and Communities in Malawi. 115 This section draws on: World Bank. 2017(c). Multi-Sectoral Investment Plan for Climate and Disaster Risk Management in Malawi [draft]. 116 Pauw et al. 2011. The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events: A Hydro-Meteorological CGE Analysis for Malawi. 117 GoM. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Malawi, Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR). 118 GoM. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report. 119 Gama et al. 2014. Modelling Potential Impacts of Future Climate Change in Mzimba District, Malawi, 2040–2070: An Integrated Biophysical and Economic Modelling Approach. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 45 FIGURE 19. Annual precipitation and GDP growth rates, 1980–2015 1,600 20 1,400 15 1,200 10 1,000 5 Rainfall (mm/year) 800 GDP growth (rate) 0 600 –5 400 200 –10 0 –15 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Source: GDP Growth from data.worldbank.org; precipitation from http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal. About 90% of Malawi’s food production comes from one rainfed crop per year and this is dependent on regular and reliable rainfall. However, the incidence of extreme droughts and flooding and extreme heat events is expected to rise. Agricultural households are some of the poorest in the country, and this increased economic vulnerability will discour- age saving and encourage the liquidation of assets. Under future climate scenarios, poverty may increase and there may be an increase in rural to urban migration, causing further economic pressures across sectors. In this scenario, the movement of a climate-affected rural population to urban centers increases the pressure on land, water, and energy. An increasing demand for urban land for housing speeds up land degradation and exposes urban environments to an increased risk of flooding. All this results in greater demands being made on already constrained resources, such as social services, health, and nutrition.120 Climate change affects major infrastructure and is projected to slightly reduce the growth rate of GDP.121 Severe flood- ing in particular causes considerable damage to infrastructure, including roads, bridges, schools, and health facilities. Costs for repair and restoration of infrastructure place an added burden on overstretched public expenditure budgets. For example, the 2015 floods highlighted the vulnerabilities of the transport sector with serious damage caused to the infrastructure. For the transport sector, the total damages and losses due to the disaster were approximately USD 60 mil- lion, while the cost of recovery was approximately USD 130 million,122 the highest among all the sectors. Based on a broad analysis using median climate scenarios directly related to temperature and precipitation changes through to 2050, it has been estimated that, without adaptation measures applied to the planning, construction, and maintenance of road infrastructure, Malawi is facing a potential total annual average cost of USD 165 million.123 The increased pressure on services and sectors could negatively affect industry too. Energy supplies could be more vari- able and less reliable, as could access to water. A struggling industry means less employment opportunities and increased poverty. The continuing increase in the number of climate shock events could further exacerbate this vicious cycle. At a macroeconomic level, climate-driven disruptions to services will result in a more volatile economy. This in turn could increase poverty, reduce growth, increase inflation, put strain on the currency and banking system, and increase fiscal pressures on the government. 120 World Bank. 2017(c). Multi-Sectoral Investment Plan for Climate and Disaster Risk Management in Malawi [draft]. 121 Arndt et al. 2014. Climate Change and Economic Growth Prospects for Malawi: An Uncertainty Approach. 122 GoM. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report. 123 Chinowsky et al. 2015. Infrastructure and Climate Change: A Study of Impacts and Adaptations in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia. 46 GHG emissions By global standards, Malawi has very low GHG emissions of around 1.4 tons carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents (CO2e) per capita in 2015. Nonetheless, GoM has made a firm commitment, through its NDC to the United Nations Frame- work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to move the country’s development pathway toward a green economy. Malawi’s main GHG-­ contributing sectors are agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU), energy, and industrial pro- cesses. Emissions from these sectors are increasing at different rates. For example, the average annual change in total emissions between 1990 and 2011 was 0.7%, while sector-specific average annual changes were forest and other land use (−0.6%), agriculture (3.8%), waste (2.3%), and industrial processes and product use (IPPU) (2.6%).124, 125 Between 2015 and 2040, Malawi’s total annual GHG emissions are expected to rise by around 38% (see Figure 20). This means an increase from the current level of approximately 29,000 kilotons CO2 equivalents (kt CO2e) to around 42,000 kt CO2e. There is a level of uncertainty about future emissions, particularly beyond 2020. Predictions are based on varied assumptions of economic growth and the anticipated capacity and technical support from development part- ners. GoM’s goal is to save between 14,000 and 16,000 kt CO2e per year by 2030 if a robust low emission development path can be followed.126 FIGURE 20. Malawi’s GHG profile for 2015 and projected profile for 2040 Sectoral emissions in 2015 Sectoral emissions in 2040 Energy Energy 4% 17% Waste IPPU Waste IPPU 2% 0% 2% 0% Agriculture 16% Forestry Forestry Agriculture 78% 65% 16% Source: GoM. 2015(b). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. Institutional and policy frameworks Malawi has a number of existing institutional structures in place that support the implementation of climate change miti- gation and adaptation policy. The Malawi constitution explicitly requires support for the environment, and the Malawian government has addressed climate change at national, ministerial, and departmental levels. In addition, it is recognized that civil society, NGOs, the private sector, and development partners all have a role in supporting this policy. According to ‘Climate Action Intelligence’,127 over 200 institutions/organizations are involved in climate change activities in Malawi. Malawi is also a signatory to various international treaties and instruments that cover climate change. These include the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These treaties and instruments oblige the country to take various actions to address climate challenges. 124 World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (WRI CAIT 2.0, 2016), cited in USAID. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Malawi. 125 2017 data on sector GHG emissions from the EAD expected July 2018. 126 GoM. 2015(b). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. 127 EAD. 2013. Climate Action Intelligence (CAI) Actions & Actors Guidebook: Understanding Who Is Doing What, Where on Climate Change in Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 47 GoM has a range of strategies and policies that seek to tackle the challenges of current climate variability, shocks, and future climate change. These include high-level strategies, such as Malawi’s Vision 2020 and the MGDS III. There are five policy instruments that provide the primary guide to the reduction of climate change risks and disasters: ●● The Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) ●● The National Climate Change Management Policy (NCCMP) ●● The National Climate Change Investment Plan (NCCIP) ●● The National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) ●● The National Disaster Risk Management (NDRM) Policy There are also three main environmental-based policies that support these main instruments: ●● The EMA ●● The NEP ●● The National Environment Action Plan Other climate change-focused policies include the National Agricultural Policy and the (forthcoming) National Resilience Strategy (2018–2030).128 The Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning, and Development (MoFEPD) coordinates climate change activities under the National Climate Change Programme (NCCP). The activities of the NCCP are largely supported and directed by the National Climate Change Technical and Steering Committees. The MoNREM leads on climate change policy development in Malawi. This is exercised through the EAD that is respon- sible for coordinating national and international climate-change-related issues.129 The DoCCMS collaborates with the EAD to coordinate national and international climate change issues. The EAD in turn coordinates closely on climate change with the MoAIWD, MoLGRD, and MoFEPD. The Department of Disaster Management Affairs (DoDMA) coordinates the implementation of disaster risk management at the national level and is responsible for preparedness and response to weather and climate-related disasters such as droughts and floods. DoDMA is also drafting a National Resilience Strategy that will include climate resilience. The MGDS establishes working groups to coordinate climate change and other sectoral priority areas. Under the MGDS  II 2011–2016, the Working Group on Natural Resource, Land, and Environment was established. It was later renamed ‘Climate Change, Environment, Natural Resources, Mining, and Energy’ (CC and ENRM). MGDS III 2017–2022 was approved by GoM in September 2017. It makes the need to respond to the challenge of climate change one of the highest priorities for the country and confirms the continuation of special working groups to coordinate policy. Challenges Coordination between government agencies is crucial because climate change is a cross-cutting issue that affects most sectors, such as agriculture, human health, energy, fisheries, wildlife, water, forestry, and gender. Unfortunately, it can also be a challenge. For example, DoDMA, the National Disaster Preparedness and Relief Committee (NDPRC), and the National Disaster Preparedness and Relief Fund all have responsibility for disaster risk management, which includes climate-change-related hazards. The NCCMP has outlined measures to address institutional coordination, but providing the leadership to bring together institutions will be extremely challenging to manage. 128 GoM (forthcoming). National Resilience Strategy (2018–2030). Breaking the Cycle of Food Insecurity in Malawi. Office of the President and Department of Disaster Management Affairs. 129 The EAD is the focal point for the UNFCCC, as well as for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and is the Designated National Authority for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). 48 The overlapping mandates of some GoM departments can make it difficult to know which government institution or agency is best placed to coordinate climate change management programs in the country.130 This is especially an issue for external agencies and development partners and increases the risk of negatively affecting relationships of climate- change-related sectors.131 Also, some policies create perverse incentives that counteract resilience goals. For example, agricultural policies that subsidize fertilizer and maize can sometimes increase exposure and vulnerability. At present, it remains a challenge for Malawi’s government structures to coordinate effectively across sectors. Malawi has identified a range of climate-change-related projects, but they are not prioritized. The NCCIP identifies 11 major programmatic initiatives, with a notional total budget requirement of just under USD 1 billion. A major challenge in the NCCIP is the inclusion of climate change initiatives that are neither prioritized nor linked to sources of finance. GoM’s Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR)132 attempts to address this by prioritizing a set of investments to build resilience (Box 3). There is also a need for better coordination in identifying and selecting climate change adaptation initiatives, to avoid fragmenting efforts and increasing transaction costs. There is a similar need for focused analysis of successful approaches to tackle climate-change-related challenges, to share the lessons learned more effectively, and then scale up successful approaches. There is a mismatch between the NCCMP framework and sector priorities on the one hand and national development planning and implementation on the other. In addition, sectors and district councils hardly appreciate the content of climate-change-related policy documents and yet they are closer to where resilience should be built. District budgets are very small and fragmented across small initiatives. This results in limited integration of climate change into sector plans and budgets at the district level. BOX 3. SPCR: Priority investments Climate-resilient integrated watershed management: Scaling up integrated catchment management to the national level as a cross-cutting approach to managing several sectors and environmental resources at risk of climate uncertainty—food productivity, forestry, flooding, drought, rural energy access, and the management of waterways, siltation, and ecosystem services. Building climate change resilience in selected agricultural value chains in Malawi: Improving agricultural pro- duction and productivity in the value chains of high-value and drought-tolerant crops through incorporating climate-smart agricultural production systems and managing key agricultural risks, including weather and cli- mate change through scaling up climate-resilient technologies. Sustainable fisheries sector and fisheries value chain in Malawi through improved climate-resilient lake eco- system conservation and management: Ensuring sustainable management of fisheries resources and com- munities against the impacts of climate change through conserving and sustainably managing immediate lake catchments and shoreline ecosystems. Strengthening climate resilience of smallholder farmers in Malawi: Increasing the resilience of smallholder farmers and related livelihoods to the effects of climate change and thereby enhancing food and nutrition secu- rity and contributing to poverty reduction in rural areas of Malawi under a changing climate. Operationalizing Malawi’s climate services center: Establishing and operationalizing a climate services center for Malawi and improving the management of climate data at the national level. 130 Todd. 2013. End of Programme Evaluation for the National Programme for Managing Climate Change in Malawi and the Malawi Africa Adaptation Programme. 131 Reddy and Gondwe. 2016. Malawi NAP Stocktaking Report, Final Report, prepared for EAD, Govt. of Malawi with support from UNDP. 132 GoM. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Malawi, Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR). THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 49 Skills and expertise in climate change mitigation and adaptation are limited. Most sectors designate staff from other functions to address climate change issues, such as participation in the National Technical Committee on Climate Change. Many sectoral staff at policy and program levels lack the multiple skills and expertise that the interdisciplinary nature of climate change requires. There are also barriers that constrain communities’ ability to participate and capacity to adapt. These include abject poverty, low levels of education, lack of skills, lack of appropriate technologies, environmental degradation, and lack of water availability. Adaptation projects need to respond to the perceived and experienced needs and vulnerabilities of the given community. Natural disasters Malawi is ranked among the countries most at risk of natural disasters in the world. After the floods of 2015, Malawi was categorized by the Climate Change Index as the third-most vulnerable country to climate change,133 and the country is ranked as the 16th most vulnerable country globally for humanitarian crisis and disasters in the INFORM’s Global Risk Index 2017.134 Between 1980 to 2017, Malawi has experienced eight major droughts and 33 floods.135 The floods of 2015 were the worst in 50 years and this was followed by a drought in 2016–17. This drought affected 6.5 million people, which is over a third of the total population. An overview of disasters since 1990 is provided in Annex 5. Natural disasters, such as extreme weather and recurring floods and droughts, put economic growth and people’s livelihoods at risk, and add strain to environmental resources and ecosystem services. Other natural disasters, such as hailstorms, lightning, earthquakes, pest infections, and wildfires increase these risks. These disasters are also hard to predict, manage, and recover from. In addition, Malawi’s women and children are particularly vulnerable to natural disas- ters such as droughts due to disproportionate gendered responsibilities for food production and livestock.136 Natural disasters, such as extreme weather and recurring floods and droughts, put economic growth and people’s livelihoods at risk. 133 Kreft et al. 2017. GLOBAL CLIMATE RISK INDEX 2017—Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss Events in 2015 and 1996 to 2015. 134 INFORM. 2017. Malawi. 135 EM-DAT. 2018. The International Disaster Database. 136 GoM. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report. 50 Environment Floods and droughts directly and indirectly reduce Malawi’s natural capital by exacerbating environmental deg- radation and the loss of natural resources. Although the impact of natural disasters on the environment is hard to estimate, the 2015 Malawi Post Disaster Needs Assessment137 showed a wide range of destroyed and deteriorated assets. During this one natural disaster event, 71,500 ha of forests and energy resources were lost. Water resources were affected by high siltation, accumulated debris, and salinization of irrigated land, and fertile riverine areas were waterlogged. In addition, exposure to disasters is also increasing due to more people living and working in flood- prone areas. Cost/economic impact Since 2012, floods and droughts in Malawi have cost the economy and the country over USD 1 billion. Lost pro- duction caused by droughts and floods cost the Malawian economy on average 1.7% of its annual GDP,138 and the recent floods of 2015 and subsequent drought cost the economy over 5% of annual GDP.139 Although the effects of floods can be more immediate and localized compared to droughts, both have an impact across the whole economy. Climate change is likely to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and it is not possible to determine their future patterns. This complicates estimating the probable additional effects of climate change on disaster impacts. The economic impact of floods and droughts also disproportionately affects the income of poorer households com- pared to the non-poor, and increases the number of people living in poverty. After the floods of 2012–13, research found that floods resulted in reduced incomes in four of every five affected households.140 Compared to the non-poor, natural disasters have been found to affect poor populations worse.141 The agriculture, transportation, and water sectors face the worst economic impact. The economic cost of severed natural capital and resources is significant but difficult to estimate. Annual agricultural production damage and losses after the 2015 floods were estimated at USD 365.9 million and required recovery interventions estimated at USD 500.2 million. The transport sector also suffered USD 60 million in losses and USD 130 million in reconstruc- tion costs. The agriculture sector experiences uncertainty and fluctuations from droughts. Damaged and lost crop yields cause rapid food price increases, inflation, and volatility. For example, in the droughts of 2015–2016, crop and livestock losses amounted to 70% of all losses (60% and 10%, respectively). Such volatility varies across districts (for example, 4% in Blan- tyre and 6.8% in Machinga). After agriculture, the two most drought-affected sectors were water resources and sanitation (36%) and the environment and forestry (12%). 137 Ibid. 138 Pauw et al. 2010. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Drought and Floods in Malawi—Assessing the Economy-wide Effects. 139 GoM. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report. 140 World Bank. 2017(b). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment. 141 Ibid. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 51 Key recommendations ENHANCE CLIMATE RESILIENCE BY IMPLEMENTING A NATIONAL AND INTEGRATED PROGRAM FOR IMPROVED UPTAKE OF CLIMATE INFORMATION SERVICES There is an urgent need to increase investments in Malawi’s weather and climate services capacity. For example, of the 140 key surface water monitoring stations (of a national total of 176), 70% are not producing data.142 A global assessment led by the World Meteorological Organization shows that climate services investments can have a cost- benefit ratio of 1:3 in protection and productivity of assets, industries, and livelihoods.143 In some cases (for example, warning services), the benefit ratio is much higher.144 However, benefits are contingent on the delivery and use of quality services. Information on weather, water, and climate is vital for decision-making on climate change risks, opportunities, and responses to support planning in the short, medium, and long term. At all levels, from household to national, actions are currently taken with little or low-quality climate information. The information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure necessary to provide information in a timely manner is not in place, and there is still inadequate technical capacity for generating and integrating multiple streams of validated climate data and producing and delivering sector-specific information products.145 MGDS III identifies improving climate services as a strategic priority.146 The financing for recent and forthcoming invest- ments in Malawi’s climate services has increased as climate services’ contribution to building resilience is acknowledged. For example, in 2017, the Green Climate Fund, UNDP, and GoM approved USD 16.3 million for early warning systems. It is now important to integrate various streams of investments and fill the financing gap to achieve national coverage and strengthen the entire value chain of climate services across sectors and government agencies (that is, from data collec- tion through to the uptake of relevant climate information in decision-making and planning). To achieve such integration, Malawi could explore the potential of ICT tools and platforms to make climate information more accessible. Improved access to information could be achieved by using social media and mobile phone communication, in addition to tradi- tional communication channels such as bulletins. The uptake of climate information could be strengthened by producing more sector-relevant information (made possible by integrating local data and capitalizing on free online climate informa- tion products) in a messaging format and language that are user-friendly. LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Improvements to land management practices could make a major contribution toward reducing the rate of land degradation and deforestation while also slowing the drawdown on natural capital. Changes to climate and weather patterns exacerbate existing vulnerabilities of Malawi’s natural resource base. This is already under threat and the accompanying rapid drawdown on natural capital will reduce opportunities for wealth cre- ation in the future. Investments in SLM practices have already proven successful at reversing land degradation trends (or at least slowing them significantly). Benefits of investing in improving land management have a high rate of return in economic terms147 and have also been shown to accrue to small farmers and poor rural households.148 Much of the dam- age of floods and droughts can be reduced by good land management practices that increase the water holding capacity of soils, reduce runoff, reduce the siltation of rivers and streams, and protect natural catchments such as wetlands. 142 Authors calculations based on mission findings, August 2017. 143 World Meteorological Organization. 2015. Valuing Weather and Climate: Economic Assessment of Hydrological and Meteorological Services. 144 World Bank. 2018 (b). Assessment of the State of Hydrological Services in Developing Countries. 145 Vincent et al. 2015. Identifying Climate Services Needs for National Planning: Insights from Malawi. 146 GoM. 2017(a). The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) III: Building a Productive, Competitive and Resilient Nation. 147 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 148 LTS. 2013(a). Land Use Scenario Analysis, Task 3 Report: Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options for Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation. 52 LOCAL-LEVEL CAPACITY Building capacity of both government and community institutions at local levels will support resilience to climate change impacts. Policies and actions will have to be tailored for specific and varied impacts and needs based on local conditions, and no single set of interventions will work in all locations. Building the capacity to respond in this way requires local response capacity to understand both climate risks and possible responses. While the central government can provide leadership and direction, without adequate local implementation and decision-making capacity, informed choices that allow local-level responses to the changing climate will be limited. Building capacity of local-level government institu- tions is not just about strengthening technical capacity to implement but also looking at accountability and monitoring capacity. This will require skills that ensure transparency in reporting being central to capacity-building initiatives. BUILT ENVIRONMENT—CLIMATE PROOFING Improved planning of the built environment, to include design that takes account of climate impacts, can protect against the damage caused by extreme weather events. Adequate ‘climate proofing’ should, at a minimum, be part of building and design regulations for public buildings such as schools and hospitals and economically important infrastructure such as major roads and bridges. ‘BUILD-BACK-BETTER’ Focusing on the environment as a one of the key priorities for building resilience to natural disasters will help develop a ‘build-back-better’ approach. In the aftermath of the recent droughts and floods of 2015–2017, GoM identified the environment as one of six key priori- ties for building resilience to natural disasters. Specifically, interventions should focus on afforestation and reforestation, natural regeneration, water points for wildlife, and early warning systems.149 149 GoM. 2017(j). National Disaster Recovery Framework—Building Back a Disaster-Affected Malawi Better and Safer. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 53 Key environmental and natural resources management themes Land degradation in the Shire Valley is particularly severe and has major cost impacts on hydropower generation. 5. LAND DEGRADATION Land degradation is a continuing challenge faced by Malawi Land degradation is defined here as with over 60% of Malawi’s land affected. It affects the liveli- hoods of millions of farmers and costs the equivalent of 6.8% “long-term loss of on-site and off-site of the country’s GDP. It is caused by unsustainable land man- terrestrial ecosystem goods and services, agement practices and is exacerbated by increasing demo- which humans derive from them.” graphic pressures, climate change, and poorly designed agricultural support policies. It also has major impacts on a Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Global Assessment Reports. number of other sectors—including water resources, energy generation, agriculture, and fisheries. Efforts to address land degradation have a long history in Malawi. Large soil conservation research programs were introduced during the colonial era between 1953 and 1965 to investigate erosion and runoff and the effectiveness of conservation and types of land use. A Land Husbandry Branch was formed in 1960, which introduced a more holistic concept of ‘land husbandry’. Despite these early efforts, land degradation has grown to become a major constraint to social and economic development in Malawi and limits the country’s ability to cope with severe weather events, natural disasters, and longer term climate change. However, there are promising options available to help address this challenge. In 2016, Malawi’s Parliament passed 10 new laws150 that will make fundamental changes to the status and registration of land rights. The new framework intro- duces a decentralized land administration and registration system and, for the first time, provides for the formalization and registration of customary rights. This new framework presents both opportunities and challenges for transformation in natural resources management and agriculture. The major opportunity is that the new legal framework offers the potential for strengthening land tenure security and thus increasing investments in more SLM approaches. 150 The Land Bill, 2016; Customary Land Bill, 2016; Physical Planning Bill, 2016; Land Survey Bill, 2016; Registered Land (Amendment) Bill, 2016; Land Acquisitions (Amendment) Bill, 2016; Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 2016; Malawi Housing Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2016; Forestry (Amendment) Bill, 2016; and Public Roads (Amendment) Bill, 2016. 54 Malawi has also piloted SLM approaches that show promising results. If implemented at scale, these would boost agri- cultural productivity, build resilience, and protect and restore environmental services. To sustain and scale up pilot-level activities, reforms are needed to policies that currently work against sustainable land management. Establishment of results-based payment systems are also needed to create incentives over the longer term for improved land stewardship. A growing challenge Land degradation has reached alarming levels in Malawi. Evidence of the severity of land degradation in Malawi shows estimated costs of USD 244 million per year (in 2007 prices) over 2001–2009. This is equivalent to about 6.8% of the country’s GDP. This figure becomes even larger when costs associated with sediment management to maintain hydro- power development are factored in. Land degradation ‘hot spots’ cover about 41% of the land area in the country, of which the Shire River basin is the most affected. Soil erosion and nutrient depletion are major forms of land degradation that are reported to affect more than 60% of the entire land area. The average annual national soil loss rates in 2014 was 29 tons per hectare.151 Chemical land degradation, including soil pollution and salinization/alkalization, has led to 15% loss in the arable land in Malawi in the last decade alone. The condition of the land, and its associated erosion and flooding, severely affect both the landscape and the liveli- hoods of local communities. There is also a strong correlation between areas with highly degraded land and those with a high incidence of poverty, although there is currently insufficient evidence to point to a causal link (see Figure 21). FIGURE 21. Map showing hot spots of land degradation across Malawi Fire incidence Sediment export Canopy loss Low High poverty evapotranspiration Coincident 1 Degradation 2 3 Criteria 4 5 6 7 8 High population Low soil fertility High erosion High slope GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 151 Vargus and Omuto. 2016. Soil Loss Assessment in Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 55 Increasingly fragile upper catchments have been cultivated as agricultural land has expanded into forest areas over recent decades, albeit at a slower rate since 2000 (see Table 5 and Figure 22). This has resulted in significant erosion, loss of soil fertility, and siltation of water bodies. Unsustainable agricultural intensification has also taken place along riverbanks and in wetlands. This degrades natural habitats, exacerbates downstream flooding, and increases exposure to weather shocks. In addition, the impact on forests has been substantial. TABLE 5. Land use/cover in km2 and change as % of FIGURE 22. Change in land use and cover, total area of Malawi, 1990–2010 1990–2010, in km2 1990 2000 2010 1990–2000 2000–2010 1,500 Agriculture 47,053 48,094 48,277 0.88% 0.16% 1990–2000 2000–2010 Grass/shrub 11,379 11,559 11,729 0.15% 0.14% 1,000 Forest 32,740 31,729 31,635 −0.86% -0.08% Plantation 1,239 1,162 899 −0.07% −0.22% Urban 1,362 1,387 1,390 0.02% 0.00% 500 Water 23,853 23,695 23,695 −0.13% 0.00% Total 117,626 117,626 117,626 0 Source: FAO. 2013. Atlas of Malawi: Land Cover and Land Cover Change Agriculture Grass/shrub Urban 1990–2010. Water Plantation –500 –1,000 Forest –1,500 Source: FAO, 2013. Atlas of Malawi: Land Cover and Land Cover Change 1990–2010. In the past, most smallholders practiced an extensive form of agriculture comprising crop-fallow systems that would replenish soil nutrients after cropping. High population growth and increasing rural population densities have led to the abandonment of these practices and generally, farmers no longer use fallow periods nor crop rotations that alternate maize with grain legumes. Manure is not widely available or used due to low numbers of livestock.152 As a result, mono- cropping with maize has resulted in large-scale loss of soil nutrients in the soils, particularly nitrogen. Projections for future land degradation and soil loss under different climate and population growth rate scenarios suggest that land deg- radation will become increasingly severe. Figure 23 shows projections for the Linthipe-Nkhotakota basin, comparing the 2010 baseline with projections that assume a continuing high population growth rate and wet climate scenario.153 This suggests that overall rates of soil loss will increase by between three and four times 2010 baseline levels. This implies high costs associated with inaction to address land degradation. Nkonya et al. (2016)154 present such data on a district by district basis, and data for districts in the Shire basin are shown in Box 4. 152 LTS. 2013(a). Land Use Scenario Analysis, Task 3 Report: Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options for Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation. 153 LTS. 2013(b). Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options in Malawi. Land Use Investment Plan. Annex 5b. Linthipe-Nkotakota Lake Shore Data Annex. Submitted to World Bank and Government of Malawi. 154 Nkonya et al. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. 56 FIGURE 23. Quantity of soil loss per slope class projected to 2030 assuming high population growth and wet climate scenario 4.5 4.0 3.5 Agriculture >20% 3.0 Agriculture 15–20% Agriculture 9–15% Tons (millions) 2.5 Agriculture 2–9% Agriculture 0–2% 2.0 Agriculture in forest area all slopes Miombo all slopes 1.5 Other 1.0 0.5 0 Baseline 2010 Bau II Wet 2030 Note: Total soil yield for January (millions of tons) for Linthipe-Nkhotakota lakeshore for key land uses by slope class. January monthly data for five-year average 2001–2005 (for Baseline 2010) and 2027–2031 (for BAU II Wet 2030 Scenario)—high population growth and wet climate. BOX 4. Land degradation in Shire River basin The Shire River basin is the most prominent hot spot of land degradation in Malawi. Deforestation, soil erosion, and sedimentation form the most serious threats to the ENR base in the Shire River basin. High loads of sedi- ments are deposited in river beds, reservoirs, and floodplain wetlands, affecting irrigation canals, fisheries, and hydropower generation. Water resources are increasingly degraded through silt loads, sedimentation, eutro- phication, biological contamination, and effluents. As an example, the Mangochi district in the upper catchment of the Shire River basin experiences the highest costs of land degradation and inaction nationwide (Figure 24). Given the economic and social importance of the Shire River basin for economic growth, poverty reduction, and food security, it is critical to address the root causes of the deteriorating ENR base in the basin. FIGURE 24. Land degradation in Malawi: Cost of action and inaction (USD, millions) 30 Cost in USD millions 25 20 15 10 5 0 Balaka Chiradzulu Blantyre Phalombe Nsanje Zomba Ntcheu Thyolo Salima Dowa Ntchisi Mchninji Mwanza Mulanje Dedza Chikwawa Chitipa Liongwe Machinga Nkhotakota Rumphi Mzimba Nkhata Bay Mangochi Sum of annual costs of LD (TEV) Source: Nkonya et al. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. Note: LD = Land degradation; TEV = Total economic value. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 57 Impacts from agriculture interventions have had mixed results. FISP has been subsidizing fertilizer and (mostly) maize seeds since 2005. Yields initially increased, but these initial gains have now levelled off. These input subsidies also worked against diversification by encouraging the planting of maize in areas that are often poorly suited to this crop, including mar- ginal areas on steep slopes. Only comparatively recently has the choice of seeds provided through FISP been diversified. Furthermore, indiscriminate use of fertilizers has not been enough to compensate for failing soil fertility,155 and the result- ing modest increase in yields and returns was often insufficient for farmers to reinvest in fertilizer in subsequent years. The combined result has been an ongoing loss of soil fertility and farmers continually searching for new land for cultivation—often at the expense of forests. The enormous cost of FISP has also left little capacity to fund other initia- ­ tives that could help farmers reduce dependence on unsustainable farming practices. FISP accounted for 75% of the budget for agriculture or 3% of GDP in FY2014/15.156 Further analysis is needed to confirm the impacts on land degrada- tion of these agricultural interventions. Poor and eroded soils have been shown to thwart poverty reduction.157 Various mechanisms link degraded soils to increased poverty: ●● Lower soil productivity reduces incomes and capital accumulation, making it harder for households to access and invest in nutrients to boost soil productivity.158 ●● Loss of soil nutrients reduces the micronutrient content of crops, which can impair human health.159 ●● Land degradation increases exposure to climate shocks and associated price volatility.160 ●● Pests and weeds that decimate cropland are more common in degraded soils.161 ●● Land degradation increases costs to farmers since additional investments are needed to reduce erosion and nutrient depletion. Drivers of land degradation Many underlying factors drive land degradation in Malawi. These include growing demand for agricultural land, insecure land tenure, unsustainable land management practices, a weak policy environment and weak institutions, and limited access to markets and rural finance. Important biophysical factors affect land degradation, including topography, land cover, climate (especially erosive rainfall), and soil erodibility. The greater the length and steepness of slope, the greater the soil erosion. Sloped lands are particularly vulnerable to soil erosion if they have inadequate vegetative cover and no physical barriers to prevent runoff. River and streambanks, for example, only cover 0.4% of Malawi’s land area. Yet their wide-scale degradation has effectively removed natural sedimentation traps and vital buffer functions against floods and natural disasters.162 Land tenure insecurity among smallholders, especially women, is high. In the 2016–17 Integrated Household Survey by the World Bank, 33% of households indicated that they lacked confidence that they would still possess their plot of land in 10 years’ time.163 Insecure tenure reduces incentives to invest in higher-value crops or soil conservation measures and results in lower levels of productivity and land degradation. Female-managed plots are 25% less productive than plots that are managed by males, constrained by lower use of inorganic fertilizer and adult male labor and restricted access to agricultural tools.164 155 Record et al. 2017. Policy and Institutional Actions for Moving beyond “Business as Usual” to Achieve Stable and Sustained Growth and Poverty Reduction. 156 Record et al. 2017. Policy and Institutional Actions for Moving beyond “Business as Usual” to Achieve Stable and Sustained Growth and Poverty Reduction. From Falling Behind to Catching Up: A Country Economic Memorandum for Malawi. 157 World Bank. 2018(a). Hidden Dimensions of Poverty: Economic Development and Sustainability [draft]. 158 Barrett and Bevis. 2015. The Self-Reinforcing Feedback between Low Soil Fertility and Chronic Poverty; Eswaran et al. 1997. An Assessment of the Soil Resources of Africa in Relation to Productivity. 159 Bevis. 2015. Soil-to-Human Mineral Transmission with an Emphasis on Zinc, Selenium, and Iodine. 160 Barrett and Bevis. 2015. The Self-Reinforcing Feedback between Low Soil Fertility and Chronic Poverty. 161 Ayongwa et al. 2011. Host-Parasite Dynamics of Sorghum Bicolor and Striga Hermonthica—The Influence of Soil Organic Matter Amendments of Different C:N Ratio. 162 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 163 World Bank. 2017(a). Malawi Economic Monitor: Harnessing the Urban Economy. 164 World Bank. 2013(b). Caught in Productivity Trap. A Distributional Perspective on Gender Differences in Malawian Agriculture. Policy Research Working Paper No. 6381. 58 Poor land management practices, including the clearing of forests and river banks, annual burning, and heavy foot- path use, continue to accelerate soil erosion. Deforestation is associated with continued demand for agricultural land, charcoal and wood fuel extraction, and unsustainable timber production. Unsustainable agricultural land management practices include slash and burn with short rotations and hillside and riverbank cultivation,165 and most smallholder farm- ers still cultivate using unimproved traditional methods. There are limited improved inputs, land husbandry is minimal, and water and soil conservation is not widely practiced. Ridging is generally practiced, except in the lower-lying regions, but only about 12% of cultivated land has ridges on contours, which is the recommended method. Access to credit and finance can substantially improve prospects for adoption of SLM. Until recently, local options for borrowing have been confined mainly to Village Savings and Loans Associations,166 cash-earning opportunities from day labor (‘ganyu’) and the sale of firewood/charcoal, and traditional rotating savings groups (for example, Chilemba or Chiperegani).167 Recent experience in the Shire Valley also demonstrated that village-managed revolving funds can play a key role in boosting adoption rates (Box 5). BOX 5. Creating incentives for farmer adoption of SLM practices SLM integrates land, water, biodiversity, and environmental management to meet rising food and fiber demands while sustaining livelihoods and the environment. It typically involves activities that ●● Preserve and enhance the productive capabilities of cropland, forestland, and grazing land (such as upland areas, downslope areas, flatlands, and bottomlands); ●● Sustain productive forest areas and potentially commercial and noncommercial forest reserve conservation zones; ●● Maintain the integrity of watersheds for water supply and hydropower generation needs and water conser- vation zones; and ●● Maintain the ability of aquifers to serve the needs of farm and other productive activities. With World Bank support, Malawi has prepared national catchment management guidelines168 that incorporate SLM approaches, and these are being applied in the Shire River basin. Participatory planning at sub-catchment and village levels, supported by investments in SLM and infrastructure to improve market access, has shown promising results in the four sub-catchments targeted under the Shire River Basin Management Program (Figure 25).169 Adoption rates were improved by the introduction of the Community Environmental Conservation Fund (CECF).170 Unlike other similar approaches, which have paid people based on the delivery of specific conserva- tion works, the CECF works by providing money for the establishment of a credit fund to communities that have collectively agreed to implement an environmental management plan. Using this approach, environmental management work is promoted, undertaken, and monitored by whole com- munities to ensure receipt of the credit facility. The money itself can be borrowed and used for any purpose, for example, from paying school fees and hospital and doctors’ bills to investments and other activities. Thus, the provision of the fund delivers improved environmental management because it enables improvements in liveli- hoods by removing barriers to accessing credit and not by prescribing specific actions. This proved much more effective than ‘traditional’ conservation funds because livelihood priorities are very dynamic and dependent on the status of a household at any point in time. 165 World Bank. 2006. Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities and Trade-offs. 166 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 167 Ibid. 168 GoM. 2016(c). Malawi National Guidelines: Integrated Catchment Management and Rural Infrastructure. 169 UNIQUE. 2018a. Landscape Level Analysis of Land and Natural Resources Degradation in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda. 170 Based on an approach first developed by the IUCN in Uganda. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 59 FIGURE 25. Priority sub-catchments targeted under the Shire River Basin Management Program 60 Institutions and policy The challenge posed by land degradation has been acknowledged at the government level. GoM has committed to a number of international environmental strategies. Malawi’s NDC submission to the UNFCCC points out the importance of improving approaches to SLM at the watershed level. It also stresses the need to encourage climate-resilient agricultural and land husbandry. A National Forest Landscape Restoration (NFLR) Strategy171 was developed in 2017, which was spe- cifically designed to help address these challenges. One objective of the Malawi National Agriculture Investment Plan172 is an annual increase in the area under sustainable land and water management of 15,000 ha. GoM also responded to the Bonn Challenge and Africa100 with a commitment to restore 4.5 million ha of degraded land—although it remains unclear where the financing will be found to deliver on this commitment. Figure 26 shows findings from multicriteria analysis used to identify priority landscape restoration areas at the national level. In addition, a new National Charcoal Strategy173 is being implemented that seeks to reduce forest degradation from unsustainable wood fuel collection by promoting alternative cooking fuels, efficient cookstoves, and sustainable charcoal production (see the Biomass energy section for more details on this strategy). FIGURE 26. Malawi landscape restoration multicriteria analysis Interventions Food security priority Resilience priority Biodiversity priority Forest Land Reserve priority Number of overlapping interventions 1 2 High 3,4,5 Low Source: GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. Renewed efforts are needed for the decentralization of government functions to address degradation drivers and accelerate restoration opportunities. Since the adoption of the 1998 Malawi Decentralization Policy (aimed at bringing decision-making and governance closer to communities), there have been inconsistencies in aligning control over bud- gets and interventions between the central and district levels. This has been compounded by a need for coherence and coordination between key policies to speed up and enable adoption of restoration activities174 with delivery through to the most decentralized levels of government. Advisory services provided by the government’s extension services, universities, and NGOs could play a key role in sup- porting and raising farmer knowledge. Established in 1949, Malawi’s extension services are organized at five levels: national, divisional, district, area, and section.175 Poor access to services is often blamed on staff shortages for the Agricultural Extension 171 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 172 GoM. 2018. National Agriculture Investment Plan. 173 GoM. 2017(f). National Charcoal Strategy 2017–2027. 174 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. The conclusion was drawn from a comprehensive review of the policy framework linked to forest and land degradation. 175 UNIQUE. 2018(a). Landscape Level Analysis of Land and Natural Resources Degradation in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 61 Development Officer positions and their level of skills. However, in the absence of access to advisory services, other services are emerging: ●● Short-term training by the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR) together with the MoAIWD ●● Directed support to Lead Farmers who are considered village leaders and early adopters ●● Farmer-to-farmer extension through Farmer Field School approaches The VNRMCs could be key to achieving and operationalizing land restoration. Instituted through the Forestry Act in 1997, the VNRMCs are mandated with the restoration of degraded land and other key natural resources management such as forest management, protection of catchments and fragile areas, and soil and water conservation. This allows them to solicit external technical and financial support from, for example, private sector and NGOs. Where VNRMCs are operational, they play an advisory role to the Village Development Committee (VDC), whose members are elected at the village level. Ideally, the VNRMC participates in the VDC-managed Village-Level Action Plan (VLAP).176 Economic context and impact Land degradation costs are estimated to be equivalent to about 6.8% of the country’s GDP. Using a total economic valuation approach, Nkonya et al. (2016)177 estimated that the annual costs of land degradation between 2001 and 2009 amounted to USD 244 million per year (in 2007 prices)—about 6.8% of GDP. However, another recent economic analysis of the costs of land degradation178 suggests that the costs are nearly double this. This later analysis factored in the economic contribution of ecosystem services for soil and water conservation by including costs associated with sediment management for hydropower production. Data show that the power utility ESKOM spent around USD 150,000 per ton in 2017 on sediment management to enable operation of the hydropower facilities at Kapichira. Using 2016 data from FAO,179 data for maximum soil loss by district, and assuming that 25% of eroded sediment reaches the hydropower scheme raises the annual cost estimate to USD 478.8 million, a figure that would double if it is assumed that 50% of sedi- ment reaches the hydropower facilities. By contrast, investing in SLM practices would show significant returns, hence reducing the cost of land degradation. Nkonya et al. (2016) estimated that for each dollar spent addressing land degradation, approximately USD 4.3 would be returned over 30 years. In addition, the government’s 2017 Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment estimated that restoring 2.4 million ha of degraded cropland would increase production. For example, restoration would increase maize production by 1.55 million mt per year, an increase of 40%.180 However, these figures need to be treated with some caution as they assume very high adoption rates. Adoption of SLM practices and technologies needs to be financially attractive to smallholder farmers and offer early returns on the investment. Probably the most important prerequisite for substantial uptake of SLM practices is their financial attractiveness from a farmer’s perspective. Recent cost-benefit analysis of SLM implementation in the Shire River basin has shown that benefits can accrue fairly rapidly, and small farmers are the main winners from SLM invest- ments. Many activities break even within one or two years.181 However, some have longer payback periods, which dis- courages poorer households from adopting some SLM practices. Elsewhere in Southern and East Africa there are high 176 UNIQUE. 2018(a). Landscape Level Analysis of Land and Natural Resources Degradation in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda. 177 Nkonya et al. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. 178 UNIQUE. 2018. Landscape Level Analysis of Land and Natural Resources Degradation in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda. 179 Vargus and Omuto. 2016. Soil Loss Assessment in Malawi. 180 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 181 LTS. 2013(a). Land Use Scenario Analysis, Task 3 Report: Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options for Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation. 62 de-adoption rates for SLM techniques such as conservation agriculture and agroforestry—often because labor require- ments are high and/or subsidies end.182 However, large up-front investment costs and lack of rapid returns constrain farmer adoption, and this has resulted in failed interventions. For example, one study showed that to achieve a positive cash flow, beneficiaries needed to invest USD 100 (at 2013 prices) over the first few years. It is clear that the decisions to invest do not solely rely on high returns.183, 184 Access to finance is critical among the factors that encourage the uptake of SLM.185 At the farm level, enterprise budgets for different SLM techniques show that very promising returns are available if up-front investment and additional initial labor costs can be addressed. For example, conservation agriculture with legume intercropping could generate double the returns compared with ‘business as usual’ maize with fertilizer use (as supported by FISP)—USD 998 compared with USD 467 per hectare per year.186 For example, community woodlots gen- erate attractive benefits to smallholder farmers—which are estimated at USD 292 per hectare over 20 years and show an internal rate of return of 28%. Importantly, smallholders can generate short-term benefits by harvesting and selling wood fuel five years after woodlot establishment. However, they also require substantial up-front investments. Conversely, for- est management emerges as a costly restoration option for private benefits but becomes attractive when public benefits (such as slope protection, improved resilience, and biodiversity) are considered. The degradation of land as natural capital directly affects various important economic sectors such as agriculture and forestry. Other sectors such as energy, fisheries, and tourism experience direct or at least indirect effects of a deteriorat- ing land resource base. These sectors contribute in various ways: ●● For supporting economic activity, the agriculture sector contributes 28% of Malawi’s GDP187 (2016)188 and 78% of export earnings189 (2015). The forestry sector contributes 6.2% to the GDP, which does not account for the value of non-wood forest products, processed timber, or the enormous informal trade in wood fuel and charcoal. ●● For supporting livelihoods, agriculture employs 64% of the workforce, which consists mainly of subsistence farm- ers. Smallholders account for 80% of agricultural production and 70% of agricultural GDP.190 Some 33,000 jobs are heavily dependent on the existence of Malawi's forests, 75% of whom are in household businesses.191, 192 More- over, household use of wood fuel provides a very significant contribution in kind to incomes. Approximately 2.8 mil- lion households depend primarily on wood fuel for cooking, and the average value of their consumption is almost MK 23,000 per year.193 ●● As a provider of environmental services, forests provide a range of environmental services, such as GHG mitigation, watershed regulation, climate regulation, soil and water conservation, biodiversity support, and nutrient cycling. The nine protected areas that are part of the Shire River Basin Management Program store an estimated 80 million tons of CO2e.194 Of high relevance in the Shire River basin is the role of SLM (in particular of intact forest ecosystems) to avoid siltation of hydropower facilities. 182 There is considerable literature on actual levels uptake of conservation agriculture and related techniques in the region. For Zambia, see Baudron et al. 2007. Conservation Agriculture in Zambia: A Case Study of Southern Province; Umar et al. 2011. Options for Improving Small-holder Conservation Agriculture in Zambia. For Mozambique, see Sacramento et al. 2010. Climate Change Impacts and Coping Strategies in Chicualacuala District, Gaza Province, Mozambique. 183 Nkonya et al. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. 184 CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Workbook. 185 See Annex 6 for more information about SLM. 186 MoIWD. 2016. National Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi. 187 The Global Economy. 2012. LPG Consumption: Country Rankings. 188 The agricultural sector is the largest employer of workers in Malawi, with around 59% of men workers and 70% of women workers. 189 WITS. 2015. Malawi Trade Summary 2015 Data. 190 World Bank. 2017(b). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment. 191 Casey and Kafakoma. 2013. Institutional Assessment of the Forestry Sector and Organisational Review of the Department of Forestry. 192 Women make up 70% of Malawi’s smallholder farmers, provide 70% of work in this sector, and produce 80% of food for home consumption. 193 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of Forest Valuation Systems Malawi Policy Briefing Report. 194 Bayliss. 2015. Carbon Storage Analysis of select Protected Areas under the SRBMP. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 63 Key recommendations REFORM INCENTIVES FOR FARMER-LEVEL SCALE-UP OF SLM PRACTICES Better alignment of policy reforms and investments that tackle land degradation with the adjustment of input subsidies could be transformational. A priority is to invest properly in the implementation of Malawi’s recent land tenure reforms. These will increase tenure security and incentives for landholders to invest in SLM measures. This will improve land tenure security and reduce land degradation and increase productivity. However, existing input subsidies work in the opposite direction—by con- straining crop diversification, encouraging maize cropping on steep slopes and other marginal areas, and ‘crowding out’ other spending priorities that could otherwise help increase productivity and build resilience (for example, investments in extension, water storage, and irrigation). Improved targeting of subsidies could reduce the overall fiscal burden that these impose on the national budget. An opportunity exists to reform subsidies in a way that promotes better land stew- ardship and boosts productivity. This could include directing subsidies to support SLM i ­nterventions—including climate- resilient agriculture. ELEVATE LAND RESTORATION TO A NATIONAL POLICY PRIORITY Efforts to address forest and land restoration need to be elevated to national priority status and consistently set across policies and laws. The government’s NFLR Strategy,195 published in July 2017, proposed that land restoration should be elevated to a higher national priority level, backed by financial investment to support the implementation of a range of national programs that would restore 4.5 million ha of land and forests as committed, for example, in the government’s pledge to the Bonn Chal- lenge and the AFR100 initiative. GoM acknowledges the challenges of land degradation in the context of climate change and economic development as evidenced by its NDC submission to the UNFCCC. The NDC points out the importance of SLM at the watershed level and the need to encourage climate-resilient agriculture and land husbandry. Appropriate legal provisions, investment funding, incentives, and compliance mechanisms, together with a clear role for traditional authorities, will be needed to deliver this. INVEST IN SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT Adoption of SLM practices and technologies needs to be financially attractive to smallholder farmers, including early returns. Probably the most important prerequisite for substantial uptake of SLM practices is their financial attractiveness from a farmer’s perspective. Public investments can help address up-front costs in the short term, and benefits can then accrue relatively rapidly to small farmers who become the main winners from SLM investments. Many activities break even within one or two years.196 However, some have longer payback periods, which discourages poorer households from adopting some SLM practices. As the economic analysis shows, investments that increase uptake of SLM will also deliver major public gains—in particular through reducing costs associated with siltation. 195 GoM. 2017(d). National Forest Landscape Restoration Strategy. 196 LTS. 2013(a). Land Use Scenario Analysis, Task 3 Report: Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options for Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation. 64 DEVELOP A RESULTS-BASED MECHANISM TO DELIVER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Recent efforts to pilot payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes in Malawi should be supported and taken to scale. Recent analysis indicates that the large difference between opportunity costs and avoided costs associated with address- ing land degradation creates an opportunity to establish a workable PES mechanism that could generate a continuous flow of revenues for supporting SLM practices in priority areas. These areas are known and could be targeted by PES schemes. Recent piloting in the Shire River basin of the CECF, a village-level revolving fund mechanism, has shown promising results when combined with participatory planning at catchment and village levels and with complementary investments that improve farmer access to markets. This approach could be funded by a PES mechanism and scaled up more widely in Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 65 6. FORESTS AND WOODLANDS Malawi’s forests and woodlands play a key role in supporting livelihoods and protecting ecosystem services. They supply a wide range of products, including timber and non-timber forest products. Wood fuels (discussed below) domi- nate Malawi’s energy sector and are used by 98% of the population. The industry provides large numbers of jobs and is worth nearly USD 295 million per year—equivalent to 4% of GDP. Forests and woodlands also play a key role in protecting watersheds from erosion, sustain the biodiversity that underpins a large proportion of Malawi’s tourism sector, and make an important contribution to mitigating carbon emissions by sequestering carbon (forest loss and degradation are by far the largest contributors to Malawi’s national GHG emissions). Forest degradation and loss are among the biggest environmental challenges facing Malawi. The degradation and loss of forests contribute to land degradation, which leads to sedimentation of rivers and water intakes, and account for Malawi’s largest share of GHG emissions. This process has been ongoing for almost half a century. Malawi’s forests are lost as land is converted to agriculture, and individual trees in forests and on farms are cut for fuel, construction materials, or other purposes. Deforestation is a major cause of land degradation in Malawi. Status of Malawi’s forests Malawi lacks a consistent set of time series data on land use/land cover (LULC). Several different data sources provide an overall indication of the magnitude of forest loss over time. However, these data are based largely on remote sensing imagery, which unfortunately shows little about forest degradation. The different methodologies used for forest cover mapping introduces discrepancies between different estimates for forest cover loss. Between 1972 and 1992, over half of Malawi’s natural forests have been lost. This amounted to an average annual loss of 2.5%.197 Because the methodology 197 Kainja. 2001. Forestry Outlook Studies in Africa (FOSA)—Malawi. Data available in Annex 7. 66 and data underlying this figure are no longer available, it may not be precise, but it does give a sense of the magnitude of forest loss during this period.198 LULC data199 shows a much slower rate of forest decline between 1990 and 2000—0.85% loss of natural forest per year. Between 2000 and 2010, this figure dropped to just 0.08% annual loss. This could be the result of a reduction in the availability of land available for conversion since most of the former forest land suitable for agriculture had already been converted. Figure 27 shows 2010 LU/LC based on these data (Annex 7). FIGURE 27. Land cover, 2010 Land cover Agriculture (AG) Bare (BS) Herbaceous (HCO) Shrub (SCO) Natural forest (TCO) Plantation forest (TP) Urban (URB) Water (WAT) Source: FAO. 2013. Atlas of Malawi: Land Cover and Land Cover Change 1990–2010. Landsat’s land cover data used by Global Forest Watch (Figure 28) suggests that the rate of tree cover loss may have risen between 2000–2010 and 2010–2016,200 although it should be noted that the interpretation of data from 2011 onward changed in a way that would show higher losses.201 198 Clement Chilima, Director, DoF. 2 May 2018. Comment made at workshop in Malawi. 199 FAO. 2013. Atlas of Malawi: Land Cover and Land Cover Change 1990–2010. 200 Hansen et al. 2013. HIgh-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. 201 Global Forest Watch. 2018. Malawi Tree Cover Loss. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 67 FIGURE 28. Change in tree cover, 2000–2016 Tree cover loss (thousands ha) 20kha 15k 10k 5.0k 0 2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 2016 2000 tree cover extent | >30% tree canopy Source: Global Forest Watch. 2018. Malawi Tree Cover Loss. Spatial data analysis indicates that forest loss has been considerably slower in protected areas in comparison with for- ests with other types of tenure. Figure 29 shows how forest cover has changed in the Mzimba and Mzuzu districts, where there has been considerable change since 2010.202 Figure 30 shows the location of all of Malawi’s protected areas. Drivers of forest change Forest loss and degradation are driven by a complex mix of interrelated forces that are connected to issues of land degradation, agriculture, biomass energy, and biodiversity loss. Identifying and ranking the drivers of forest change has been a focus of the national program for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation programme (REDD+)203, 204 and the analysis below is consistent with the findings of the REDD+ analysis of drivers (Box 6). BOX 6. REDD+ readiness and forest monitoring Since 2014 Malawi has been developing REDD+ readiness, with support from USAID through its Enhancing Capacity for Low Emissions Development and Protecting Ecosystems and Restoring Forests (PERFORM) proj- ects and from the UN-REDD. A key component of this work is inventorying and monitoring change in carbon sequestration and LULC nation- wide to demonstrate additionality required for carbon trading and to provide a baseline against which to moni- tor changes in forest carbon stocks. As part of Malawi’s REDD+ efforts, Malawi has prepared a road map for developing a national forest manage- ment system.205 This road map has developed a typology of primary and secondary drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, a standardized Malawi LULC classification scheme, and has started work on a forest inventory—the first such inventory since 1992. 202 This was taken from Global Forest Watch, which used Landsat data on forest cover and loss. 203 LTS. 2015. Qualitative Analysis of Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Malawi.  204 The REDD+ readiness analysis is based on standard methodology applied across REDD+ participating countries and is based on expert opinion. 205 GoM. 2015(f). Roadmap for Developing Malawi’s National Forest Monitoring System. 68 FIGURE 29. Change in forest cover—national, subnational, and local Forest change Tree cover gain Tree cover loss Tree cover loss is not always deforestation. Land cover Tree cover 2010 Displaying tree cover with >30% canopy density. Source: Hansen et al. 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 69 FIGURE 30. Malawi forest reserves MAL AWI PROTECTED AREAS (FORE ST RESERVES & NATIONAL PARKS) 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 Proposed Forest Res erves No. NAME MatipaMugesse 1 CHIPALA Wilindi 2 MBULA 3 NABATATA 8900000 8900000 4 KAPEMBE HILL Mafinga Hills Musisi 5 KARONGA NORTH ESCARPMENT 6 IGHEMBE 7 MUWANGA 8 KALEMBO HILL Vinthukutu 16 CHOMBE 9 KARONGA SOUTH ESCARPMENT Nyika 10 JEMBYA 11 MAHOWE 8800000 8800000 12 KAMPYONGO Uzumara 13 CHIKHANG'OMBE Mwaza Marsh 14 CHANTHASHA 15 THERERE 17 CHOMA Bunganya 34 SONJO Lunyangwa 33 MZUMANGAZI Kaning'ina 35 CHISASIRA Lalwe 36 KAWIYA 24 CHINGALE HILLS/ NAMATUNU 8700000 8700000 Nkuwadzi 18 DWAMBAZI Mtangatanga 19 KAOMBE South ViphyaChisasira Ruvuo 20 NKHOMA HILL Perekezi 21 CHILENJE Kuwilwe 25 MLINDI HILL 22 PHIRILONGWE 23 NENO EASTERN ESCARPMENT Chimaliro 26 MKANYA HILL 27 WAMKURUMADZI 8600000 8600000 28 NKULA 29 NORTH MASATWE Kasungu Nkhotakota 30 SOUTH MASATWE 31 MICHIRU 32 Ngara Ntchisi 8500000 8500000 Mchinji Kongwe Dowa Hills North Senga Nalikule South Senga Thuma Lake Malawi Dedza Salima Escarp Namizimu Bunda Dzenza Ms itolengwe Lake Malawi ChongoniMua Tsanya Nkopola Dzalanyama Mua Livulezi 8400000 8400000 Mangochi Palm BangwePhirilongwe Mangochi Mvai Liwonde Dzonze Liwonde Zomba Malosa 8300000 8300000 Tsamba Legend Thambani Chiradzulu Michiru Sambani Main Road Ndirande Michese Majete Chigumula Malawi_Protected_FR & NP Mulanje Mountain Thyolo MountainLichenya Proposed_Forest_Reserves Thuchila 8200000 8200000 Lengwe Nat park Thyolomwani Lake Malawi Kalulu Hills Mw_Admin_Distr Mwabvi Matandwe 0 50 1 00 200 81 00000 81 00000 Km 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 Source: Map supplied by the Department of Forestry (DoF). 70 Increasing demand for biomass fuels and agricultural land is the principal driver. Growing demand for construc- tion wood is another driver. Construction wood can be managed sustainably on plantations but is often harvested at unsustainable rates in natural forests. Export industries also drive the use of forest resources. Malawi's largest export is tobacco, which accounted for 55% of export earnings in 2015.206 Tobacco is dried by burning natural woods, which places even more pressure on forest resources in Malawi and elsewhere.207 Tobacco was estimated to cause 26% of the country's deforestation in the early 1990s. However, this assumed that all wood used for tobacco is above sustainable yield.208 Tobacco cultivation has been dropping, and a 2010 estimate found that tobacco accounted for 7.5% of total use of naturally grown wood.209 Export-led demand for wood may also be coming from China, as detailed in an analysis of the mukula (or rosewood) trade in Zambia.210 Faced with successive bans on mukula harvesting in Zambia, harvesting and trade to meet Chinese demand is spilling over into neighboring countries, including Malawi (although the impacts have not yet been analyzed outside of Zambia). Fires also pose a direct threat to Malawi’s forests. Miombo woodlands are to some extent resilient to fire. Fires are set to promote growth of new shoots for livestock, to flush out mammals for hunting, and to clear vegetation for planting. Fires are also set in pits for charcoal production. Fires set for these purposes often get out of control. As forests fragment, edge effects increase, which leaves remaining forest stands more vulnerable to fire. Monitoring data are not available on fire frequency, but it is highly likely that the frequency of burning in many woodland areas has increased over time. Frequent burning leads to a gradual thinning of miombo woodlands, loss of forest productivity, and a gradual transition toward savannah.211 Climate change is another driver that poses a threat to Malawi’s forests. Climate change may slow the growth of miombo woodlands through changes in rainfall and temperature,212 increase the pressure to convert land from natural vegetation to agriculture, and increase the length and severity of dry periods, all of which are likely to reduce sustainable yield levels and increase fire frequency. Given the current state of global forest carbon market negotiations, it remains unclear whether results-based payment for forest carbon will eventually provide a substantive source of future revenues or incentives for sustainable forest management and conservation.213 However, it is anticipated that these activities will in any case strengthen capacity for forest management. Sustainability of forest use The decline of the country's forest resources suggests that forest resources are being used at a rate higher than the sustainable yield. Forest accounts constructed for 2010214 estimated total use of natural forest wood at about 13 million m3 in 2010, whereas sustainable yield nationwide for miombo woodlands in 2010 was estimated to be 7 million m3. This suggests that harvests exceed sustainable yield by about 71%. Almost all of the wood in these estimates is for energy, either firewood or converted to charcoal. 206 OEC. 2016. Malawi. 207 Jimu et al. 2017. The Miombo Ecoregion up in Smoke: The Effect of Tobacco Curing. 208 Geist. 1999. Global Assessment of Deforestation Related to Tobacco Farming. 209 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(c). Forest Sustainable Balance. 210 Cerutti et al. 2018. Informality, Global Capital, Rural Development and the Environment: Mukula (Rosewood) Trade between China and Zambia. 211 Warren et al. 2001. Causes and Consequences of Anthropogenic Fire in Mulanje Mountain Forest Reserve, Southern Malawi: Report Following ‘Mulanje Fire Research’ Expedition, 2001. 212 Lehmann et al. 2014. Savanna Vegetation-Fire-Climate Relationships Differ among Continents. 213 Hamrick and Gallant. 2017. Unlocking Potential: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2017. 214 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(c). Forest Sustainability Balance and Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of Forest Valuation Systems Malawi Policy Briefing Report. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 71 Forest sector GHG emissions Forest loss and degradation are also major contributors to Malawi’s GHG emissions. Figure 31 shows the composition of GHG emissions in 2011, based on a combination of primary data sources.215 Land use change and forestry (LUCF) accounted for 56% of the total quantified emissions, and agriculture for 40%. Within LUCF, forestry was responsible for 70% of emissions. Malawi’s GHG emissions are small by global standards and are caused mainly by land management and degradation, deforestation, and forest degradation. The cropland portion of forestry emissions may be attributable to the management of on-farm trees, although it is not possible to distinguish this contribution from the available data. FIGURE 31. Composition of Malawi's GHG emissions, 2011 7 6.0 (56%) 6 Emissions (mt CO₂e) 5 4.4 (40%) 4 3 2 1 0.3 (2%) 0.2 (2%) NA 0 Land-use Agriculture Waste Industrial Energy change and processes forestry LUCF subsectors Agriculture subsectors Grassland Other subsectors Cropland Burning—savanna Burning biomass Manure applied to soils Forest land Crop residues Manure management Synthetic fertilizers Manure left on pasture Enteric fermentation Source: USAID. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Malawi. They report that no data were available for energy sector emissions, so their report, and this figure, omit that source altogether. Economic and other consequences of forest loss Income and wealth Forests, forest-based enterprises from both forests and on-farm trees, and protected areas are important contributors to Malawi’s economy. They account for 4.3% of the country’s total wealth and 8% of its natural capital. Although the coun- try’s national income accounts show the forest sector contributing only 1% of value added in 2010, a more comprehensive study estimated its contribution in that year to be 7.9%.216 The published accounts include only commercial forestry activ- ity, whereas the more comprehensive study also estimates the value of wood fuel and charcoal, on which 98% of the population depends for household energy.217 215 USAID. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Malawi. They report that no data were available for energy sector emissions, so their report, and this figure, omit that source altogether. 216 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of Forest Valuation Systems Malawi Policy Briefing Report. 217 GoM. 2015(e). Statistical Yearbook 2015. 72 Loss of forest cover contributes to high levels of soil loss, especially on steep slopes. Forests also contribute to carbon sequestration, as discussed in more detail below, although this only rarely provides an actual monetary benefit. In addition, forests provide ecosystem services that are more difficult to quantify in monetary terms, including watershed protection and biodiversity habitat. The decline of the forests leads to losses of all these contributions. Forest degradation and soil erosion Deforestation, forest degradation, and the loss of on-farm trees are significant contributors to the soil erosion and land degradation problems that Malawi faces (discussed in detail in the Land degradation section of this report). Forests and other natural vegetation help buffer the impacts of rainfall, preventing water runoff and soil erosion. As forest cover is lost, increased runoff carries soil both from the previously forested area and from open land downstream. This reduces the productivity of downstream agriculture and erodes streambanks. When soil flows into the hydrological networks, it clogs water intakes for irrigation, drinking water supply, and hydropower generation, imposing a broad array of costs on the economy. In Malawi, this issue has received particular attention in the Shire River basin, in part because all of the country’s hydroelectricity generation plants are on the Shire River and the economic consequences of power plant closures are severe.218 Biodiversity and threats to revenues Biodiversity loss, higher fuel costs, loss of government revenue, and tourism are other potential impacts of deforesta- tion and forest degradation. Plantation forests, which have decreased in area since 1990, contribute royalties, conces- sion fees, and license fees to the government. These will decrease with forest loss. Biodiversity is also under threat as forests decline and degrade. The decrease in natural forests could lead to higher prices for wood fuel and charcoal as supply diminishes. Reduced biodiversity may translate in the longer term into reduced numbers of tourists and thus reduced foreign exchange flows. 218 LTS. 2013(a). Land Use Scenario Analysis, Task 3 Report: Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options for Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 73 Gender dimensions of forest management There are substantial differences between how men and women use forest resources and how changes in forest man- agement affect them. Particular risks are faced by women and these need to be considered for any new strategies for forest management.219 Men are typically engaged in commercial use of natural forests, cutting wood for poles or other building materials, manufacturing charcoal, or making furniture. Women, in contrast, use trees and forest resources for household purposes, including cooking, food, and traditional medicines. They also put much time and labor into gather- ing wood fuel for cooking. However, women’s activities often involve illegal extraction of resources from forest reserves, which can expose them to greater vulnerability at the hands of charcoal traders and forestry and other law enforcement officials. Recent changes introduced through the charcoal policy offer prospects for reducing this vulnerability. Forest institutions and policies Institutionally, Malawi’s forests are divided into four different categories: 1. Natural forests on customary land 2. Forest reserves under the jurisdiction of the DoF or within protected areas under the jurisdiction of Department of National Parks and Wildlife 3. State-owned plantations managed by private companies under concession agreements 4. Private forests owned and managed by tobacco and tea companies220 Managing forest resources is the responsibility of the DoF, which operates under the authority of the MoNREM. The DoF’s mandate was set out in the Forest Law of 1997.221 Historically, it has been directly responsible for managing the country’s forests reserves and supervising the concessions for privately managed forest plantations. It also provides an institutional home for the Forest Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM) and is responsible for forest policy and data. In 2016, the country developed a National Forest Policy, which updated the 1996 version that led to the creation of the DoF.222 The new policy has been designed to align the country with new international agreements223 on climate change, biodiversity, and other environmental concerns and to address the continued deforestation and forest degra- based forest management, (ii) Management of dation affecting the country. It sets out ten priority areas: (i) Community-­ indigenous forests, forest reserves, and ecosystems, (iii)  Management of plantations and estates, (iv) Regulation and quality control, (v) Knowledge acquisition and management, (vi) Capacity building, (vii) Biomass energy, (viii) Forest-based industries, (ix) International cooperation, and (x) Financing. In 2016, Malawi published an ambitious National Forest Landscape Restoration Strategy.224 The strategy is designed to guide efforts to restore 4.5 million ha of land—a pledge made to the Bonn Challenge.225 It estimates that meeting this target would cost about USD 380 million at today’s prices. The strategy was informed by a national study that used the ‘Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology’ (ROAM)226 to identify areas where forest and land restoration opportunities exist. The study identified opportunities for over 3.4 million ha of forest restoration and 0.75 million ha of community forests and woodlots. 219 Fisher. 2004. Household Welfare and Forest Dependence in Southern Malawi.  220 Table A.8 shows details on forests by tenure type. 221 GoM. 1997. Forest Act, 1997, Act Number 11 of 1997. 222 GoM. 2016(a). National Forest Policy. 223 See Annex 2 for a list of international agreements Malawi is a party to. 224 GoM. 2017(d). National Forest Landscape Restoration Strategy. 225 The Bonn Challenge is a global effort to bring 150 million ha of the world’s deforested and degraded land into restoration by 2020 and 350 million ha by 2030. 226 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 74 BOX 7. Forest co-management in Malawi Efforts to advance decentralized management at the forest level in Malawi have resulted in adoption of the forest co-management management model, and this has been applied at a number of pilot sites (mostly forest reserves) to promote sustainable forest management. This approach involves the development of dual respon- sibility arrangements between local communities and the DoF. The co-management approach has involved participatory planning at forest, forest block, and village level. Participatory forest plans spell out the rights, roles, and responsibilities between state forest institutions and local communities, and these are then agreed by both communities and the DoF. Participatory forest plans also establish benefit-sharing arrangements between local communities and the State. This helps rebalance management and creates incentives for local communities to manage forests more sustainably. It also transforms the role of state forest agencies into ‘extension agents’ and allows for more pro- ductive forest management arrangements. This approach has tended to be more successful in areas further away from centers of demand for charcoal. Where demand for charcoal production is high, strong enforce- ment support from district forestry officials is needed to rebuff powerful vested interests in charcoal trade. Since 2001, the DoF has followed a decentralized approach, in line with the nationwide decentralization policy intro- duced in 1998.227 This has gradually shifted some operational functions and responsibilities to the district councils and local authorities while transforming the DoF into an enabling agency supporting the operational work of other stakehold- ers. Some forest management functions have been at least partially decentralized, including law enforcement, manage- ment of customary forest lands, community mobilization and capacity building, and forestry extension. However, a 2013 institutional assessment of the sector found that the decentralization process for forest management had effectively stalled.228 As part of decentralization efforts, the DoF has also introduced forest co-management in and around several forest reserves, and these have met with some success in improving forest management practices and have proved popular with communities participating in such arrangements (Box 7). The operations of the DoF are constrained by various issues including staffing, organizational structures, and problems with communication and coordination. There is inadequate staffing at both the national and the decentralized levels. Although the total level of DoF staffing increased from 1,018 to 5,207 between FY2001/02 and FY2011/12,229 there are still significant shortages, especially of skilled staff at district levels. Furthermore, the organizational structure of the DoF has not changed to reflect its new focus on the facilitation of forest management. The curriculum and research agenda of the Malawi College of Forestry and Wildlife and the FRIM also need to evolve to respond to changing priorities.230 Insufficient data also constrain forest work in Malawi. More reliable data are needed in two broad areas: ●● Ground-truthed land and forest data. Since the 1990s, many different data sets have been developed, but they are not consistent with each other and most are not ground truthed.231 The DoF is working on a forest inventory, which should be available shortly. It is hoped that this will be the start of the production of reliable ongoing time series data on land cover. ●● Supply and demand data for wood biomass for energy and other purposes. These data could be collected by the Integrated Household Survey, by surveys of enterprises or the informal sector, and possibly by special surveys of educational institutions, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations. It should then be possible to estimate both the 227 For example, see: Chiweza. 2010. A Review of the Malawi Decentralisation Process: Lessons from Selected Districts. 228 Casey and Kafakoma. 2013. Institutional Assessment of the Forestry Sector and Organisational Review of the Department of Forestry. 229 Ibid. 230 Ibid. 231 Ibid. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 75 quantity consumed (and thus the sustainability of use of natural forest products) and the economic value so that the forest sector contributions can be correctly included in the national income accounts. This could be complemented with surveys of local markets to determine the prices of wood fuel, charcoal, building materials, and other forest products. Funding for government forest activities is also insufficient. Between 2014 and 2017, DoF expenditures have been constant at about MK 20 million per year, while regional office expenditures increased from MK 15 million to just over MK 40 million.232 The increase in regional expenditures may suggest commitment to decentralization, although revenues are insufficient at all levels of government. Forests and agroforestry Agroforestry has the potential for reducing some of the negative impacts of forest loss and degradation. There is some evidence to suggest that forest loss and degradation can be reduced by increasing the number of trees on farms. This has been the objective of farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR)—the practice of letting trees grow from seeds already in the soil or compost through natural or assisted-natural regeneration (see Box 8). This practice encourages trees that are native to the area and are therefore more likely to adapt successfully to local conditions. This can be more cost effective and sustainable than using the exotic seedlings often provided by tree planting proj- ects. There is some evidence that a number of different crops produce higher yields when planted in conjunction with FMNR.233 BOX 8. Experience of FMNR in Malawi FMNR approaches offer considerable potential to make cross-cutting contributions to challenges of forest loss, land degradation, and agricultural productivity. One study looked systematically at FMNR in five districts across the country with relatively high rates of on-farm trees (Balaka, Blantyre, Dowa, Salima, and South Mzimba).234 The study explored why farmers adopted these practices and how it benefited them to do so. More than half of farmers surveyed reported that they could obtain wood fuel from their own trees, suggesting that this practice could have a strong positive effect on natural forests if widely adopted. Of farmers who already want to grow trees, 40% reported that FMNR was less work and more productive than planting seedlings and 16% reported increases in soil productivity, On-farm trees also provide public benefits, such as sequestering carbon and reducing runoff and erosion that affect downstream communities. The analysis concluded that energy benefits would have to be sufficient to justify the cost (or opportunity cost) of on-farm trees for farmers to allow them the space they take from crops. 232 GoM. 2009–2017. Annual Economic Reports. Additional data on budgets and expenditures are available in Annex 7. 233 Total Land Care. 2015. FMNR In Southern Africa: Factors Motivating Farmers with Actions and Strategies for Scaling Up. 234 Kundhlande et al. 2017. Taking to Scale Tree-Based Systems That Enhance Food Security, Improve Resilience to Climate Change, and Sequester Carbon in Malawi. 76 Key recommendations GoM has committed to restoring 4.5 million ha of forest and land by 2030. This is expected to cost nearly USD 400 mil- lion (or USD 9.6 per hectare).235 It is unclear where this financing will come from. Recommendations that might help Malawi address key forest sector challenges are described here. USE LIMITED PUBLIC FINANCING TO LEVERAGE ADDITIONAL PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN FOREST MANAGEMENT Current levels of public investment in the forest sector for the foreseeable future will be inadequate to support effective management of Malawi’s remaining forests. Current levels of public financing are not likely to increase substantively and yet economic analysis shows that invest- ments in sustainable forest management yield large public benefits to other economic sectors, particularly for hydro- electricity generation. Such investments would also help sustain Malawi’s principal source of domestic energy in the face of growing deficits between supply and demand. For this reason, finding ways to increase forest sector financing will be needed if the National Forest Policy (2016) and the NFLR Strategy (2016) are to move from paper policies into implementation. There are various opportunities for attracting new private sector investment. Examples include: ●● Developing institutional and licensing frameworks for legal and sustainable charcoal value chains. Recent policy reforms that encourage legal production and supply of charcoal offer new opportunities for attracting private sector investment, including on the supply side. Public investment could help simplify regulatory regimes and encourage the development of biomass enterprises and smallholder producer associations. For value chains other than char- coal, Kambewa and Utila (2018)236 argue that the SME sector can play an increasing role in value-added processing of forest products with appropriate public support. They found that timber, juice, and wood carvings are vibrant industries. ●● Funding for forest carbon management.237 Public financing could be used to complete the process of making Malawi ‘ready’ to access forest carbon financing (for example, by completing forest inventories and baselines and developing required safeguard frameworks). The DoF is advancing with REDD+ readiness efforts, including the establishment of forest emission baselines, updating forest inventories, and building institutional capacity for REDD+ work. To sustain these efforts will require a long-term commitment of support from the government and development partners alike. ●● Developing PES mechanisms. Economic analysis on land degradation in Malawi238 has demonstrated that a mar- ket for ecosystem services could be developed in Malawi and could help fund investments in forest management and restoration by local communities. Priority could be placed on paying farmers to restore and protect forest cover along rivers and streambanks, as these offer the highest public returns on investments. This approach could subsequently be scaled to support establishment of woodlots and protection of forests on steeply sloping customary land. In Southern Malawi, the Shire Basin Ecosystem Environmental Support Trust (BEST) has been established to pilot PES that could be funded by an additional tariff on electricity generated by hydropower facili- ties at Kapichira. This approach could be developed and options for other potential PES schemes explored in other catchments. 235 GoM. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. 236 Kambewa and Utila. 2018. Malawi’s Green Gold: Challenges and Opportunities for Small and Medium Forest Enterprises in Reducing Poverty. 237 Albeit less predictable given current uncertainties over the future of international markets for forest carbon. 238 UNIQUE. 2018(b). Land and Natural Resources Degradation in the Upper and Middle Shire Valley, Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 77 ●● Public-private partnership (PPP) for plantation forestry. Longer-term public investments to restore plantation forest cover in forest reserves might offer longer-term options, as increasing forest cover through plantations would deliver high public goods (thus justifying public investment) while leaving day-to-day operations to private sector concession holders. Previous efforts to attract private sector investments in plantations have not been successful, but there may be lessons to be learned from regional and international experience. STRENGTHEN FOREST DATA AND BETTER USE IN ECONOMIC PLANNING Forest data need to be updated and should include data on biomass energy and the related impacts on national accounting. It is essential to improve forest data, notably with respect to reliable time series data on land cover and routine surveys of the production and use of forest products. A first national forestry inventory since 1992 is expected to be available shortly. Improved inventory and time series data are needed to understand the evolution of the country's forest resources and their contribution to the economy. Once improved forest inventory and use data are in place, it will be possible to build forest ‘satellite’ accounts that could help quantify the importance of this sector to the economy and ensure that the data are used to inform policy analysis and the preparation of the national accounts. SCALE UP FOREST CO-MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Forest co-management pilots have delivered promising results in several forest areas and have often helped reduce conflicts between forest officials and local forest users. Successful pilots should be consolidated and further scaled up where appropriate as part of longer-term forest sector development. PROMOTE AGROFORESTRY AND TREE-BASED SYSTEMS Agroforestry and FMNR can reduce pressure on Malawi’s natural forests. Tree planting projects have been part of the response to forest degradation for decades but were often unsuccessful as the returns did not justify the land or investment effort by farmers. FMNR is seen as an alternative to tree planting, and recent studies239, 240 have found that this is an effective strategy in Malawi, especially for reducing demand for fuel from natural forests. A regional study on FMNR241 has developed guidelines for broadening its use, which may be effectively applied to Malawi. 239 Total Land Care. 2015. FMNR In Southern Africa: Factors Motivating Farmers with Actions and Strategies for Scaling Up. 240 Kundhlande et al. 2017. Taking to Scale Tree-Based Systems that Enhance Food Security, Improve Resilience to Climate Change, and Sequester Carbon in Malawi. 241 Reij and Winterbottom. 2015. Scaling Up Regreening: Six Steps to Success. 78 7. BIOMASS ENERGY Energy demand and supply Biomass dominates Malawi’s energy sector and is used by 98% of the population, primarily for cooking.242 About 92% of Malawi’s biomass energy is used by households, while a few industries, including tobacco processing and brick burning, use the remaining 8%.243 Rural households rely almost exclusively on firewood for energy, most of which is self-collected. In contrast, charcoal is the dominant source of fuel among urban consumers, surpassing firewood and ­ other energy sources (see Figure 32). FIGURE 32. Urban household cooking energy demands 1998–2017 100 90 80 Percentage of households 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 Charcoal Firewood Electricity Other Sources: 1998 Census, 2004/05 IHS2, 2011/12 ISH3, and 2016/17 ISH4. Malawi faces a charcoal-dominated future linked to population growth and urbanization. The four largest urban centers (Blantyre, Lilongwe, Mzuzu, and Zomba) account for 90% of national charcoal consumption.244 Charcoal consumption rises in proportion to urbanization rates,245 and Malawi’s urban centers are growing rapidly. Supplies of LPG and electricity are unreliable and appliance costs are high. There is also a cultural preference for cooking with charcoal for certain foods.246 As a result, up to 90% of households with main electricity connections still cook with charcoal, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether electricity expansion is achieved.247 Charcoal consumption is doubling every 12 to 15 years. For example, the total annual demand for charcoal in Malawi rose from 2.5% in 1998 to 16% in 2017 (see Annex 9 for more information). There is a north-south split in biomass supply and demand. Almost all charcoal in Malawi comes from indigenous miombo woodlands,248 an estimated 58% of which are in government-owned Forest Reserves.249 While the north is characterized by an excess of supply over demand, the reverse is the case in the more densely populated south. In 2010, wood fuel demand from the southern region exceeded sustainable yield of forests by a factor of five, exclusive of supply from trees outside forests (for example, on farms).250 242 GoM. 2017(b). Integrated Household Survey 2016–2017. 243 GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 244 Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal, Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 245 Mugo and Ong. 2006. Lessons of Eastern Africa’s Unsustainable Charcoal Business. 246 Holmes. 2015. Understanding Urban Fuel Choice. 247 GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 248 Zulu. 2010. The Forbidden Fuel: Charcoal, Urban Wood Fuel Demand and Supply Dynamics, Community Forest Management and Wood Fuel Policy in Malawi. 249 Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal, Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 250 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of Forest Valuation Systems in Malawi Policy Briefing Report. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 79 Rural households rely almost exclusively on firewood for energy, most of which is self-collected. Socioeconomic significance The commercial wood fuel industry is worth USD 352 million in 2018 (up from USD 113 million 10 years ago).251 This rep- resents 4.7% of GDP and provides full-time equivalent employment for 235,000 people (full data provided in Annex 9).252 However, because of the informal nature of the sector, GoM is losing significant revenue, which could be generated through a formalized market and taxation system. For charcoal alone, an estimated 12–20% (up to USD 38 million) is lost to rent-seeking activities, in the form of bribes.253 Demand for charcoal has increased by an estimated 54% between 2008 and 2018. In 2018, demand for charcoal alone is worth an estimated USD 191 million, providing employment opportunities for around 150,000 people (see Annex 9). Charcoal is a fully commercialized commodity produced almost exclusively for urban markets, with highly organized value chains. Yet, around 80% of producers are rural based and operate at a small scale.254 The production and transport of wood fuels provides rural households with significant income and flexible livelihood options. Commercial wood fuels can help rural people earn more than the national minimum wage and reduce their vulner- ability to poverty, financial insecurity, and seasonal food insecurity.255, 256 However, corruption within the value chain is rife. An estimated USD 9 million is lost to bribes each year.257 Enforcement activities (such as confiscations) and rent-­ seeking (via payments with no receipts and illicitly augmented fines) increase rural households’ vulnerability to poverty and food insecurity and have unrecognized impacts on their mental well-being.258 Importantly, poverty is a key driver behind the rise in charcoal consumption and associated impact on forest and land. Poor households lack access to alternative and affordable materials and sources for energy consumption and construction material (for example, solar or cement). 251 These figures are projections based on data from GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 252 GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 253 This figure is derived from the author’s projections based on data from: Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 254 Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 255 Ibid. 256 Hecht and Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of Forest Valuation Systems in Malawi Policy Briefing Report. 257 Taulo et al. 2015. Energy Supply in Malawi: Options and Issues. 258 Smith et al. 2015. Criminals by Necessity: The Risky life of Charcoal Transporters in Malawi. 80 Climate change Wood fuels are a contributing factor to climate change, but they also provide opportunities for climate change adapta- tion and mitigation. Inefficient combustion of wood fuels produces high levels of black carbon, a major contributor to global climate change.259 Estimates suggest that the burning of firewood and charcoal in Malawi produces 10,166 kt CO2e, between 17% and 48% of total emissions.260 Conversely, wood fuels can also be considered as a viable component to reduce fossil fuel emissions, but efforts are required to ensure the sector is carbon neutral.261 Furthermore, policies promoting afforestation/reforestation programs for sustainable wood fuel options may hinder the adoption of modern fuels and improved technologies.262 Promotion of alternative energy systems (for example, solar and biogas) is required alongside these programs. Wood fuels also provide diversification opportunities, helping rural households cope with climate shocks and seasonal drought.263, 264 Malawi is extremely vulnerable to climate change,265, 266 with anticipated variations in precipitation, tem- perature rises, and subsequent impacts on agricultural production and food insecurity.267 This means the importance of wood fuels as a coping mechanism will likely increase. However, unsustainable harvesting of wood fuels in combination with other land-degrading activities, particularly in river basin catchment areas, contributes to increased soil degrada- tion, exacerbating challenges with water supply, river siltation, and hydroelectric capacities.268, 269, 270 Limited electricity generation and subsequent power cuts stimulate increased demand for wood fuels (particularly charcoal).271 A vicious cycle exists, which is further compounded by climate change challenges. Environmental impacts and drivers Wood fuel production is rarely a direct cause of deforestation but is frequently a by-product. Land clearance for agri- cultural expansion is the leading driver of deforestation in Malawi.272 However, there are localized cases where wood fuel harvesting in urban peripheries (for example, around Blantyre, Lilongwe, and Zomba) has led to severe woodland degradation.273, 274, 275 Wood fuels tend to result in degradation, as opposed to complete deforestation,276 but the exact contribution to degradation is unknown and extremely difficult to quantify.277 Forest loss and degradation are seldom caused by a single driver. Charcoal production provides a financially viable mechanism to clear land for agriculture, and estimates suggest that around one-third of Malawi’s annual forest loss is attributed, in part, to charcoal production.278 The general picture is that forest loss and degradation in Malawi do not result from wood fuel demands alone but are complicated by larger-scale drivers, including land scarcity associated with population growth, low agricultural productivity, and food insecurity. 259 Ramanathan and Carmichael. 2008. Global and Regional Climate Changes Due to Black Carbon. 260 Bailis et al. 2015. The Carbon Footprint of Traditional Wood Fuels. 261 Mwampamba et al. 2013. Dispelling Common Misconceptions to Improve Attitudes and Policy Outlook on Charcoal in Developing Countries. 262 Ramanathan and Carmichael. 2008. Global and Regional Climate Changes Due to Black Carbon. 263 Brack. 2017. Woody Biomass for Power and Heat: Impacts on the Global Climate. 264 Bailis et al. 2015. The Carbon Footprint of Traditional Wood Fuels. 265 Fisher et al. 2010. Do Forests Help Rural Households Adapt to Climate Variability? Evidence from Southern Malawi. 266 Knox et al. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Crop Productivity in Africa and South Asia. 267 López-Carr et al. 2014. A Spatial Analysis of Population Dynamics and Climate Change in Africa: Potential Vulnerability Hot Spots Emerge Where Precipitation Declines and Demographic Pressures Coincide. 268 UMFULA. 2017. Malawi Country Climate Brief: Future Climate Change Projections for Malawi. 269 Kaunda and Mtalo. 2013. Impacts of Environmental Degradation and Climate Change on Electricity Generation in Malawi. 270 Onishi. 2016. Poverty, Drought and Felled Trees Imperil Malawi Water Supply. 271 Holmes. 2015. Understanding Urban Fuel Choice. The Case of Zomba, Malawi. 272 Kawandama Hills Plantation. 2016. Sustainable Charcoal. 273 Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal, Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 274 Zulu. 2010. The Forbidden Fuel: Charcoal, Urban Wood Fuel Demand and Supply Dynamics, Community Forest Management and Wood Fuel Policy in Malawi. 275 Ramanathan and Carmichael. 2008. Global and Regional Climate Changes Due to Black Carbon. 276 Specht et al. 2015. Burning Biodiversity: Fuelwood Harvesting Causes Forest Degradation in Human-dominated Tropical Landscapes. 277 Mwampamba et al. 2013. Dispelling Common Misconceptions to Improve Attitudes and Policy Outlook on Charcoal in Developing Countries. 278 Openshaw. 2011. Supply of Woody Biomass, Especially in the Tropics: Is Demand Outstripping Sustainable Supply? THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 81 Institutions and policies Malawi has historically adopted a punitive approach to wood fuel sector governance, which has impeded the develop- ment of sustainable systems of production and supply.279 Negative perceptions of wood fuels among policymakers and enforcement agencies have led to a ‘crisis mentality’, making it unfeasible to enact policies that support formalization and modernization of the sector. The informal and clandestine nature of the commercial wood fuels industry also stigmatizes pro- ducers, transporters, and sellers, creating a disabling environment for investment and for the implementation of new policy approaches. Chronic underfunding and lack of capacity in the DoF have made it challenging to successfully execute strategies, reform sector regulation, or fund the development of a sustainable commercial wood fuel sector. An emphasis on the pursuit of alternative energy options has taken resources away from wood fuels but has had little impact on fuel switch- ing (for example, moving from using charcoal to LPG), and wood fuel demand continues to rise. The DoF lacks the neces- sary finance and personnel to successfully execute strategies with which it is entrusted. In 2007, the annual budget for one District Forest Office with multiple staff and vehicles was MK 75,000 (equivalent at the time to USD 500).280 Since the enactment of the Forestry Act (1997), no indigenous forest resources have been certified for production, and applicants find it challenging to meet the qualifying criteria. In February 2015, GoM rejected 50 applications for charcoal licenses because they failed to meet the required criteria for production on private land, access to tree seedlings, and extension support from the DoF.281 Most applications for charcoal production are in gazetted forest reserves, as these contain greater amounts of indigenous trees (sometimes as old as 120 years) and make the best quality charcoal. Privately planted blue gum (Eucalyptus spp.) trees do not produce the same level of quality. However, as per the National Charcoal Strategy,282 the government is encouraging people to apply for licenses to grow and manage their own forest areas. Only one charcoal production permit currently exists. It was issued in September 2015 to an essential oils company operat- ing near Mzuzu, where charcoal is produced as a by-product from a plantation of Corymbia citriodora, a tree native to Australia.283 Enforcement Enforcement of laws designed to protect forests is weak and ineffective. Critics argue that prevailing regulations and procedures are complicated and not widely understood at community levels. This is partly because regulations and pro- cedures are written in English, and few extension workers understand the legal and policy language used. Inadequate communication of the law generates uncertainty about which regulations apply to the production and transportation of wood fuels. Such uncertainty over regulations and responsibilities creates space for corruption, and this undermines the ability of formal mechanisms to effectively govern the sector and protect forest resources. It also reduces the capacity to raise revenue via official channels. Unbalanced power relations between forest officers and local communities contribute to nonenforcement of forestry law, as they frequently live within the communities they are meant to enforce.284 As a result, informal activities continue to occur at producer levels, while enforcement targets the transporters of wood fuel, who tend not to be village mem- bers. Due to their visibility, transport routes are more frequently targeted than production areas,285, 286, 287 an approach that ultimately fails to protect forest resources.288 279 GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 280 FGLG. 2008. Malawi Policy Brief No. 3. Making Community-based Forest Management Work. 281 The Nation. 2016. Government Rejects 50 Charcoal License Applications. 282 GoM. 2017(f). National Charcoal Strategy, 2017–2027. 283 Kawandama Hills Plantation. 2016. Sustainable Charcoal. 284 Sibale and Banda. 2004. A Study on Livelihoods, Governance and Illegality: Law Enforcement, Illegality and the Forest Dependent Poor in Malawi. 285 Kambewa et al. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal, Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. 286 Sibale and Banda. 2004. A Study on Livelihoods, Governance and Illegality: Law Enforcement, Illegality and the Forest Dependent Poor in Malawi. 287 Zulu and Richardson. 2013. Charcoal, Livelihoods, and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. 288 Smith et al. 2015. Criminals by Necessity: The Risky Life of Charcoal Transporters in Malawi. 82 Illegal logging and transboundary timber trade is becoming an increasing problem that contributes to land degradation. There is a severe lack of reliable data on the wood fuels sector. Due to the illicit and informal nature of the trade in wood fuels and punitive approaches to regulate the market, there is a scarcity of information on supply and demand and sig- nificance for the economy, environment, and livelihoods.289, 290, 291, 292 GoM will inevitably struggle to regulate a sector that it knows little about. Responsibility for wood fuel policy is split between the forestry and energy sectors, which hinders integrated planning and implementation. Energy policy has generally sought to promote alternative sources, while forestry policy has empha- sized the need to ensure sustainable supply of wood-based fuel. This ambiguity discourages investment, as the govern- ment’s position is unclear and support for industry actors is not assured. The National Energy Policy (2003) is now 15 years old but its envisaged transition away from biomass-based fuels has not yet materialized. The fundamental fuel-switching objective of energy policy remains unchanged. Recent policy reforms Recent reforms offer the promise of a formal, sustainable, and commercial wood fuel sector and a more holistic approach to wood fuel sector governance. Malawi’s revised National Forest Policy (2016)293 promotes “sustainable production and utilization of firewood and charcoal” (p. 23) and acknowledges the underestimation of traded wood fuels to national GDP. MGDS III (2017–2020) also endorses the sustainable management of wood fuels. The NFLR Strategy (2017) outlines support for the sustainable production of charcoal through improved incentives, the development of forest management plans, and community-based approaches, and specifies national goals for increased supplies of locally managed and sustainably sourced wood fuels. The National Charcoal Strategy (2017–2027)294 represents an ambitious and progress reform which sets out a 10-year plan for a climate-resilient and sustainable energy sector. The strategy was developed through a consultative process co-chaired by the Departments of Forestry and Energy Affairs using an ‘evidence-based strategy’ (p. 5). There are seven pillars supporting the plan (see Box 9). 289 Smith et al. 2015. Criminals by Necessity: The Risky Life of Charcoal Transporters in Malawi. 290 Mwampamba et al. 2013. Dispelling Common Misconceptions to Improve Attitudes and Policy Outlook on Charcoal in Developing Countries. 291 Zulu and Richardson. 2013. Charcoal, Livelihoods, and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. 292 Neufeldt et al. 2015. From Transition Fuel to Viable Energy Source: Improving Sustainability in the Sub-Saharan Charcoal Sector. 293 GoM. 2016(a). National Forest Policy. 294 GoM. 2017(f). National Charcoal Strategy, 2017–2027. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 83 BOX 9. Seven pillars supporting the National Charcoal Strategy (2017–2027) ●● Promote adoption of alternative cooking and heating fuels ●● Stimulate wide-scale adoption of fuel-efficient charcoal and firewood cook stoves ●● Significantly increase sustainable wood production, specifically for biomass energy production ●● Effectively enforce laws and regulations to limit, and eventually stop illegal charcoal production ●● Promote and regulate legal (licensed) charcoal production, transport, and sale ●● Enhance the livelihoods of Malawians in ways that can be sustained over time ●● Ensure that the information, awareness, and communications required to change behavior and increase adoption are available Key recommendations Newly published policy documents support the formalization of a sustainable and commercial wood fuel sector, though (aside from the one license) all charcoal in Malawi remains technically illegal. There will be many challenges in transform- ing wood fuels from the informal to the formal economy and implementing the government’s vision of a modern and sus- tainable biomass energy sector. Some risks and constraints are highlighted here, with suggestions for future opportunities. FORMALIZING AN INFORMAL SMALL-SCALE DOMINATED SECTOR Interventions are needed to make it easier for informal producers, working at multiple scales, to operate within a formal setting. Malawi’s wood fuel sector is dominated by rural households working at a small scale. Formalization of wood fuel sectors elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa has typically favored large-scale production models and bene­ fited urban-based elites. A one-size-fits-all approach to wood fuel governance marginalizes small-scale rural actors, offers limited scope for rural development and poverty alleviation objectives, and will struggle to protect forest resources. However, appropriately scaled and context-specific approaches may provide more equitable options for all stakeholders. This could include incentivizing sustainable production for larger scale specialized producers while simultaneously maintaining flexibility for small-scale producers to avoid potential marginalization. Examples include simplifying or removing regulations, reducing barriers to the procurement of licenses, and promoting sustainable practices through tax incentives. It is vital to consider how to better engage informal wood fuel production. Many small-scale producers will struggle to engage with a formalized wood fuel sector. Initiatives that encourage sustain- able practices, while maintaining scope to include informal, flexible production may provide complementary alternatives. Incorporating informal and existing wood fuel management schemes (for example, woodlot management, agroforestry) into incentive schemes and support interventions may also provide better outcomes, especially if enacted alongside efforts to strengthen tenure rights and explore participatory forest management options. 84 Training and business development can help promote a financially and environmentally sustainable wood fuels sector. Clear guidance on what constitutes a sustainable management plan and how to obtain one could help reduce informality in the sector. Disseminating knowledge and promoting available technologies to produce charcoal more efficiently (for example, opti- mized woodland management practices, improved kilns) could develop producers’ capacity to deliver more sustainable yields.295 EMPOWERING VALUE CHAIN ACTORS Small-scale producers need more access and greater involvement in the sector, to help shape regulation and improve the bargaining power of stakeholder networks. Collective action, such as the formation of associations, could improve small-scale producers’ access to formal markets and increase their participation in decision-making structures. Developing mechanisms to enable secure, long-term com- mercial rights to communities to sustainably harvest forest resources would also increase access. This could include devolving the issuance of licenses to local levels and removing some licenses altogether, given their overlap and the lack of capacity to enforce compliance. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION Review and reform the policy, legal, and regulatory provisions for wood fuels in Malawi. A functioning, legal charcoal industry could deliver significant fiscal returns to the state through formal taxation systems, which are not currently being captured, and encourage investment in modernization and efficiency improvement. Oppor- tunities to support this transition include: ●● A cross-sectoral review of current laws and regulations to identify areas for simplification to encourage compliance. A simpler and more implementable system could lead to less evasion, reduce the space for rent seeking, and allow value chain actors to be recognized and potentially gain access to technical and financial support. ●● Training and awareness raising for all sector actors on any new regulatory provisions, with a structured rollout to ensure that stakeholders understand the new opportunities and their roles and responsibilities. ●● Assessment of capacity within the DoF and district authorities for the enforcement roles for which they are respon- sible, with support for capacity building as required. DATA COLLECTION There is a need for more information on the wood fuel industry. The lack of information on the nature, significance, and potential of the industry is a major constraint to rational policy that would lead to formalization and modernization. Data requirements (in priority order) include: ●● Up-to-date demand and supply statistics, nationally and by region and district, with an institutionalized system for periodic monitoring and updating ●● More reliable data on pricing (including seasonality) and revenue distribution through the value chain, with an evaluation of the potential for a transition to official revenue collection under a restructured and simplified set of laws and regulations ●● Assessment of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of punitive enforcements, with proposals for how those currently benefiting from the informal nature of the trade can be compensated or otherwise provided for 295 Neufeldt et al. 2015. From Transition Fuel to Viable Energy Source: Improving Sustainability in the Sub-Saharan Charcoal Sector. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 85 ●● Contextually relevant market information, including a better understanding of energy transitions in growing urban markets in other developing countries, to offer reliable projections of future demand ●● Assessment of the capacity of multiple supply systems (for example, participatory forestry, agroforestry, and planta- tions) to meet growing energy demands and opportunities to integrate them into the wood fuels supply chain ●● Quantification of wood fuel’s contribution to deforestation and forest degradation, relative to other drivers (for exam- ple, agricultural expansion), distinguishing between wood fuel types and land uses ●● Insights into the organization of the informal sector and how these structures and local knowledge can be integrated with formal systems, for example, through formation of stakeholder associations ●● Assessment of the poverty alleviation potential of the biomass energy sector, including disaggregated participation (for example, gender, age, poverty, well-being) and distribution of benefits to address power imbalances along the value chain ●● Appraisal of the impacts of climate change on energy provision and transitions and the potential mitigation role of wood fuels (for example, integration with carbon market mechanisms such as REDD+)296 PERCEPTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS There is a need to raise awareness of the role of wood fuels as a conditionally renewable, secure, and economically vital source of energy for Malawi. Based on the latest data on the significant value, employment, and contribution to livelihoods and climate change, there is a need to raise awareness of the role of wood fuels as a conditionally renewable, secure, and economically vital source of energy for Malawi. Support should be provided to educate and raise awareness of the role and value of the wood fuel economy at national, district, and community levels. The aim should be to reduce stigma and promote wood fuels as a sustainable and secure source of energy and income, supporting energy security, creating employment, generat- ing revenue flow to rural areas, and complementing other energy systems. This, in turn, should complement efforts to deregulate, recognize, and formalize those involved in wood fuel production, transport, and sale. MODERNIZATION OF THE ENERGY SECTOR Promoting fuel efficiency and fuel switching, where feasible, will encourage a more modern, formal, and efficient energy sector. Alongside measures to formalize, modernize, and streamline the regulation of the commercial wood fuels sector, there are opportunities to promote greater efficiency in consumption and to encourage a switch to alternative clean fuels where affordable and appropriate. These opportunities align with and could be supported by the government’s recently launched Renewable Energy Strategy. According to the National Cookstove Steering Com- mittee (a coordinating body for government agencies, NGOs, and private sector organizations working on clean cookstoves in Malawi), 500,000 clean and efficient cookstoves are already in use. By 2020, they aim for 2 million Malawian homes to adopt such devices. Emphasis should be placed on supporting and upscaling these types of interventions. There are a number of commercial players and social enterprises in East and Southern Africa that offer high-quality, modern cooking appliances for both firewood and charcoal. There is potential for them to be encouraged to invest in Malawi’s clean cooking sector, for example, by using tax breaks. LPG is another clean burning and convenient fuel alternative. Wealthier charcoal consumers could be encouraged to switch to LPG, which is a clean burning and convenient fuel alternative. The entry cost of the cooking appliance and gas cylinder is a known barrier for poorer households, as is the cost of refills and the reliability of stock. However, there are a number of start-ups in East Africa piloting pay-as- you-go systems to encourage greater uptake of LPG. These models could be explored for relevance and transfer- ability to the Malawian LPG market. 296 Schure et al. 2014. An Approach to Promote REDD+ Compatible Wood-fuel Value Chains. 86 8. HOUSEHOLD AIR POLLUTION HAP is the source of air pollution that poses the greatest threat to Malawians. It is a significant health burden, especially to women and children and the rural population. HAP is the world’s number one environmental cause of death297 and affects two-thirds of the world’s population.298 In Malawi, almost the entire population (98%) uses solid fuels from biomass to meet household demand for cooking, heat- ing, and lighting.299 Solid fuels, or simply firewood, is used in open fires or rudimentary cookstoves where combustion is incomplete. This causes significant amount of exposure to smoke and toxins in the household’s air.300 Using firewood for cooking, heating and lighting, causes significant exposure to smoke and toxins. In Malawi, the level of HAP is extremely high. The levels of fine particulate matter (PM) in households are far above guidelines for even outdoor air toxicity levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines ­ levels of outdoor air should not exceed a 25 µg/­ m3 mean PM level in 24 hours.301 In 2017, monitoring in Malawian households detected that the average mean PM was 59.4 µg/m3—more than double the WHO maximum level for air toxicity. The increased air toxicity is equal to a 2.5–5.0% increased risk of short-term mortality.302 This pollution of household air comes from the use of firewood and charcoal in households (91.4% and 7.2%, respectively).303 Conditions are worse in rural households where solid fuels are the predominant source of energy. Urban homes use charcoal that causes higher carbon monoxide concentrations304 (see Figure 32 in Biomass energy section for distribution of energy demands). The health burden of HAP for Malawians is significant, particularly for women and children. After HIV/AIDS, infections of the lower respiratory tracts (that is, lungs, bronchi, and trachea) are the second-highest cause of death and premature 297 According to the WHO, household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels prematurely kills 4 million people globally per year, half of which are young children suffering acute lower respiratory infections. 298 Gordon et al. 2014. Respiratory Risks from Household Air Pollution in Low and Middle Income Countries. 299 Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. 2018. Malawi Country Profile. 300 Importantly, the notion of household air pollution includes the exposure to smoke and pollution in the home area from burning solid fuels inside or near the house (for example, the ‘khondi’ veranda). Either location of the burning affects the air that enters the house or remains in the house due to ventilation constraints. 301 Fullerton et al. 2017. Biomass Fuel Use and Indoor Air Pollution in Homes in Malawi. 302 Jary et al. 2017. Household Air Pollution, Chronic Respiratory Disease and Pneumonia in Malawian Adults: A Case-control Study [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. 303 Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. 2018. Malawi Country Profile. 304 Fullerton et al. 2017. Biomass Fuel Use and Indoor Air Pollution in Homes in Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 87 death in Malawi.305 In Malawi, air pollution is considered the second-highest risk factor that drives death and disability (after poor water and sanitation) and is ranked the fourth-highest risk factor overall (after malnutrition, unsafe sex, and poor water and sanitation).306 Medical research has identified a strong correlation between HAP and the occurrence of pneumonia among children across the developing world.307 In Malawi, the risk of contracting pneumonia in children is increased by a factor of 1.8 because of exposure to HAP.308 Other diseases and complications resulting from exposure to HAP include “acute lower respiratory tract infections and low birth weight in children, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, intersti- tial lung disease, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease and cataracts in adults”309 as well as neurological disorders and cardiopulmonary problems (shortness of breath).310 Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to HAP due to the deposits of pollutants in their fat issues, which result in adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth, miscarriage, and retarded fetal growth.  Exposure to HAP varies between women and men, generations, locations, and time of day. However, generally women and children are exposed to the highest concentrations of airborne toxins because they are the ones who cook, tend the fires, and care for children and elders.311 As such, women and children are particularly susceptible to suffering from the effects of HAP. Importantly, the effects start in utero and follow through to early life and adulthood. Poverty and health challenges, such as malnutrition and HIV/AIDS, make this situation worse and contribute to unac- ceptably high maternal death rates. Pregnant women already face vitamin deficiencies, poor sanitation, and other health conditions among groups at risk.312 The risk of obstetric complications at birth are also high. Bleeding alone accounts for 40% of all maternal deaths, and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is one in five people (for example, 18.5% in Blantyre).313 HAP is another factor that simply complicates an already challenging situation. charcoal for Currently, for the vast majority of the population, there are no affordable fuel options to replace biomass/­ cooking and heating. And this limits practice options for reducing HAP. There is a strong body of evidence showing that ‘improved’ biomass/charcoal cookers do little to reduce the overall level of HAP.314, 315 Institutions and policy GoM has undertaken a series of initiatives to manage the use of firewood in households, promoting stove types that minimize emissions of toxins and smoke: ●● Program for Biomass Energy Conservation ●● Promotion of Alternative Energy Sources Project ●● National Sustainable and Renewable Energy Program and Strategy. The success of these programs has had varied results, pointing to the complexity and need of a multipronged approach that encompasses people’s domestic preferences as well as introduction of appropriate technologies. In addition, guide- lines on stoves, buildings, and ventilation are not standardized. 305 IHME. 2018. Malawi. 306 Ibid. 307 Interview with Professor Gordon at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, The Lancet, October 2014. 308 Fullerton et al. 2017. Biomass Fuel Use and Indoor Air Pollution in Homes in Malawi. 309 Ibid. 310 Das et al. 2017. Biomass Cooking Fuels and Health Outcomes for Women in Malawi. 311 Gordon et al. 2014. Respiratory Risks from Household Air Pollution in Low- and Middle-income countries. 312 The research on attributing environmental and household conditions to specific diseases is difficult and sparse in Malawi. 313 Jary et al. 2017. Household Air Pollution, Chronic Respiratory Disease and Pneumonia in Malawian Adults: A Case-control Study [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. 314 Mortimer et al. 2017. A Cleaner Burning Biomass-fuelled Cookstove Intervention to Prevent Pneumonia in Children under 5 Years Old in Rural Malawi (the Cooking and Pneumonia Study): A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. 315 Ezzati and Baumgartner. 2017. Household Energy and Health: Where Next for Research and Practice? 88 Key recommendations PROMOTE FUEL SWITCHING TO LPG AND CLEAN ENERGIES The long-term goal should be to make cooking energy ‘clean’. A continued emphasis is needed for urban and rural electrification and for fuel switching to cleaner fuels, such as LPG. However, affordability issues hamper uptake of both these technologies for many households. In many areas where grid connections are not likely to be available in the foreseeable future, the introduction of mini- and micro-electricity grids using solar panels alongside bulk investments are options that can be considered. Unfortunately, these are usually expensive and, in most cases, would require external financing. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS In the short term, immediate interventions should include education and public awareness-raising strategies that make the severe health risks apparent. Chronic and acute respiratory diseases resulting from HAP are preventable. Evidence-based and targeted interventions that improve household air quality are needed to reach young adults and children as they predominantly carry the high burden of respiratory diseases and death caused by pneumonia.316 SUBSIDIES FOR MORE EFFICIENT STOVES AND IMPROVED VENTILATION Alterations to household ventilation should be supported. In some countries, such as Peru, the government responded to the significant deaths of women who suffered respiratory diseases by providing subsidies for households to reconstruct stoves and chimneys that improve indoor air quality. Mak- ing alterations to household ventilation should be prioritized and supported at a greater scale. 316 Jary et al. 2017. Household Air Pollution, Chronic Respiratory Disease and Pneumonia in Malawian Adults: A Case-control Study [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 89 9. FISHERIES Status of fisheries stocks Malawi’s fisheries sector provides an important livelihood for many Malawians, and protein consumed through fish is particularly important for a lot of poor households. Figures for total landed catches are increasing and now stand at around 199,454 tons per year (2017), with a rapid increase since 2014. The reasons for this apparent increase are com- plex, reflecting changes in species composition of harvests, increasing fishing effort, and changes in the way in which fish stocks have been monitored. Malawi’s fisheries sector provides an important livelihood for many Malawians. 90 One reason for the apparent rise in fish catches is large increases in the Usipa catch. Usipa (Engraulicypris sardella) is a small pelagic fish that forms large shoals. It feeds on zooplankton and is highly reproductive when zooplankton stocks are in good supply. Usipa stocks can then crash when zooplankton stocks become exhausted. When caught, Usipa is commonly dried317 and now makes up about 60% of the total fish yield.318 In the past, Usipa catches were under­ recorded as they are fished at night using lights and actual catch monitoring was largely overlooked. It is a species that is preyed upon by other fish and its increasing population might be because of a reduction in the population of its natural predators (Figure 33). It may also reflect changes in fish catch monitoring and recording techniques. FIGURE 33. Comparison of CPUE between Usipa (above) and Cichlids (below) over 30 years, showing rise of Usipa and decline of Cichlid species 2.5 2.0 CPUE (t/fisher/year) 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 2.0 CPUE (t/fisher/year) 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Source: Weyl et al. 2010. Lake Malawi: Fishes, Fisheries, Biodiversity, Health and Habitat. Note: CPUE = catch per unit effort. In contrast to Usipa catches, most other fish stocks in Malawi have been declining, and overall fish consumption has reduced. There has been a considerable decline in the availability of commercially important fish species. For example, from the 1970s to the early 1990s, the Chambo (Oreochromis spp.) catch from Lake Malawi was usually around 30,000 metric tons (mt) per year. Now the catch is sometimes as low as 2,000 mt per year.319 While overall catch levels between 2006 and 2016 in Lake Malawi have been static, fish catches from Lake Chilwa and the Shire River have declined dra- matically (see Annex 10 for more information). Volatility in catches affects fish consumption. Fish and fish products account for a high proportion of the protein intake by Malawi's population and a lower consumption is a potential nutrition problem for poor households who, in the past, relied on fish as a cheap source of protein. In the 1970s, fish consumption was at 14 kg per person per year and fish contributed 70% of the animal protein consumed by Malawians. In 2013, fish consumption was around 7.6 kg per person per year320—a fall of nearly 50%. 317 Hara and Njaya. 2016. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Need for and Challenges to Implementation of Rights Based Fisheries Management in Small-scale Fisheries of Southern Lake Malawi. 318 DoF. 2013(b). Estimated Annual Catch Report for 1974 to 2012. 319 Weyl et al. 2010. Lake Malawi: Fishes, Fisheries, Biodiversity, Health and Habitat. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management. 320 FAO. 1992(a). Fish and Fishery Products; and FAO, 2015, Yearbook of Fishery Statistics Summary Tables: Food Balance Sheets. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 91 Recent rapid increases in landing of small fish, especially Usipia (Engraulicypris sardella), suggest that the current fish supply per person is rising again and may now be over 12 kg per person. However, these figures are derived by simply dividing total landed catch by total population. In addition, there is insufficient research on fish stocks to know if this very rapid rise in the landed catch can be sustained in the long run or what the likely impacts are on longer term protein avail- ability for Malawians. The figures also do not take account of the high level of post-harvest losses, which considerably reduce actual protein per capita availability. Post-harvest fish losses cause a loss of revenue for fishing communities, fish processors, and trad- ers (most of whom are women). These losses are estimated to be at around 30–40%.321 Post-harvest losses are at their highest during the peak fish production period between January and April when there are more rains and high humidity. This makes the traditional open sun drying almost impossible.322 Losses are exacerbated due to a lack of appropriate infrastructure such as feeder roads, ice plants, cold rooms, and poor fish-processing facilities, which reduce the quality of the fish harvest, especially during the rainy season. Expenditures on fisheries do not match the importance of the sector in Malawi’s economy. The share of fisheries expenditures across the ministry’s total budget is extremely low at only 1.45% (or USD 369,027) and yet the fisheries sec- tor contributes around 4% of Malawi’s GDP. In addition, the livelihoods of 1.6 million people in lakeshore communities are based on the fishing industry323 and the industry directly employs about 60,000 fishermen and indirectly over 500,000 people through fish processing, transportation, and marketing, as well as boat building and repairs.324 Drivers of fishery decline A range of factors are driving the decline in fish catches.325 First, there is an overcapacity in the capture fisheries and subsequent overfishing. Second, inappropriate fishing gears such as seine nets with small mesh sizes and mosquito nets are widely used. Third, local fisheries governance structures are weak and struggle to enforce fishing laws and regula- tions. Fishing communities have limited alternative income options, which also helps drive overharvesting. Malawi’s lake ecosystems are also subjected to a range of threats, most of which are linked to human ­ activity— increased nutrient inputs, changes to phytoplankton composition, sediment loading, nearshore water quality impacts, and changing water levels.326 These are caused by factors such as deforestation and agricultural practices that cause soil erosion, which lead to the sedimentation of water courses. Effectively addressing these threats needs improved management practices of both the fisheries and the surrounding catchments. The decline in the Chambo populations in Lake Malawi has been driven by overfishing.327 This is a problem when fish- ing occurs during the Chambo breeding season, which destroys the Chambo breeding nests. The widespread use of large shore seine nets with extremely small meshes also contributes to the declining population. These nets decimate the populations of the juvenile Chambo (‘Kasawala’) that gather in the shallow water. Climate change At present, there is insufficient evidence to make a clear link between climate change and a decline in Malawi’s fish stocks. This is because the ways that climate change affects Malawi’s fisheries are not well understood, and very little 321 These figures are estimates from a variety of sources and there is no definitive source to confirm. 322 Chiwaula et al. 2017. Improved Processing and Marketing of Healthy Fish Products in Inland Fisheries in Malawi. 323 GoM. 2012. Annual Economic Reports. 324 DoF. 2013(a). Frame Survey Report for 2003 to 2013. 325 There is a lack of robust data on post-harvest fish losses and there are no recent studies. Most sources still refer to the FAO analysis from 1992, which puts the loss at around 30%. See: FAO. 1992(b). Case for Improving Marketing of Fish in Malawi. 326 Bootsma and Jorgensen. 2005. Lake Malawi/Nyasa: Experience and Lessons Learned Brief. 327 Weyl et al. 2010. Lake Malawi: Fishes, Fisheries, Biodiversity, Health and Habitat. 92 TABLE 6. Potential effects of climate on fish stocks Environmental Element Effect of Weather Patterns and Climate Trends Impacts Ecosystem/breeding habitats ●● Rising temperatures may cause some species of fish to migrate to ●● Changing distribution deeper, colder waters. ●● Declines in some species and stocks ●● Winds can change upwelling patterns in the lake and may indirectly foster migration of fish to other areas further from the shoreline. Fertilization and nest protection ●● Heavier rainfall and high rates of runoff and soil erosion cause heavy ●● Reduced population siltation. This reduces visibility and can also affect breeding and early- stage development. Source: Adapted from Wood and Moriniere. 2013. Malawi Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. monitoring or research has been done.328 Some fish species’ reproduction and habitats are potentially affected by changing rain patterns, temperatures, runoff, and shifting wind patterns, but it is not known which has the greater impact— climate change or human-driven stressors. It is possible that changes in water temperature and weather patterns linked to climate change are contributing to the decline in fish catches, even though the effects and impacts are not yet well understood329 (see Table 6). Economic context and impact Economic analysis of the costs of fisheries declines is out of date. The most recent economic analysis of fisheries degradation used data up to 2007,330 which indicated that by 2007 the annual cost of unsustainable fishery use was USD 27 million, equivalent to 0.8% of GDP. As there has not been significant progress in reversing degradation since, these losses could be significantly higher. An up-to-date assessment of the fish stocks and fisheries within Malawi is needed, expanding and building on the DoFi’s ongoing data collection and establishing FAO monitoring methodologies. The role of gender also has an economic impact on fisheries as men and women fulfill distinct roles in the fisheries value chain. In general, men tend to dominate fishing activities while women are involved in the post-harvesting activi- ties such as fish processing (sun drying, parboiling, smoking, and brining) and trading. Due to cultural and traditional perceptions that the lake is not a safe place, women lack fish-catching skills. In addition, women are often excluded in representation in fisheries governance and resource management due to cultural beliefs, norms, and unfavorable regula- tory structures of the government.331 Institutions and policy The government has tried to introduce more effective fisheries co-management practices, with responsibilities shared between government and fishing communities, and decentralized authority given to district councils. However, gov- ernance capacity to enforce fisheries regulations and control illegal fishing and destruction of habitats is weak.332 A particular focus has been on joint patrolling of illegal large trawlers. These efforts have not been widely effective333 with 328 Wood and Moriniere. 2013. Malawi Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. 329 Hara and Njaya. 2016. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Need for and Challenges to Implementation of Rights Based Fisheries Management in Small-scale Fisheries of Southern Lake Malawi. 330 GoM. 2011. Economic Analysis of Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Malawi. 331 Hara et al. 2017 Women’s Participation in Fish Value Chains and Value Chain Governance in Malawi: A Case of Msaka (Lake Malawi) and Kavhulu (Lake Chilwa). 332 Hara and Njaya. 2016. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Need for and Challenges to Implementation of Rights Based Fisheries Management in Small-scale Fisheries of Southern Lake Malawi; Wilson. n.d.. The History of Participatory Fisheries Management in Malawi. 333 See, for example, Hara and Njaya. 2016. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Need for and Challenges to Implementation of Rights Based Fisheries Management in Small-scale Fisheries of Southern Lake Malawi; Weyl et al. 2010. Lake Malawi: Fishes, Fisheries, Biodiversity, Health and Habitat. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 93 limited buy-in from fishing communities who did not feel their interests were being represented.334 With decentralization, the DoFi is elevating the need for building capacity of local officials (despite scarcity of resources). Access to fish and fishing intensity has not been controlled in the past, which makes it difficult to implement effec- tive controls in the future. Until now there has been a reluctance to explore restrictive measures, particularly those that would limit access, effort, or output or introduce zonal-based fishing rights. This lack of control continues to be business as usual, making it harder for the government and fisherfolk to make the difficult choices that are necessary to move Malawi’s fisheries toward sustainable utilization. In addition, fisherfolk and farmers lack the necessary skills and knowl- edge to adapt their behavior without additional support and do not have the financial resources to change what they do. Sustainable management is also inhibited by constraints in the legal framework.335 While local beach village commit- tees organize the fishery, the ultimate sanction of withdrawal of a fishing license and adjudication of local conflicts are reserved by the state through the DoFi and the courts. There is a disparity between the inflexible national legal and policy provisions and the bylaws or customary rules at the fishing villages. The DoFi, with support from the chiefs, has the right to seize illegal gear, but the mandate to destroy seized items is vested in the criminal law courts. Policy and regulatory overlaps and contradictions also work against effective management of the lake and river catch- ments. In practice the management of catchment areas fall under a number of departments, sectoral policies, and leg- aquaculture, marine, local government, environment, agriculture and livestock, tourism, islations that include fisheries/­ forestry, national parks and wildlife, water, and land. These each have sectoral policies and legislations that overlap in jurisdiction.336 Subsidiary regulations are not comprehensive enough to implement the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1997. For example, regulations pertaining to gillnet fishing periods and times have been omitted, resulting in increased conflicts between the small-scale and commercial fishers. The closed season is discriminatory to small-scale fishers, there is no provision regarding the introduction of new fishing gears and techniques, and punitive measures are not prohibitive enough as to be a deterrent. The revised National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy337 provides opportunities to address some of the key drivers that affect the decline in fish stocks. The policy seeks to marry increasing fish production with initiatives that will control inappropriate fishing technologies, monitor the impact of pollution and environmental changes, and develop capacity of the government and local institutions to manage fisheries resources better. 334 Wilson. n.d.. The History of Participatory Fisheries Management in Malawi. 335 Kosamu. 2017. Revisiting the ‘Three-pillared Design’ of a Management System for the Elephant Marsh Wetland Fishery in Malawi. 336 Donda et al. 2014. Fragmentation of Resource Management on the Southeast Arm of Lake Malawi: Dynamics around Fisheries; Weyl et al. 2010. Lake Malawi: Fishes, Fisheries, Biodiversity, Health and Habitat. 337 GoM. 2016(d). National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy. 94 Key recommendations LEGISLATION AND POLICY Strengthen fisheries co-management arrangements in tandem with stronger enforcement against illegal fishing technologies and overfishing. Effective fisheries governance is prioritized in the revised fisheries policy, along with the recognition that improved institutional arrangements must be based on co-management with fishing communities. Successfully implemented, co- management interventions will empower primary stakeholders (mostly local fisherfolk) to manage the fishery on which their livelihood depends. These arrangements will enable the development of participatory Fisheries Management Plans, including regulations and penalties, and enforcement of these regulations to control access. Participatory aspects of co-management will need to be complemented by strict enforcement (by the state) of the Fisheries Conservation and Management Regulations (2000). Specifically, this states that no trawl net or ring net shall be used ●● Within one international nautical mile (1,852 m) of every shoreline ●● In waters of a depth of less than 18 m ●● Between 1700 and 0700 hours Currently these regulations are not being enforced. It is particularly important to monitor trawlers. Tracking devices should be fitted and the use of inappropriate net mesh sizes should be stopped. Seine nets with illegal mesh sizes must be destroyed and the owners prosecuted, or the nets will be used again. DATA COLLECTION Up-to-date information is needed on the status of fish stocks and fishing practices. There is a definite need to undertake an up-to-date assessment of the remaining fish stocks, current fishing practices, and the impact of climate and other environmental changes. This is required to define the correct prescriptions and lev- els to stabilize the decline of fish stocks and return them to a more natural state. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 95 10. BIODIVERSITY The status of Malawi’s biodiversity Much of Malawi’s biodiversity key taxa are in decline, and most species of national and international conservation significance are increasingly restricted to protected areas. According to the Malawi’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP II) published in 2015, forestry, fisheries, and wildlife sectors contributed 12.8% to its GDP in 2010.338 However, Malawi has one of the highest numbers of threatened species in the region, and the expanding population and increased demand for agricultural land and sources of protein are causing a steady decline in Malawi’s biodiversity assets. In recent years, GoM has introduced a range of concession models to attract private sector investment in pro- tected areas, which have been extremely successful in terms of both conservation outcomes and revenue generation. GoM has also made substantial recent progress in tackling wildlife crime and illegal logging. Terrestrial biodiversity According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,339 Malawi has 150 critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable species (animals). A summary of country totals benchmarked against selected other countries is shown in Figure 34. FIGURE 34. Number of threatened animal species in Malawi and neighboring countries 250 Number of animal species 199 200 under threat 152 150 117 99 100 68 50 28 0 a i la ia e a aw bi an qu go ib m al am w bi An Za M ts am N Bo oz M Source: IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Over 50% of Malawi’s elephant population has been lost in the last 25 years, including the African elephant Loxodonta africana and other important keystone species. According to the NEAPW,340 elephant populations have been increasing only in Liwonde National Park and Majete Wildlife Reserve. Other elephant populations are gradually declining in numbers and in range due to habitat loss. For example, Kasungu National Park currently supports approximately 50 elephants, com- pared to about 2,000 in the late 1980s. Current estimates put the national elephant population close to 2,000 individuals.341 Other species of international conservation concern have also declined or are now extinct in Malawi. For example, Afri- can Wild Dogs Lycaon pictus are known to still exist in Kasungu (KNP) and Nyika National Park (NNP), but they are subject to high levels of human encroachment and poaching.342 Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus was reported as almost extinct in Malawi in 1996 and, with the exception of small numbers that have recently been reintroduced into Liwonde National Park, the species is now gone from Malawi. Expanding demand for agricultural land and bush meat is the main cause of the decline in Malawi’s wildlife. However, weak judicial systems, law enforcement, and natural resources governance have also undermined efforts to halt the 338 GoM. 2015(c). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan II (2015–2025). 339 IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 340 GoM. 2015(d). National Elephant Action Plan for Malawi 2015–2025. 341 Ibid. 342 Wild Dog Conservation Malawi. 2018. Endangered Dogs. 96 Lake Malawi supports over 800 species of fish—the highest freshwater fish diversity in the world. declines of many species. Until recently, wildlife crime was not considered a serious offense, and Malawi has been used as an important transit hub for illegal wildlife products, which are imported and exported through its borders.343 Aquatic ecosystems Aquatic ecosystems cover about 20% of the total surface area of Malawi and are habitats to an astonishing diversity of fish and other aquatic fauna and flora.344 Lake Malawi is probably the most famous natural ecosystem in Malawi. It is the ninth-largest lake in the world and the third-largest in Africa. It is over 2 million years old and a center of endemism for Cichlid fish. There are at least 800 species of Cichlids in Lake Malawi, of which 117 are classified as threatened by the IUCN. The lake contains the largest number of freshwater fish species in the world, 30% of all known cichlid species,345 and 4% of the world’s fish species.346  Fish stocks in Lake Malawi are declining. Of particular significance is the decline of the endemic Chambo, of which there are three species: (i) Oreochromis lidole, (ii) Oreochromis karongae; and (iii) Oreochromis squamipinnis. The former is endemic to Lake Malawi, Lake Malombe, and the Shire River and is harvested extensively in Lake Malawi for food, sale, and trade. It is now listed in the IUCN Red List as an endangered species on account of its precipitous decline. Between 1980 and 1996, the total Chambo catch (for Lake Malawi, Upper Shire, and Lake Malombe combined) reduced by more than 70%.347 In 1980, the catch was 10,711 tons, by 1990 it had declined to 6,483, and by 1996 it was down to 2,774 tons. In Lake Malombe, Chambo stocks are considered to have been in a state of collapse or near collapse since the early 1990s. Assessments suggest that overfishing is the main cause for this decline. The use of inappropriate nets and harvesting within breeding zones may also contribute. Since the 1990s, surveys indicate that the collapse of the Chambo fish stocks continues unabated.348, 349 Wetlands Wetlands, such as Lake Chilwa and the Elephant Marsh, are important for resilient livelihoods and for their ecologi- cal functions. These wetlands are important for livelihoods and climate resilience. They support important fisheries, livestock grazing, and agriculture, especially during dry periods where water elsewhere in the landscape is scarce.350 343 GoM. 2017(g). The National Ivory Action Plan. 344 GoM. 2014(a). Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 345 UNESCO. 2018. Lake Malawi National Park. 346 GoM. 2010. Malawi State of Environment and Outlook Report: Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth. 347 IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 348 Weyl. 2001. Hard Choices for Chambo Management in Area A of the Southeast Arm of Lake Malawi. 349 Banda et al. 2005. The Chambo Restoration Strategic Plan. 350 Arthur and Hara. 2017. Climate Resilient Livelihoods and Sustainable Natural Resources Management in the Elephant Marshes—Livelihoods Report.  THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 97 Malawi’s wetlands support internationally-significant populations of water bird species, including the African Skimmer Rynchops flavirostris. Malawi’s wetlands support populations of internationally significant water bird populations, including both resident and migratory populations. The Elephant Marsh also plays an important role in flood storage and attenuation and for purifying sediment-rich water flowing through the Shire system. The annual value of the regulating services provided by the Elephant Marsh was estimated between USD 3 million and 255 million.351 Most of this value is from harvesting fish and thatching grass. The total tourism/recreation value is currently quite low at approximately USD 17,500 per year, but there is significant potential for growth in this sector. BOX 10. The Elephant Marsh wetland of international importance Malawi recently created a new Ramsar reserve to conserve the Elephant Marsh. This newly designated protected area covers 600 km2 and is considered to be a wetland of international importance. It is the second wetland in Malawi designated under the Ramsar ­ Convention—the first was Lake Chilwa—­ designated in 1996. The Elephant Marsh supports an important freshwater open water fishery and provides critical dry season grazing for the large cattle herds of the lower Shire valley. The marsh also provides a habitat for over 110 water bird species and sup- ports over 20,000 water birds and more than 1% of a delineated population of three water bird species.352 The Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) and the DoFi are now working to support sustainable man- agement of the marsh through improved fisheries management, integrated agriculture, aquaculture systems, and introduction of community-based tourism and improved zoning. The DNPW is also proposing to designate this area as Malawi’s first Community Conservation Area as part of a strategy to support sustainable use of this wetland. Protected areas Malawi has 96 protected areas, comprising forest reserves, national parks, and wildlife reserves. These cover a total of 10,585 km2—or 11.2% of Malawi’s total land area.353 Forest reserves are managed by the DoF and national parks and wildlife reserves by the DNPW. Many of these protected areas are also categorized as important bird areas.354 These 351 Forsythe and Turpie. 2016. Ecosystem Services of the Elephant Marsh. 352 Turpie et al. 2016. Climate Resilient Livelihoods and Sustainable Natural Resources Management in the Elephant Marshes, Malawi. Sub-study 4: Biodiversity of the Elephant Marshes. MoAIWD. August 2016. 353 GRID-Arendal. 2013. Zambezi River Basin—Atlas of the Changing Environment. 354 Birdlife International. 2018. Malawi. 98 BOX 11. Mulanje Cedar: The national tree of Malawi The Mulanje Cedar, Widdringtonia whytei, is endemic to the Mulanje Mountain, the second-highest mountain in Southern Africa, rising to over 3,000 m. The Mulanje Mountain is a forest reserve of 473 km2 that contains over 70 endemic plant species. The wood of the Mulanje Cedar is fragrant and is resistant to insects and fungi—properties that have made this species much sought after for illegal trade. Over recent years, virtu- ally all remaining Mulanje Cedars have been logged from the Mulanje Mountain. The rate of decline of the Mulanje Cedar has probably been the most dramatic of all species within Malawi. The tree is highly threat- ened and close to extinction.355 areas face considerable challenges with illegal logging and encroachment. This is contributing to significant declines of native species of tree, especially the Mulanje Cedar, the national tree of Malawi. Drivers A growing demand for agricultural land and for wood biomass, fish, and bush meat is driving the decline of Mala- wi’s remaining biodiversity even from within protected areas (as the resources available outside the protected areas diminish). In addition, poor land management practices such as the conversion of forests and the elimination of fallow periods affect biodiversity. Institutions and policy The responsibility for the management of Malawi’s biodiversity, wetlands, and protected areas is with several govern- ment departments: ●● The EAD is responsible for the production of the NEAPW, the NBSAP II, access and benefit sharing of genetics resources, and the production of the IUCN Red List for Malawi. ●● The DNPW oversees the management of all National Parks, Wildlife Reserves, and Games Parks. ●● The DoF oversees the management of all forest reserves including plantation, production, and conservation forestry. ●● The DoFi manages and develops the fisheries sector in Malawi, including the protection and conservation of fish stocks. Most government departments face very low levels of finance. However, the DNPW has started to address this issue by encouraging investment in protected areas by the private sector and other non-state actors, such as the nonprofit African Parks, to which full management control has now been delegated in three protected areas. This has proved to be extremely effective by improving the management of these protected areas and increasing tour- ism revenues. However, the considerable success of the introduction of delegated concessions has also led to large disparities in financing between protected areas where concession arrangements are in place and those that lack such arrangements (see Table 7). The mean actual spend per unit area per year is about USD 100 per km2 for District For- est Reserves and USD 200 per km2 for State Reserves and Nature Reserves. This compares with an average spend of USD 600 per km2 for National Parks in Tanzania.356 355 IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 356 Green et al. 2013. Modelling Tree Growth to Determine the Sustainability of Current Off-take from Miombo Woodland: A Case Study from Rural Villages in Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 99 TABLE 7. Current annual funding per unit area of protected areas in the Shire Valley, Malawi357 Site Size (km2) Annual Allocation (USD) USD per km2 Management Authority Mwabvi Wildlife Reserve 135 2,783 21 GoM Matandwe Forest Reserve 264 50,000 192 GoM Mangochi Forest Reserve 326 12,774 40 GoM Liwonde National Park 548 3,000,000 5,475 APN (CapEx) Majete Wildlife Reserve 700 1,000,000 1,429 APN Lengwe National Park 887 6,122 7 GoM Source: Munthali. 2016. Situational Report on Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in the Shire Basin. Note: APN = African Parks Network; CapEx = Capital expenditure. BOX 12. The transformative impact of protected areas management concessions In 2003, GoM introduced its first fully delegated concession model for Majete Wildlife Reserve. The conces- sion was awarded to Africa Parks—a nonprofit conservation organization that takes on direct responsibility for the rehabilitation and long-term management of protected areas in partnership with governments and local communities. In that year, Majete Wildlife Reserve received just 10 visitors and generated close to zero rev- enues. By 2017, the reserve attracted over 9,000 visitors, half of whom were Malawian nationals, bringing in over USD 550,000 to the reserve and communities. There has also been a dramatic improvement in conservation outcomes, with the reserve now fully restocked with wildlife. Based on the overwhelming success of this arrangement, additional fully delegated concessions were awarded to Africa Parks for Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve and Liwonde National Park, both in 2015. At all three protected areas, there have been substantial investments in staff training, community development, and restocking of wildlife populations, in tandem with investments to improve conservation enforcement. At these sites, there have also been dramatic turnarounds in conservation outcomes and substantial increases in tourism revenues that help subsidize park management. Enforcement—Positive signs Recently, GoM has taken a stronger stance on combating wildlife crime and strengthening law enforcement. There have been notable policy reforms and some high-profile wildlife crime court cases. Malawi signed the London Declara- tion on Illegal Wildlife Trade and the Arusha Declaration on Wildlife Crime. In January 2015, Malawi joined the Elephant Protection Initiative and agreed to implement the NEAPW. It also undertook a major review of illegal wildlife trade358 that proposed specific actions to strengthen enforcement of wildlife crime, many of which are now being implemented. In 2017, Malawi adopted the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching Strategy (LEAP), a regional convention that aims to reduce poaching and wildlife trade and improve law enforcement in Southern Africa. Malawi’s law enforcement and legal system are now more effective for protecting wildlife. Since their establishment in 2016, Wildlife Crime Investigation Units (WCIUs) have increased enforcement efforts against wildlife traffickers and traders, with dramatic increases in prosecution rates and custodial sentencing. Malawi now has some of the toughest penalties in the SADC region. Following the wildlife trade review published in 2015, the government passed an amendment to strengthen the National Parks and Wildlife Act359 including the introduction of automatic custodial sentences for some offenses. 357 Munthali. 2016. Situational Report on Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in the Shire Basin. 358 Waterland et al. 2015. Illegal Wildlife Trade Review Malawi, May 2015. 359 GoM. 2017(h). National Parks and Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2017 (No. 11 of 2017). 100 Key recommendations CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR The private sector can play an important role in improving the management of protected areas and raise tourism revenues at the same time. In some cases, engaging with the private sector has already transformed park management. It is helping Malawi attract greater numbers of tourists to these protected areas and contributing to economic development for local communities around these parks. This approach needs to continue to attract other concessionaires. Since not all parks will be suitable for the fully delegated concession model applied at Majete Wildlife Reserve, Liwonde National Park, and Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve, the DNPW will need to develop different concession management arrangements tailored to the specific context of particular protected areas. EXPAND NATURE-BASED TOURISM REVENUES Nature-based tourism revenues can help finance biodiversity conservation. A considerable proportion of tourism to Malawi is nature-based attractions such as Lake Malawi, Liwonde National Park, and Mulanje Mountain. Tourism in Malawi has been gradually increasing with approximately 900,000 visitors in 2014.360 If this growth is to be sustained, Malawi will need to create incentives for the private sector to invest in better tourism services and infrastructure, complemented by improved brand development at the national level. MONITOR AND COMBAT WILDLIFE CRIME GoM should continue to implement the recommendations of the illegal wildlife trade review and improve awareness and the handling of wildlife crime. GoM has made good progress in recent years in strengthening wildlife crime management efforts, including through the use of courtroom monitoring and private prosecutions. However, further action is needed. For example, there needs to be an increased judicial awareness of wildlife crime and improved capacity for handling wildlife cases and forensics. Improve surveillance and monitoring of protected areas and natural resources to ensure better targeting of limited field-level resources. The conservation of many key sites for biodiversity conservation, such as protected areas, forest reserves, and wetlands, are understaffed or not staffed at all, which makes it extremely difficult to detect and suppress illegal resources use. Greater use of geospatial technologies that could include aerial surveys, satellite monitoring, and drone surveys could help better target limited human resources at field levels. 360 Solimar. 2017. Technical Study to Enhance the Potential for Nature-Based Tourism in the Shire River Basin—Tourism Strategy. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 101 11. WATER RESOURCES The quality and availability of Malawi’s water is under threat. Human activity, population growth, agricultural expansion, urban waste and pollution, and soil erosion are all contributing factors—and changes in Malawi’s climate will only exac- erbate the situation. Malawi’s water resources Malawi’s system of lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and rivers are the country’s most important natural resource. About 94% of Malawi’s landmass falls in the Zambezi River basin (constituting 8% of the basin with Africa’s fourth longest river). The remaining 6% is in the Congo and Rovuma River basins along with an internal drainage basin of Lake Chilwa. See Fig- ure 35 for a map of Malawi’s lakes and rivers. Lake Malawi is the world’s fourth-deepest and Africa’s third-largest freshwater lake. It is fed by over 200 rivers (mostly ephemeral) from Malawi, Tanzania, and Mozambique and has a surface area of 28,760 km2 361 and an abundance of biodiversity.362 The only outlet of this vast lake is into the Shire River as it flows south. The Shire River discharges an average of 18,000 km3 per year of runoff into the Zambezi River and onwards to Mozambique. This equates to 20% of the Zambezi River basin’s total runoff,363 which is a significant portion of the Zambezi River, the third-largest river in Africa by discharge. Malawi’s groundwater is situated in the extensive Precambrian weathered basement complex and the lakeshore and Lower Shire River valley quaternary alluvial aquifers. They yield 2 liters per second and 20 liters per second, respec- tively.364 Malawi’s other lakes (Malombe, Chilwa, Chiuta, Kazuni, and Chiwondo); large wetlands (the Elephant, Ndindi, and Vwaza Marshes); rivers; and aquifers are collectively of national economic, social, and environmental significance. Malawi’s water availability is decreasing rapidly and it has the lowest water availability per capita of its neighbor- ing countries. Soon, despite having satisfactory quantities of renewable water (estimated at 17.3 km3 per year in 2011), the country is likely to experience water scarcity. This is when demand for water exceeds the available and accessible amounts of sufficient quality water. Across Southern Africa, the rate of population growth and the subsequent increased demand for water far outpace water availability. Climate variability and change, and insufficient water infrastructures and management systems such as dams, wells, municipal extension services, and so on, make this problem even worse. However, Malawi’s situation is serious. Figure 36 shows how Malawi faces water scarcity with less than 1,000 m3 of water per capita per year. In Malawi, 79% of water allocations are given to irrigated agriculture (1.17 km3 per year) and the remaining 21% to municipal water supply (0.15 km3 per year) and industries (0.05 km3).365 Together, these abstractions represent 7.9% of total renewable water resources (see Figure 37). Failure to adequately respond to Malawi’s water resource management challenges will likely lead to more water pol- lution, uncertain water availability, and greater competition for water use. The three main areas of critical water use (agriculture, hydropower investments, and urban water management) not only need improved water resource manage- ment, but they also face the added challenges of population growth, urbanization, and unregulated and unmonitored expansion of water abstraction for industry and agriculture. 361 GoM. 2010. Malawi State of Environment and Outlook Report: Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth. 362 World Bank. 2010. The Zambezi River Basin: A Multi-sector Investment Opportunities Analysis (Vol. 3): State of the Basin (English). About 99% of the more than 800 cichlid fish species and more than 70% of the 17 clariids are endemic to the Lake Malawi region, which is also thought to hold more than 3,000 fish species, 200 mammals, 650 birds, and over 5,500 plant species. 363 World Bank. 2010. The Zambezi River Basin: A Multi-sector Investment Opportunities Analysis (Vol. 3): State of the Basin (English). 364 Kumwenda et al. 2015. Trends and Outlook: Agricultural Water Management in Southern Africa—Country Report Malawi. 365 Ibid. 102 FIGURE 35. Map of Malawi showing extent of lakes and rivers Source: United Nations. 2004. Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 103 FIGURE 36. Malawi’s availability of water per capita compared to other Zambezi River Basin countries Water stress Water scarcity Below 1 ,700 cubic Below 1 ,000 cubic meters per year meters per year 8,122 7,195 7,093 6,476 5,753 1,622 1,150 925 Mozambique Namibia Angola Botswana Zambia Tanzania Zimbabwe Malawi Source: Grid Arendal. 2013. Zambezi River Basin—Atlas of the Changing Environment. FIGURE 37. Graph of total renewable water resources 14,000 12,000 10,000 m3/capita/year 8,000 Zambia 6,000 Mozambique 4,000 2,000 0 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2011 Malawi 2,460.6 1,980.4 1,653.8 1,551.3 1,353.3 1,176.9 1,044.2 Mozambique 7,879.5 7,499.3 6,989.3 5,929.8 5,191.5 4,523.8 4,080.3 Tanzania 4,221.5 3,617.8 3,084.1 2,659.4 2,345.9 2,042.8 1,812.1 Zambia 12,862.1 11,071.4 9,745.5 8,605.1 7,547.9 6,622.8 5,882.4 Source: Adapted from data on renewable water from SADC. 2013. SADC Statistics Yearbook 2013. Environment All of Malawi’s water resources are being rapidly degraded and exploited by unregulated and intensifying human activ- ity. These activities include deforestation which is causing high rates of erosion and sedimentation, which, in turn, has an impact on aquatic life. There is increasing biological and chemical pollution from urban areas and industrial waste, all made worse by an absence of adequate wastewater treatments. In addition, there is chemical leakage from the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides (particularly during wet seasons). In rural areas, freshwater resources are being undermined by food insecurity and population growth caused by increased loss of vegetation and the extension of farming into wetlands and river channel beds.366 These same rural communities are often negatively affected by the deteriorated ecosystem services and are then at greater risk of extreme water conditions such as floods and droughts. 366 Phalira. 2016. Community Environment Conservation Fund Presentation. 104 In cities and towns, water resources are being increasingly polluted by waste generated through increasing urbaniza- tion and the growth of informal settlements and industries. In Lilongwe, farming, housing, and informal markets (such as Tsoka and Lizulu) encroach on the buffer zones of the Lilongwe River.367 This results in direct and indirect transmission of pollutants into the water, including oils from workshops, effluent disposal, animal and solid waste, sulphates, nitrates, and lead from used batteries. Similar pollution patterns have emerged in the Mudi, Naperi, and Nasolo Rivers of Blantyre; the Lunyangwa River of Mzuzu and Likangala; and Domasi Rivers in Zomba. Urban water pollution also has a knock-on effect on aquatic life, downstream users, and the river’s ecosystem services. For example, large amounts of plastics are damaging to birds and wildlife.368 In addition, chemical and solid waste pollu- tion affects people’s health,369 spreads waterborne diseases, and increases treatment costs for municipal water utilities. Malawi’s rivers and lakes are experiencing rapidly deteriorating water quality. This is happening due to an increased loading of chemicals and nutrients from agriculture, industries and mining, soil erosion, and sedimentation. Eutrophi- cation in Southern and Central Lake Malawi, and the other larger lakes, is now evident with changes to the phyto- plankton assemblages, riverine vegetation growth, and its impact on hypoxia (oxygen depletion) and fish stocks.370 Conditions are now more favorable for aquatic weeds, such as the water hyacinth (locally known as Namasupuni) and the Kariba Weed, allowing the creation of large mats of vegetation negatively affecting water flows, fisheries, naviga- tion, and water quality. Climate change Future extreme and uncertain hydrological conditions could undermine the environmental and socioeconomic func- tions of Malawi’s lakes, wetlands, aquifers, and rivers. Lake Malawi, the Shire River, and wetlands such as the Elephant Marshes sustain vital ecosystem functions and wildlife. When the level of Lake Malawi and rainfall patterns across the Shire River basin fluctuate, the ecosystem and economic services of the Shire River follow suit. The following potential floods and drought conditions then affect a number of important resources including: ●● Hydropower production; ●● Water supply to urban areas in Blantyre, Limbe, Liwonde, and Mangochi, as well as thousands of rural communities in catchment areas; and ●● Irrigation systems that are critical for production of commodities such as raw sugar, tea, and tobacco. Water resources and the economy The impacts of degraded water resources in Malawi can be seen by the effects they have on critical water use, which has a knock-on effect on the economy. The compounded economic impact of degraded water resources in Malawi is hard to collectively estimate, but poor sanitation alone is estimated to cost the country USD 57 million per year (or 1.1% of GDP). For example, a cost-benefit analysis of increased investments in water supply and sanitation infrastructures estimates 1.4 times return for water supply and 1.2 times return for sanitation.371 Flooding in recent years has cost the country the equivalent of 5% of GDP—a financial burden exacerbated by the absence of water-regulating infrastructures and encroachment in high-risk flood zones. 367 ICLEI-CBC. 2017. River Revitalisation in Lilongwe, Malawi. 368 GoM. 2010. Malawi State of Environment and Outlook Report: Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth. 369 About 90% of mortality attributed to diarrhea is caused by poor water and sanitation in Malawi, numbering 8,000 mortalities (4,500 of which are children under five) per year (Water and Sanitation Program 2012). 370 Otu et al. 2011. Paleolimnological Evidence of the Effects of Recent Cultural Eutrophication during the Last 200 Years in Lake Malawi, East Africa. 371 WSP. 2012. Malawi—Economic Impacts of Poor Sanitation in Africa. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 105 Malawi’s water availability is decreasing rapidly and it has the lowest water availability per capita of its neighboring countries. Water is an essential economic input for Malawi’s predominantly rainfed agricultural productivity and for commodity crops, all of which rely directly on water access and availability. In all, agriculture contributes 90% of export earnings and its water use makes up 79% of all water withdrawals.372 Estimates from 2010 suggest that only 9–22% of the potential 4 million ha of irrigable land was put under irrigation.373 As such, expanding irrigation and its water withdrawals is a top economic priority for the government and is addressed by the Cabinet’s 2011 Green Belt Initiative374 and the National Irrigation Policy.375 In addition, water resources are critical for Malawi’s economy as hydropower creates over 95% of Malawi’s electricity.376 Malawi needs hydropower for existing energy production and is a big part of future plans for energy production. How- ever, natural processes such as siltation and erosion are a threat to hydropower production. Climate variability also exacerbates this potential problem. In 2015, erratic rainfall and low levels in Lake Malawi resulted in a 66% drop in hydropower production at the three downstream Nkula, Tedzani, and Kapichira turbines.377 One of many economic and environmental consequences of this subsequent loss of electricity supply was an increased pressure on forests for firewood. Institutions and policy Legislative commitments Malawi has a range of policies and institutional structures designed to manage water and sanitation, both at strategic and local levels. At a strategic level, the 2007 National Water Policy378 (2nd edition) outlines the vision of ‘water and sani- tation for all, always’ with objectives, guiding principles, and sector-specific strategies (ranging from agriculture through to ecotourism). Similarly, the 2008 National Sanitation Policy379 sets out national objectives and provides guidance on implementation mechanisms to promote integrated multisectoral coordination and monitoring of sanitation. At a 372 Kumwenda et al. 2015. Trends and Outlook: Agricultural Water Management in Southern Africa—Country Report Malawi. 373 Ibid. 374 http://www.malawivoice.com/green-belt-initiative-gbi-the-game-changer-in-malawis-economy/ 375 GoM. 2016(e). National Irrigation Policy. 376 ESCOM. 2015. Water Levels and the Energy Situation. 377 Sanje. 2015. Malawi’s Hydropower Dries Up as River Runs Low, Menacing Forests. 378 GoM. 2007. National Water Policy (2nd Edition). 379 GoM. 2008. National Sanitation Policy. 106 decentralized level, the Catchment Management Committees (CMCs) play a critical role in convening government, pri- vate sector, and traditional authority representatives for shared water challenges and opportunities.  The Water Resources Act (1969) is the principle law that covers the water sector. In 2013, the act was updated to create the following institutional structures: ●● National Water Resources Authority (NWRA) ●● CMCs ●● Water Tribunal ●● Water User Associations ●● Water Trust Fund The Waterworks Act of 1995,380 on the other hand, covers water supply and sanitation and the establishment of Water Boards for providing piped water and sewerage services. In the transboundary context, Malawi is a signatory of the 2000 Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse System and the 2004 Zambezi Watercourse Commission Agreement (ZAMCOM), which both carry obligations on the equitable use of water among riparian states. However, Malawi has not, in contrast to the other seven riparian states in the region, finalized the accession processes of the ZAMCOM agreement.  What happens in practice Unfortunately, functions across the various regulatory and institutional structures responsible for water and sanitation regularly overlap, which can hinder efficient management—a situation made worse by inadequate staffing levels. The MoAIWD was formed in 2014, and its Water Resources Department (WRD) mandate covers multiple uses and functions of water resources. The Water Resources Board was initially intended as a regulatory authority, but it also fulfils an advisory function to the minister on issues ranging from water abstraction permits to incidents of pollution, as well as approval of water infrastructures and collaboration with stakeholders. The ministry also suffers from staff shortages, with only 60% of positions filled. As of 2018, an office was acquired for the NWRA in Lilongwe and recruitment is still pending. However, the recently updated 2013 Act now gives the NWRA further mandates than those of regulatory bodies.381 380 GoM. 1995. Waterworks Act 1995 (No. 17 of 1995). 381 GoM. 2016(b). Shire River Basin Plan. Volume 1: Basis for Planning. Key recommendations Reducing the main challenges facing Malawi’s water resources requires a multisectoral, cross-ministerial approach that ranges from national through to local interventions. At the same time, the potential for productive use of water for food production and hydropower is high and current abstractions are low.382 Just as water challenges and potential vary across sectors, from hydropower through to water supply, so do remedial investments and policy frameworks. The critical issues around Malawi’s environment and water resources and the key approaches to support these are detailed below.383 382 Unused water resources were estimated to be 92%. See Kumwenda et al. 2015. Trends and Outlook: Agricultural Water Management in Southern Africa—Country Report Malawi. 383 GoM. 2016(b). Shire River Basin Plan. Volume 1: Basis for Planning. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 107 EXPAND CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADOPT MORE EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES The application of targeted and proven approaches needs to extend beyond piloting. This involves supporting sustainable catchment management with the implementation of National Catchment Manage- ment and Rural Infrastructure Development Guidelines. It also should involve close cooperation with district partners and establish a monitoring program for sediment loads in waterways of major importance. Measures to improve water use efficiencies can have a substantial impact. For example, supplemental irrigation (that is, irrigating only during critical crop growth and development periods)384 for greater crop and water productivity can, when coupled with rainwater harvest- ing, increase yields two to three times more than conventional rainfed agriculture.385 STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS IN THE WATER SECTOR Make sure that institutional reforms in the water sector are implemented and enforced to realize the benefits of these reforms. It is recommended that institutional mandates are enforced through the operationalization of the NWRA in accordance with the 2013 Water Resources Act, with its delineation of mandates with existing departments and subnational institu- tions, such as River Basin Agencies. PRIORITIZE LICENSING, ALLOCATION, AND MONITORING OF WATER USE Improving water management requires strengthened systems and capacities for licensing, allocating, and monitoring water use. Water usage needs to be managed and allocated appropriately during normal operations and extreme low-flow events. This can be achieved by identifying and agreeing on water priorities and when and how to allocate water usage appro- priately. Building robust water use licensing systems can be done through capacity building, targeting both field and licensing staff, and developing detailed procedures and protocols alongside improved flow and abstraction measure- ment technology. CONTINUE TO BUILD WATER-MONITORING CAPABILITIES The continuous collection of water data is critical for managing priority water challenges. In particular, building the government’s capacity and systems is needed in the areas of: ●● Water quality and pollution monitoring. ●● Regulation and compliance for urban wastewater discharge (for example, through compliance monitoring and efflu- ent license conditions). ●● Sewerage facilities in major urban areas. In addition, the management of groundwater relies on improved data availability (centralized online database, basin geol- ogy analysis, groundwater levels, quality and abstraction data collection) and focusing on hot spot challenges and the declaration of groundwater management areas. 384 Fox et al. 2005. Risk Analysis and Economic Viability of Water Harvesting for Supplemental Irrigation in Semi-arid Burkina Faso and Kenya; World Bank. 2006. Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities and Trade-offs; Rockström and Barron. 2007. Water Productivity in Rainfed Systems: Overview of Challenges and Analysis of Opportunities in Water Scarcity Prone Savannahs. 385 USAID. 2015(a). Agricultural Water Management Water and Development Strategy—Implementation Brief. 108 12. WASTE MANAGEMENT (SOLID AND LIQUID) Waste management requirements are growing rapidly, yet the necessary infrastructure and policy implementation lags. The gap between requirements and the resources available is extremely large. This is particularly serious in urban areas, where population growth increases the need for waste management and population density leaves many people (usually the poorest) living in close proximity to both rubbish and sewerage. Current urban planning is not keeping pace with waste management needs. Status of waste management Only 10%–15% of urban wastewater is collected through sewerage386 and an estimated 70% of MSW is not officially disposed of.387 This is a significant challenge for Malawi. Much of this waste ends up in open spaces, in rivers, and on the street.388 Even the 30% of solid waste that is collected for disposal is not disposed of effectively. Data are limited but the 2010 State of the Environment Report389 provides information from 2005. This shows that less than 5% of households have trash picked up from their bin, and almost 70% of households deposit their waste in a rubbish pit or public trash pile390 (see Figure 38). On average, the solid waste generation rate is estimated at 0.5 kg per capita per day.391 FIGURE 38. Trash disposal practices, 2005 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Malawi Urban Rural Male Female Kasungu Lilongwe Lilongwe Blantyre Blantyre rural city rural city Sex District Collected from bin Rubbish pit Burning Public rubbish heap Other None Source: GoM. 2010. Malawi State of Environment and Outlook Report: Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth. GoM has drafted policy documents that provide clear guidance on solid waste management, but implementation remains inadequate. Lack of implementation is due to a long-term failure to allocate adequate finance, implying a lack of political prioritization. There are some local initiatives supported by donors and NGOs, but these alone will not address the issue or provide the necessary finance at the required scale. The country has only two municipal landfills, no publicly managed trash incinerators,392 and just a few waste transfer stations. Only the major cities of Blantyre, Lilongwe, and Zomba have wastewater treatment plants. Hazardous waste is often mixed with nonhazardous waste, household waste, and commercial and industrial waste. Sources of growing 386 Chipofya et al. 2018. Comparison of Pollutant Levels in Effluent from Wastewater Treatment Plants in Blantyre, Malawi. 387 Nyirenda. 2016. Status of Waste Management in Malawi. 388 Barré. 2014. Waste Market in Urban Malawi: A Way Out of Poverty? 389 GoM. 2010. Malawi State of Environment and Outlook Report: Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth. 390 Ibid. 391 Nyirenda. 2016. Status of Waste Management in Malawi. 392 Privately owned incinerators do exist but are not formally monitored, for example, at St. Gabriel. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 109 The country has only two municipal landfills, no publicly managed trash incinerators and just a few waste transfer stations. concern to the government include post-construction, livestock, and medical waste. Official dumps are just that, dumps. They have no fencing; have large-scale rodent infestations; and are an active source of human poisoning, pollution, and water contamination.393 Most district and municipal councils have no sewerage networks, and often sludge ponds or old quarry sites are used to dispose of sludge pumped from septic tanks. Most of the sewage plants that exist are dysfunctional due to age and because they were not designed for the capacity now required of them. As a result, they now need major maintenance. Liquid waste pollutes both ground and surface water and contaminates land used for urban agriculture. Studies have shown that heavy metals in industrial liquid waste exceed standard limits,394 and river water in many urban areas is not fit for human consumption.395 These factors together bring severe risks to human health. There are no large-scale formal recycling schemes. In large urban centers such as Lilongwe and Blantyre, plastics are collected from the disposal sites and sold on to recyclers. To a very limited extent, composting waste is managed by NGOs, a few small firms, and some poor waste pickers.396 There are some examples of small-scale PPPs and job creation in composting, recycling, and trash management, but these are limited. In addition, funding is not yet sufficient to address this growing problem,397 However, the government is proactive on electronic waste (e-waste). For example, Malawi Com- munications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) is developing regulations on e-waste management. In the context of an already limited service provision for solid and liquid waste, Malawi also faces a future challenge regarding pressures caused by urbanization. Rapid urbanization is often a key factor that overwhelms service provi- sion in developing countries, when investment in services such as waste management and sanitation cannot keep up 393 Nyirenda. 2016. Status of Waste Management in Malawi. 394 Schütz. 2013. Water Quality in Malawi—Effluent Water from a Matchstick Factory in Blantyre. 395 See for example: Maloudi. 2012. Water and Sanitation Needs Assessment for Blantyre City, Malawi; Phiri et al. 2005. Assessment of the Impact of Industrial Effluents on Water Quality of Receiving Rivers in Urban Areas of Malawi. 396 Nyirenda. 2016. Status of Waste Management in Malawi. 397 Barré. 2014. Waste Market in Urban Malawi: A Way Out of Poverty? 110 with population increases. Currently, the growth rate of Malawi’s urban centers remains relatively slow compared with comparator countries. However, even at a 15% growth rate,398 urban populations can double in as little as seven or eight years. Investments in sustainable urban planning including solid waste management and sewerage need to be consid- ered to deal with this urbanization challenge, which will more than likely intensify. Climate change Solid waste only contributes about 2% of Malawi’s total GHG emissions. However, while still small, these emissions are growing at a faster rate than Malawi’s total GHG emissions. Between 1999 and 2011, GHG emissions from solid waste grew by 2.3% per year. Malawi’s total GHG emissions grew at a slower rate of 0.7% per year during the same period.399 However, climate change will affect the way solid waste should be managed in the future. Shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns will increase the risks to Malawi’s environment and health from poor waste management. It is important to be aware of these risks so that plans can be made to: ●● Improve the operation of existing solid waste sites. ●● Make sure the design of new sites takes climate change into account. ●● Make sure policy decisions on waste management incorporate climate change. Table 8 shows examples of how potential changes to the climate can affect the environment and put people at risk. TABLE 8. How climate change affects solid waste management practices Climate Variable Potential Climate Change Examples of Impact of Waste Management Temperature Annual warming between 1°C and 5°C by Increased water demand for both site operation and workers the 2080s More hot days, especially in dry seasons Fewer cold days (especially in rainy seasons) Impacts on biological processes such as composting and anaerobic digestion Longer hot spells in summer Increased risk of changes in distribution of vermin and pests Precipitationa Generally wetter days for Malawi Increased risk of flooding from groundwater and surface water Precipitation increases in rainy seasons Disruption to infrastructure, for example, road and rail Increased precipitation intensity can affect slope stability on waste management sites Impacts on biological processes such as composting and anaerobic digestion Cloud cover Reduction in cloud cover Risk to workers of skin conditions due to increased exposure to sunshine, when working outside Humidity Humidity increases (especially during rainy Impacts on outdoor biological processes seasons) Source: Based on Christian. 2010. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Solid Waste Management in Nigeria. Note: a. Global and downscaled climate change models and scenarios do not provide a consistent projection of changes in Malawi’s average rainfall. Some indicate an increase in annual rainfall, others a decrease. There is more confidence that there will be an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms. 398 World Bank. 2017(a). Malawi Economic Monitor: Harnessing the Urban Economy. 399 USAID. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Malawi. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 111 Institutional issues Malawi has the necessary legislation for effective waste management, but there is a chronic lack of finance to manage waste effectively, combined with limited capacity to enforce existing regulations.400 The new EMA (2017) provides clear guidance and authority for waste management, the National Water Policy aims to ensure water of acceptable quality for all needs in Malawi, the Integrated and Sustainable Waste Management Framework calls for multi-stakeholder engage- ment, and formalized national effluent standards exist.401 Governance mandates for leading national-level regulation and budget allocations lie with the EAD, while municipal and district councils are responsible for local-level waste manage- ment and the enforcement of regulations. Limited budget allocation relative to the scale of the problem forces govern- ment staff into a reactive rather than proactive approach to tackling waste. Conflicting and confused mandates within government complicate effective waste management. The EAD is only meant to lead on regulation, but in practice it also undertakes some initiatives such as taking GHG measurements. Both the Water Affairs Department and the MoH have sanitation departments, but policies and priorities are not harmonized. Economic context and impact Solid waste management is associated with a range of economic, environmental, and social costs. There has been no detailed analysis of the costs of Malawi’s current solid waste management status. However, the lack of effective waste management systems does mean the cost of upgrading and improving Malawi’s solid waste management will be imposed onto future generations. In addition to the direct costs of managing solid and liquid waste efficiently on a day-to-day basis, costings must also consider other external factors. These include methane and other air emissions from open dumps, landfill and transport, contamination, resource depletion, and the cost of future site remediation. The major environmental cost of poor waste management is the pollution of surface and groundwater and resulting health hazards. Often household refuse is mixed with medical and industrial waste, unregulated dumping in unsuitable locations creates dust and litter, and untreated sewage pollutes accessible water sources. There is a lack of adequate data to provide accurate estimates of environmental costs. These should ideally include life-cycle assessments (LCAs)402 to provide analysis of all environmental impacts of products rather than just immediate ones associated with final use and disposal. The most obvious social cost of poor solid waste management is human health. Other social costs include the educa- tion of the public and industry on waste management, at both household and enterprise levels. It also includes the cost of encouraging and managing recycling schemes and the opportunity costs of clean-up campaigns. 400 For example, the Water Policy, Sanitation Policy, Waste Management Bylaws, and the Public Health Act. 401 GoM. 2017(i). Environment Management Act, Act 19 of 2017; GoM. 2005. National Water Policy; MBS. 2005. Malawi Standard; Drinking Water Specification. 402 For example, see DEAT. 2004. Life Cycle Assessment. 112 Key recommendations Tackling waste management challenges in Malawi will require a comprehensive approach. The approach must include building the regulatory and policy capacity of the government so that standards are enforced and coherence and inte- gration are achieved, from local through to national levels. PRIVATE SECTOR AND MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS Leveraging private sector resources for solid waste management could improve the current situation at local levels. The financial resources required at a national scale are so large that, without engagement with the private sector, GoM does not have the fiscal or political space to reallocate the substantial sums required. PPPs have the potential to go some way toward providing the level of resource required for the scale of solid waste management. Local-level and private sector initiatives could include: ●● Actively supporting private initiatives for waste management and marketing, including regularizing informal sector waste pickers. ●● Adjusting regulations if necessary to support these private initiatives. ●● Actively supporting the separation, processing, and sale of recyclable and compostable waste. ●● Implementing and enforcing ‘polluter pays’ principles for larger enterprises. ●● Raising public awareness of waste management by providing practical guidelines through municipalities, NGOs, and schools. ●● Working with large and medium enterprises in trades and professions with significant waste management issues— with the aim of reducing and self-managing waste and creating less dependence on regulation. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND URBAN PLANNING Develop and implement sustainable urban plans that include investments in practical waste management. The current relatively slow pace of urbanization in Malawi provides a window of opportunity to close the gap between the urgent need to manage waste more effectively and efficiently and the current shortfalls in infrastructure, finance, and management capacity. Prioritizing investments now will be far more cost effective than postponing them for, as the rate of urbanization increases, ‘catching up’ will become more and more difficult and expensive. LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENTS LCAs can be used as a tool to manage waste more efficiently and reduce waste volumes. LCAs have the added value of encouraging better information gathering on sustainability issues of the economy and economic activity. Specific areas where LCAs can be used by government are to inform policies on eco-labelling, deposit- refund schemes, and subsidies and taxation that encourage recycling. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 113 An Agenda for Change This section identifies priority actions for different environmental sectors to address environmental challenges. These include policy and institutional reform measures as well as specific actions at sector levels. Ten strategic recommenda- tions are presented below, and more detailed sectoral and thematic recommendations are summarized in Annex 1. Productive land, forest, and fisheries resources RECOMMENDATION 1: ADDRESS LAND DEGRADATION Reform incentives for farmer-level scale-up of SLM practices by strengthening land tenure security and reforming input subsidies. The priorities are to reform incentives for farmer-level scale-up of SLM practices by implementing land tenure reforms at scale in tandem with reforms to subsidy regimes. If land tenure reforms are implemented effectively, and at scale, this will increase tenure security and incentives for landholders to invest in SLM measures. Improved land tenure security will reduce land degradation and increase productivity. Unfortunately, poorly targeted input subsidies currently work in the opposite direction and contribute to land degradation, directly (for example, by constraining crop diversification) and indirectly (for example, by crowding out fiscal space for investments in extension services). Therefore, reforms to subsidy regimes are also needed that better target limited public resources and create incentives for better land stewardship. RECOMMENDATION 2: OVERHAUL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Strengthen fisheries co-management arrangements in tandem with stronger enforcement against illegal fishing technologies and overfishing. Effective fisheries governance is prioritized in the revised fisheries policy, along with the recognition that improved institutional arrangements must be based on co-management with fishing communities. Successfully implemented, co- management interventions will empower primary stakeholders (mostly local fisherfolk) to manage the fishery on which their livelihood depends. However, this will need to be complemented by much more effective enforcement of fisheries management regulations and bylaws. AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE 115 RECOMMENDATION 3: SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL CHARCOAL STRATEGY Support this ambitious and progressive reform, including its proposals to promote fuel switching to cleaner and alternative fuels (such as LPG) to develop legal and sustainable charcoal value chains. There are opportunities, which align with the government’s recently launched Renewable Energy Strategy, to promote greater efficiency in consumption and encourage a switch to alternative clean fuels where affordable and appropriate. A number of commercial players and social enterprises in East and Southern Africa offer high-quality, modern cooking appliances for both firewood and charcoal. There is potential for them to be encouraged to invest in Malawi’s clean cook- ing sector, for example, by using tax breaks. Simplify or remove regulations to allow the wood fuel industry to transform from the informal to the formal economy. A functioning and legal charcoal industry could deliver significant fiscal returns to the state through the formal taxation system, which are not currently being captured, and encourage investment in modernization and efficiency improve- ment. Initial steps for transforming wood fuels from the informal to the formal economy would involve simplifying or removing regulations and reducing barriers to securing licenses for charcoal production and trade. This could include promoting sustainable practices through incentives, for example, by providing planting and tree stewardship grants and supporting co-management efforts. Environmental management RECOMMENDATION 4: IMPLEMENT THE NEW LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Provide sufficient public financing to support effective implementation of the new EMA (2017) and the creation of a semiautonomous EPA. These linked reforms provide an important window of opportunity for strengthening environmental management in Malawi. The aim of the new EMA is to align Malawi’s management of ENR with modern global standards. It also allows for the creation of a semiautonomous EPA with broad and substantial powers. Successful implementation of the new legal framework will depend in large part on whether the new agency is provided with sufficient resources to operate efficiently. To enable effective implementation of the EMA, the EPA will need a robust program of capacity building and operational support. This support should come from both the government and development partners. This will need to include support for the development of internal institutional structures, appropriate staffing and capacity building, preparation of regulations for the SEA and EIA, and the certification of EIA practitioners, as well as the development of operational procedures, for example, to guide and define relationships with other government agencies, to establish registries of EIAs, and so on. 116 RECOMMENDATION 5: ACCELERATE AND SUPPORT THE DECENTRALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS Support and promote GoM’s renewed commitment toward decentralization. Decentralization was launched in 1998 as part of the transition to democracy, with the aim of diffusing overly centralized power and bringing services closer to citizens. However, the decentralization process has been undermined by a slow and fragmented assignment of functions and resources to local authorities. Since the local government elections in 2014, GoM has renewed its commitment to the process by increasing intergovernmental transfers and initiating the devolution of human resources. In addition, the new EMA and the forthcoming establishment of the EPA provide a further opportu- nity to accelerate the decentralization of environmental management functions, as does the integration of the LDF and National Local Governance Finance Committee. The EMA provides for the appointment of environment officers at the district level as members of the District Development Committees. These developments could also provide an opportu- nity to strengthen compliance monitoring of EIAs and improve coordination with other officers and bodies at the district level and below, such as with District Forestry Officers and VNRMCs. The LDF also offers the possibility of increasing investments in interventions that tackle environmental degradation, for example, for SLM and forest regeneration. RECOMMENDATION 6: ADDRESS HOUSEHOLD AIR POLLUTION THROUGH EDUCATION AND SUBSIDIES Support and encourage markets and incentives for fuel switching for cooking to affordable clean fuels, including LPG and electricity, to help reduce chronic and acute respiratory caused by HAP. A continued emphasis is needed for urban and rural electrification and for fuel switching to cleaner fuels, such as LPG. However, affordability issues hamper uptake of both these technologies for many households. Subsidies for more effi- cient stoves and improved ventilation should be prioritized and supported at a greater scale, making sure analysis is done to cost this carefully as there may be little budgetary space for Malawi to fund such subsidies. Education interventions are needed to build public awareness of the severe health risks of HAP. It is young adults and children who mainly carry the high burdens of death and disease caused by HAP-induced pneu- monia. In the short term, immediate interventions are needed to build awareness of the severe health risks resulting from HAP using education and public awareness raising strategies. Environmental accounting and expenditure RECOMMENDATION 7: VALUE NATURAL CAPITAL IN ECONOMIC PLANNING Develop natural capital accounts to mainstream the values of key natural resources in national economic policy and planning. The National Statistical Office needs support to enable it to produce national capital accounts to build national economic accounting and statistics and enhance policy analysis. Natural capital accounts provide an analysis of the economic benefits of enhanced environmental protection and the costs of environmental degradation. Natural capital accounting is the process of measuring natural capital, recognizing their value, and incorporating that information directly into national economic accounts and statistics. For Malawi, this would require sufficient capacity in the National Statistical Office to produce these accounts. AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE 117 A good starting point would be the preparation of accounts that could best inform policy on priority environmental chal- lenges, for example, land, forest, and water accounts. The accounts could then be used to generate analysis by the MoFEPD on key policy issues and questions—for example, to quantify the real contribution of natural assets and the ecosystem services they provide to the national economy, to quantify and track economic losses associated with land degradation, or to quantify the impact of the informal economy (for example, wood fuel extraction or fish harvesting) on the underlying resource base (for example, forests or fish stocks). Natural capital accounts can also be used for policy analysis. Natural capital accounts can guide decisions on water resources allocation and help target investments in productive natural resources sectors such as forests and fisheries. Addressing existing data gaps will allow a more informed and nuanced understanding of the returns to environmental spending and support decision-making on policy development and implementation. RECOMMENDATION 8: INCREASE PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES Use scarce public financing efficiently to leverage additional private sector investment to address natural resources management and environmental challenges. The financial requirements to improve environmental management in Malawi are substantial, but the government’s ability to redirect public finance to address this is constrained. GoM has neither the fiscal nor political space to adequately address the many environmental challenges the country faces, and the continued support of development partners will be required in the near and medium term. This includes support for environmental interventions through programs and projects that prioritize themes, and sectors that combine economic growth (or a reduction in economic costs), poverty reduction, and environmental benefits. The sectoral priorities identified in this report (see Annex 1) are drawn from the analysis that has combined these and provide the basis for prioritizing external support for GoM’s environmental and economic objectives. Build on GoM’s commitment to increasing private sector involvement to boost environmental investment. All recent environment policies refer to the importance of mobilizing private sector investment. GoM’s limited resources need to be used in a targeted way to leverage private sector interments. The successes of PPPs in managing wildlife and protected areas provides a model that can be extended. Opportunities already exist for increased private sector invest- ments in managing protected areas, marketing agricultural commodities, developing and managing forest plantations, and recycling plastics and other solid waste. Secure, support, and invest in the productive activities of small farmers and other rural producers. Small farmers already provide major inputs to Malawi’s economy, with smallholders accounting for 80% of agricultural production and 70% of agricultural GDP.403 In addition, economic multiplier effects and nonmarket values can add to the wider economic value of smallholder production. Greater efforts to secure, support, and invest in their productive activi- ties could increase their economic contribution significantly.404 403 World Bank. 2017(b). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment. 404 Verdone. 2018. The World’s Largest Private Sector? Recognizing the Cumulative Economic Value of Small-scale Forest and Farm Producers. 118 Knowledge, information and awareness RECOMMENDATION 9: STRENGTHEN CLIMATE INFORMATION SERVICES Implement a national, integrated program for improved climate information services. Climate information services are an important contributor to building climate resilience. More robust and timely data are required to support climate services’ decision-making and planning for resilience.405 Several studies confirm that the returns on investing in climate services are high, on average 1:3, and for warning services the cost-benefit ratio is much higher.406 In Malawi, improving the uptake of climate information is essential considering the country’s exposure to cli- mate change and extreme events. Climate information is vital for short-term decision-making (for example, responding to extreme events) as well as in the longer term for planning across sectors, especially in agriculture, disaster risk reduction, land and water use, and energy. Improved climate services could be achieved through the concerted integration of ongoing investments in climate services, alongside financing the emerging gaps across meteorology and hydrology information management (estimated at USD 17 million).407, 408 Strengthening Malawi’s climate services should focus on three key priorities: (i) improving institutional cooperation both between the core climate service agencies, and also between these agencies and the private and public sectors, (ii) operationalizing ICT tools and collaborative platforms for data processing to produce sector/user-relevant information, and (iii) mobilizing additional funding to expand the infrastructures for collecting and processing weather and water data. RECOMMENDATION 10: BOOST ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS Support GoM’s environmental communication and education strategies. A focused environmental communications strategy with consolidated and proactive messaging is needed. Policies and institutional changes will not, on their own, bring about the major changes required to address key challenges. Quality information sharing and the encouragement of behavior change are needed to help citizens understand the environmen- tal challenges they and their country face and be aware of the positive and negative roles they can play. Incorporate the Internet and social media into traditional communication channels to accommodate their ever-increasing global communication role. At least 85% of Malawians use a mobile phone, over 30% have access to the Internet, and these numbers are rising every day. While it is acknowledged that newspapers, radio, and television remain important communication channels, it is recommended that the importance of effective communication and the role of the Internet, social media, and com- munication technologies are taken into account when designing environmental interventions. 405 IPCC Special Report, 2018. Global Warming of 1.5oC. Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 406 World Meteorological Organization. 2015. Valuing Weather and Climate: Economic Assessment of Hydrological and Meteorological Services; World Bank. 2018(b). Assessment of the State of Hydrological Services in Developing Countries. 407 GoM. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience. 408 Increased investments will also lead to increased maintenance and upkeep costs, so this figure would increase. AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE 119 120 References ActionAid. 2006. Climate Change and Smallholder Farmers in Malawi: Understanding Poor People’s Experiences in Climate Change Adaptation. London and Johannesburg: ActionAid International. http://www.actionaid.org/ publications/climate-change-and-smallholder-farmers-malawi-understanding-poor-peoples-experiences-cl Arndt, C., A. Schlosser, K. Strzepek, and J. Thurlow. 2014. Climate Change and Economic Growth Prospects for Malawi: An Uncertainty Approach. Journal of African Economies 23 (AERC Supplement 2): ii83–ii107. https://academic.oup .com/jae/article/23/suppl_2/ii83/684947 Arthur, R., and M. Hara. 2017. Climate Resilient Livelihoods and Sustainable Natural Resources Management in the Elephant Marshes—Livelihoods Report. MRAG Ltd. Lilongwe: Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, Government of Malawi. Avert. 2018. HIV and AIDS in Malawi. https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/sub-saharan-africa/malawi Ayongwa, G. C., T. J. Stomph, and T. W. Kuyper. 2011. Host-Parasite Dynamics of Sorghum Bicolor and Striga Hermonthica. The Influence of Soil Organic Matter Amendments of Different C:N Ratio 30 (12): 1613–1622. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2011.08.009 Bailis, R., R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and O. Masera. 2015. The Carbon Footprint of Traditional Wood Fuels. Nature Climate Change 5: (266–272). https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2491 Banda, M., D. Jamu, F. Njaya, M. Makuwila, and A. Maluwa, eds. 2005. The Chambo Restoration Strategic Plan. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 71. 2003 May 13–16. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Barré, J. 2014. Waste Market in Urban Malawi: A Way Out of Poverty? Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/7550/1/barre_j_150107.pdf Barrett, C. B., and L. E. M. Bevis. 2015. The Self-Reinforcing Feedback between Low Soil Fertility and Chronic Poverty. Nature Geoscience 8: 907–912. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2591 Baudron, F., H. M. Mwanza, B. Triomphe, and M. Bwalya. 2007. Conservation Agriculture in Zambia: A Case Study of Southern Province. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bayliss, J. 2015. Carbon Storage Analysis of Select Protected Areas under the SRBMP. Shire River Basin Management Programme. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi  Benson, C., and E. Clay. 2003. Economic and Financial Impacts of Natural Disasters: An Assessment of Their Effects and Options for Mitigation. London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute. Benson, T., and B. Edelman. 2016. Policies for Accelerating Growth in Agriculture and Agribusiness in Malawi. Background paper prepared for the Malawi Country Economic Memorandum 2017. Lilongwe: International Food Policy Research Institute. Bevis, Leah E. M. 2015. Soil-to-Human Mineral Transmission with an Emphasis on Zinc, Selenium, and Iodine. Springer Science Reviews 3: 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0026-y Birdlife International. 2018. Malawi. http://datazone.birdlife.org/country/malawi/ibas Bootsma, H., and S. E. Jorgensen. 2005. Lake Malawi/Nyasa: Experience and Lessons Learned Brief. Cited in Wyl et al. 2010. Lake Malawi: Fishes, Fisheries, Biodiversity, Health and Habitat. REFERENCES 121 Brack, D. 2017. Woody Biomass for Power and Heat: Impacts on the Global Climate. Chatham House. https://www .chathamhouse.org/publication/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-impacts-global-climate Bridges, K., and M. Woolcock. 2017. How (Not) to Fix Problems That Matter: Assessing and Responding to Malawi’s History of Institutional Reform. Policy Research Working Paper No 8289, World Bank, Washington, DC. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29111 Casey, J., and R. Kafakoma. 2013. Institutional Assessment of the Forestry Sector and Organisational Review of the Department of Forestry. Report prepared by Agriculting Consortium for the European Union. Cerutti, P. O., D. Gumbo, K. Moombe, G. Schoneveld, R. Nasi, N. Bourland, and X. Weng. 2018. Informality, Global Capital, Rural Development and the Environment: Mukula (rosewood) Trade between China and Zambia. Research Report. London: IIED and Lusaka: CIFOR. http://pubs.iied.org/13603IIED Chinowsky, P. S., A. E. Schweikert, N. L. Strzepek, and K. Strzepek. 2015. Infrastructure and Climate Change: A Study of Impacts and Adaptations in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia. Climatic Change 130: 49. Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1219-8 Chipofya, V., A. Kraslawski, and Y. Avramenko. 2018. Comparison of Pollutant Levels in Effluent from Wastewater Treatment Plants in Blantyre, Malawi. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268241773_Comparison_of_ pollutant_levels_in_effluent_from_wastewater_treatment_plants_in_Blantyre_Malawi Chiwaula, L. S., J. Nagoli, and G. Kanyerere. 2017. Improved Processing and Marketing of Healthy Fish Products in Inland Fisheries in Malawi. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/56859/IDL-56859 .pdf?sequence=2 Chiweza, A. L. 2010. A Review of the Malawi Decentralisation Process: Lessons from Selected Districts. http:// tilitonsefund.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/A-Review-of-the-Malawi-Decentralization-Process-2010.pdf Christian, E. I. 2010. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Solid Waste Management in Nigeria. Awka, Nigeria: Nnamdi Azikiwe University. https://earthzine.org/2010/10/04/potential-impacts-of-climate-change-on-solid- waste-management-in-nigeria/ CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Workbook. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT. http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/830/13803.pdf Cohen, A., E. Gergurich, B. Kraemer, M. McGlue, P. McIntyre, J. Russell, J. Simmons, and P. Swarzens. 2016. Climate Warming Reduces Fish Production and Benthic Habitat in Lake Tanganyika, One of the Most Biodiverse Freshwater Ecosystems. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (34): 9563–9568. http:// www.pnas.org/content/113/34/9563.full.pdf Concern Worldwide US. 2016. Global Hunger Index—Getting to Zero Hunger. Washington, DC/Dublin/Bonn: Concern, IFRPI and Welthungerhilfe. https://www.concernusa.org/content/uploads/2016/09/2016_GHI.pdf Das, I., P. Jagger, and K. Yeatts. 2017. Biomass Cooking Fuels and Health Outcomes for Women in Malawi. EcoHealth 14 (1): 7–19. Springerlink. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27800583 Davies, G. M., L. Pollard, and M. D. Mwenda. 2010. Perceptions of Land-degradation, Forest Restoration and Fire Management: A Case Study from Malawi. Land Degradation and Development 21: 546–556. DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism). 2004. Information Series 9: Life Cycle Assessment. Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 9. Pretoria, South Africa: DEAT. https://www.environment.gov.za/ sites/default/files/docs/series9_lifecycle_assessment.pdf DoDMA (Department of Disaster Management Affairs). 2018. National Resilience Strategy. (Draft, unpublished). DoF (Department of Forestry). 2013(a). Frame Survey Report for 2003 to 2013. Lilongwe: Department of Fisheries, Government of Malawi. Unpublished. ———. 2013(b). Estimated Annual Catch Report for 1974 to 2012. Lilongwe: Department of Fisheries, Government of Malawi. Unpublished. 122 Donda, S., M. Hara, M. Ngochera, and E. Berge. 2014. Fragmentation of Resource Management on the Southeast Arm of Lake Malawi: Dynamics around Fisheries. Berlin: PLAAS Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies. http:// www.plaas.org.za/plaas-publications/malawi-lake-lv EAD. 2013. Climate Action Intelligence (CAI) Actions & Actors Guidebook: Understanding Who Is Doing What, Where on Climate Change in Malawi. Lilongwe: Environmental Affairs Department, Government of Malawi. EM-DAT (Emergency Events Database). 2018. The International Disaster Database. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters—CRED. http://www.emdat.be/ EPI (Environmental Performance Index). 2018. Environmental Performance Index. Yale University. https://epi .envirocenter.yale.edu/ ESCOM (Electricity Supply Corporation of Malawi Limited). 2015. Water Levels and the Energy Situation. http://www .escom.mw/waterlevels-energysituation-malawi.php Eswaran, H., R. Almaraz, E. van den Berg, and P. Reich. 1997. An Assessment of the Soil Resources of Africa in Relation to Productivity. Geoderma 77 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00007-4 Ezzati, M., and J. C. Baumgartner. 2017. Household Energy and Health: Where Next for Research and Practice? The Lancet 389: 130–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32506-5 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1992(a). Fish and Fishery Products (FIDI/C821 Rev. 2): World Apparent Consumption Statistics Based on Food Balance Sheets (1961–1990). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. ———. 1992(b). Case for Improving Marketing of Fish in Malawi. CIFA Technical Paper. No. 19. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/t0606b/T0606B05.htm ———. 2013. Atlas of Malawi: Land Cover and Land Cover Change 1990–2010. Link and data provided by Antonio Martucci, Information Systems Officer, Geo-Spatial Information Systems Branch (DDNS). Antonio.Martucci@fao.org FGLG (Forest Governance Learning Group). 2008. Malawi Policy Brief No.3. Making Community-based Forest Management Work. Forest Governance Learning Group. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02357.pdf Fisher, M. 2004. Household Welfare and Forest Dependence in Southern Malawi. “Environment and Development Economics.” Cambridge University Press 9 (2): 135–154. May. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ environment-and-development-economics/article/household-welfare-and-forest-dependence-in-southern-malawi/ 0946FD2F3AA11878053DB67D140B59FE Fisher, M., M. Chaudhury, and B. McCusker. 2010. Do Forests Help Rural Households Adapt to Climate Variability? Evidence from Southern Malawi. World Development 38 (9): 1241–1250. Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0305750X10000513 Forsythe, K., and J. K. Turpie. 2016. Ecosystem Services of the Elephant Marsh. Report Prepared by Southern Waters in association with Streamflow Solutions, Anchor Environmental and MRAG for the Shire River Basin Management Program Project 117617. Fox, P., J. Rockström, and J. Barron. 2005. Risk Analysis and Economic Viability of Water Harvesting for Supplemental Irrigation in Semi-arid Burkina Faso and Kenya. Agricultural Systems 83: 231–250. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0308521X04000708 Fullerton, D. G., Semple, S., Kalambo, F., Suseno, A., Malamba, R., Henderson, G., Ayres, J. G., and Gordon, S. B. 2009. Biomass Fuel Use and Indoor Air Pollution in Homes in Malawi. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66: 777–783. https://oem.bmj.com/content/66/11/777.info Gama, A C., Mapemba, L. D., Masikat, P., Tui, S. H., Crespo, O., and Bandason, E. 2014. Modelling Potential Impacts of Future Climate Change in Mzimba District, Malawi, 2040–2070: An Integrated Biophysical and Economic Modelling Approach. IFPRI Working Paper 08, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. REFERENCES 123 Geist, H. J. 1999. Global Assessment of Deforestation Related to Tobacco Farming. International Journal of Tobacco Control 8: 191–193. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/8/1/18.full.pdf Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. 2018. Malawi Country Profile. http://cleancookstoves.org/country-profiles/ 25-malawi.html Global Forest Watch. 2018. Malawi Tree Cover Loss. https://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/MWI?category= forest-change GoM (Government of Malawi). 1995. Waterworks Act 1995 (No. 17 of 1995). Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https:// malawilii.org/mw/legislation/act/1995/17 ———. 1997. Forest Act, 1997, Act Number 11 of 1997. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https://cepa.rmportal.net/ Library/government-publications/Forestry%20Act%201997.pdf/view ———. 2005. National Water Policy. Lilongwe: Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, Government of Malawi. https://cepa.rmportal.net/Library/government-publications/National%20Water%20Policy%202005.pdf/view ———. 2007. National Water Policy (2nd Edition). Lilongwe: Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, Government of Malawi. ———. 2008. National Sanitation Policy. Lilongwe: Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, Government of Malawi. ———. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. MARGE International Team. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. http:// www.euei-pdf.org/sites/default/files/field_publication_file/EUEI_PDF_BEST_Malawi_Final_report_Jan_2009_EN.pdf ———. 2009–2017. Annual Economic Reports. Lilongwe: Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning, and Development, Government of Malawi. https://www.finance.gov.mw/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&Itemid=114& gid=98&orderby=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC ———. 2010. Malawi State of Environment and Outlook Report: Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth. Lilongwe: Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy, and Environment, Environmental Affairs Department, Government of Malawi. http://www.mw.undp.org/content/dam/malawi/docs/environment/Malawi%20State%20of%20the%20 Environment%20and%20Outlook%20Report_2010.pdf ———. 2011. Economic Analysis of Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Malawi. Lilongwe: Ministry of Development, Planning and Cooperation, Government of Malawi. http://www.mw.undp.org/content/malawi/en/home/library/ environment_energy/economic-valuation-of-sustainable-natural-resources-use-in-malaw.html ———. 2014(a). Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https:// www.cbd.int/reports/nr5/ ———. 2014(b). Report on Joint Public Expenditure Review of Malawi’s Environment and Disaster Risk Management Sectors, 2006-2012. Lilongwe: Ministry of Finance, Government of Malawi. https://www.unpei.org/sites/default/ files/e_library_documents/NOVEMBER%202014%20ENRM%20AND%20DRM%20PER%20REPORT.pdf ———. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https:// www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/150528_MALAWI%20PDNA%202015%20DRAFT%20REPORT%20V1.pdf ———. 2015(b). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. http://www4.unfccc.int/ submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Malawi/1/MALAWI%20INDC%20SUBMITTED%20TO%20UNFCCC%20 REV%20pdf.pdf ———. 2015(c). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan II (2015–2025). Lilongwe: Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining, Government of Malawi. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mw/mw-nbsap-v2-en.pdf ———. 2015(d). National Elephant Action Plan for Malawi 2015–2025. Lilongwe: Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Government of Malawi. ———. 2015(e). Statistical Yearbook 2015. Lilongwe: National Statistical Office, Government of Malawi. http://www .nsomalawi.mw/images/stories/data_on_line/general/yearbook/2015%20Statistical%20Yearbook.pdf 124 ———. 2015(f). Roadmap for Developing Malawi’s National Forest Monitoring System. Lilongwe: Department of Forestry, Government of Malawi. ———. 2015(g). National Disaster Risk Management Policy. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. ———. 2016(a). National Forest Policy. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https://cepa.rmportal.net/Library/ government-publications/malawi-government-national-forest-policy-june-2016/view ———. 2016(b). Shire River Basin Plan. Volume 1: Basis for Planning. Shire River Basin Management Program. http:// www.shirebasin.mw/index.php?option=com_joomdoc&view=documents&path=Shire%20River%20Basin%20 Agency/Volume%201%20-%20Basis%20for%20Planning.pdf&Itemid=559 ———. 2016(c). Malawi National Guidelines: Integrated Catchment Management and Rural Infrastructure. Lilongwe: Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, Government of Malawi. https://cepa.rmportal.net/ Library/government-publications/malawi-national-guidelines-on-integrated-catchment-management-and-rural- infrastructure-volume-i ———. 2016(d). National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy. Lilongwe: Department of Fisheries, Government of Malawi. ———. 2016(e). National Irrigation Policy. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https://reliefweb.int/report/malawi/ malawi-government-national-irrigation-policy ———. 2017(a). The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) III: Building a Productive, Competitive and Resilient Nation. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. ———. 2017(b). Integrated Household Survey 2016–2017. Lilongwe: National Statistical Office, Government of Malawi. http://www.nsomalawi.mw/images/stories/data_on_line/economics/ihs/IHS4/IHS4%20REPORT.pdf ———. 2017(c). Strategic Program for Climate Resilience: Malawi, Pilot Program on Climate Resilience (PPCR). Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. ———. 2017(d). National Forest Landscape Restoration Strategy. Lilongwe: Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining, Government of Malawi. https://afr100.org/sites/default/files/Malawi_NFLR_Strategy_FINALv2.pdf ———. 2017(e). Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities Assessment for Malawi. Lilongwe: Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining, Government of Malawi NFLRA (Malawi), IUCN, WRI. https://portals.iucn.org/library/ sites/library/files/documents/2017-029.pdf ———. 2017(f). National Charcoal Strategy. 2017–2027. Lilongwe: Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining, Government of Malawi. https://cepa.rmportal.net/Library/government-publications/national-charcoal- strategy-2017-2027/view ———. 2017(g). The National Ivory Action Plan. Lilongwe: Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Government of Malawi. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/niaps/MALAWI_REVISED_NATIONAL_IVORY_ACTION_PLAN_ NOVEMBER_2017.pdf ———. 2017(h). National Parks and Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2017 (No. 11 of 2017). Lilongwe: The Department of National Parks and Wildlife of Malawi, Government of Malawi. https://www.ecolex.org/details/legislation/ national-parks-and-wildlife-amendment-act-2017-no-11-of-2017-lex-faoc169263/ ———. 2017(i). Environment Management Act, Act 19 of 2017. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https://www.ecolex.org/ details/legislation/environment-management-act-2017-no-19-of-2017-lex-faoc169354/ ———. 2017(j). National Disaster Recovery Framework—Building Back a Disaster-Affected Malawi Better and Safer. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/National%20DRF_Malawi_ WEB.pdf ———. 2018. National Agriculture Investment Plan. Lilongwe: Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, Government of Malawi. REFERENCES 125 Gordon, S. B., Bruce N. G., Grigg J., Hibberd P. L., Kurmi O. P., Lam K. H., Mortimer K., Asante K. P., Balakrishnan K., Balmes J., Bar-Zeev N., Bates M. N., Breysse P. N., Buist S., Chen Z., Havens D., Jack D., Jindal S., Kan H., Mehta S., Moschovis P., Naeher L., Patel A., Perez-Padilla R., Pope D., Rylance J., Semple S., and Martin II W. J. 2014. Respiratory Risks from Household Air Pollution in Low and Middle-income Countries. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Commission 2 (10): 823–860. Elsevier. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25193349 Green, E., F. Eigenbrod, E. Schreckenberg, and S. Willcock. 2016. Modelling Tree Growth to Determine the Sustainability of Current Off-take from Miombo Woodland: A Case Study from Rural Villages in Malawi. Environmental Conservation 44 (1): 66–73. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ environmental-conservation/article/div-classtitlemodelling-tree-growth-to-determine-the-sustainability- of-current-off-take-from-miombo-woodland-a-case-study-from-rural-villages-in-malawidiv/ FB35CE8D4B5766EBD78DC60C219AD3F1 GRID-Arendal. 2013. Zambezi River Basin—Atlas of the Changing Environment. http://www.grida.no/resources/5134 Hamrick, K., and M. Gallant. 2017. Unlocking Potential: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets, 2017. Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/doc_5591.pdf Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, I. Chini, C. O. Justice, and T. R. G. Townshend. 2013. High- Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/ science-2013-global-forest Hara, M., and F. Njaya. 2016. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Need for and Challenges to Implementation of Rights Based Fisheries Management in Small-scale Fisheries of Southern Lake Malawi. Fisheries Research 174: 10–18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783615300527 Hara, M., S. K. Chimatiro, and C. L. Manyungwa-Pasani. 2017. Women’s Participation in Fish Value Chains and Value Chain Governance in Malawi: A Case of Msaka (Lake Malawi) and Kavhulu (Lake Chilwa). Institute of Poverty, Land and Agragrian Studies (PLAAS). https://www.africaportal.org/publications/womens-participation-fish-value-chains- and-value-chain-governance-malawi-case-msaka-lake-malawi-and-kachulu-lake-chilwa/ Hecht, J., and V. Kasulo. 2013(a). Development of Forest Valuation Systems Malawi Policy Briefing Report. Oxford, United Kingdom: Cardno Emerging Markets (UK) Ltd. http://www.joyhecht.net/professional/papers/2013%20 Hecht%20Malawi%20forest%20valuation%20policy%20brief.pdf ———. 2013(b). Valuation of the Forests of Malawi. http://www.joyhecht.net/MalawiForests.html ———. 2013(c). Forest Sustainable Balance. http://www.joyhecht.net/MalawiForests.html Holmes, S. 2015. Understanding Urban Fuel Choice. The Case of Zomba, Malawi. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Southampton, United Kingdom: Faculty for Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton. https:// www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/doc_5591.pdf ICLEI-CBC. 2017. River Revitalisation in Lilongwe, Malawi. Local governments for sustainability—Cities biodiversity centre. https://cbc.iclei.org/river-revitalisation-lilongwe-malawi/ IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) and ICPAG (Climate Prediction and Applications Centre). 2007. Climate Change and Human Development in Africa—Assessing the Risks and Vulnerability of Climate Change in Kenya, Malawi, and Ethiopia. New York, United States: United Nations Development Programme. http://hdr.undp .org/sites/default/files/igad.pdf IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation). 2018. Malawi. Seattle, United States: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. http://www.healthdata.org/malawi INFORM (Index for Risk Management). 2017. Malawi. INFORM Index for Risk Management, Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) and the European Union. http://www.inform-index.org/ IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) Special Report. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 oC. Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf 126 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2016. Protected Planet Report 2016: How Protected Areas Contribute to Achieving Global Targets for Biodiversity. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC. https://portals.iucn.org/library/ node/46261 ———. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Categories used: Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable. Accessed in May 2018. http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/summary-statistics Jary, H. R., S. Aston, A. Ho, E. Giorgi, N. Kalata, M. Nyirenda, J. Mallewa, I. Peterson, S. B. Gordon, and K. Mortimer. 2017. Household Air Pollution, Chronic Respiratory Disease and Pneumonia in Malawian Adults: A Case-control Study [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Research 2: 103. https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/ articles/2-103/v1 Jimu, L., L. Mataruse, L. Musemwa, and I. W. Nyakudya. 2017. The Miombo Ecoregion Up in Smoke: The Effect of Tobacco Curing. World Development Perspectives 5: 44–46 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S245229291730036X Kainja, S. 2001. Forestry Outlook Studies in Africa (FOSA)—Malawi. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. http:// www.fao.org/3/a-ab585e.pdf Kambewa, P. S., B. F. Mataya, W. K. Sichinga, and T. R. Johnson. 2007. Charcoal: The Reality—A Study of Charcoal, Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi. Small and Medium Forestry Enterprise. Series No. 21. London: IIED. http://pubs.iied.org/13544IIED/ Kambewa, P. S., and H. Utila. 2008. Malawi’s Green Gold: Challenges and Opportunities for Small and Medium Forest Enterprises in Reducing Poverty. London: IIED. http://pubs.iied.org/13545IIED/?a=Patrick+Kambewa Kaunda, C. S., and F. Mtalo. 2013. Impacts of Environmental Degradation and Climate Change on Electricity Generation in Malawi. International Energy and Environment Foundation (IEEF). http://www.eldis.org/document/A64863 Kawandama Hills Plantation. 2016. Sustainable Charcoal. http://www.kawandama-hills.com Knox, J., T. Hess, A. Daccache, and T. Wheeler. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Crop Productivity in Africa and South Asia. Environmental Research Letters 7 (3). IOP Publishing Ltd. http://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034032/meta Kosamu I. B. M. 2017. Revisiting the ‘Three-pillared Design’ of a Management System for the Elephant Marsh Wetland Fishery in Malawi. Lilongwe: University of Malawi. http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJFA/ article-full-text-pdf/2269CCD64048 Kreft, S., D. Eckstein, and I. Melchior. 2017. Global Climate Risk Index 2017: Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss Events in 2015 and 1996 to 2015. Berlin: German Watch. Kumwenda, I., B. van Koppen, M. Matete, and L. Nhamo. 2015. Trends and Outlook: Agricultural Water Management in Southern Africa—Country Report Malawi. Southern Africa: USAID. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/ Reports/PDF/country_report_malawi.pdf Kundhlande, G., R. Winterbottom, B. I. Nyoka, K. Ha. K. Reytar, and D. C. Behr. 2017. Taking to Scale Tree-based Systems That Enhance Food Security, Improve Resilience to Climate Change, and Sequester Carbon in Malawi. Washington, DC: PROFOR. http://www.profor.info/TBSMalawi Lange, G., Q. Wodon, and K. Carey. eds. 2018. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future. Washington, DC: World Bank. Database available from: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/ wealth-accounting Lehmann, C. E. R., T. M. Anderson, M. Sankaran, S. I. Higgins, S. Archibald, W. A. Hoffmann, et al. 2014. Savanna Vegetation-Fire-Climate Relationships Differ among Continents. Science 343 (6170): 548–552. http://science .sciencemag.org/content/343/6170/548.full López-Carr, D., N. G. Pricope, J. E. Aukema, M. M. Jankowska, C. Funk, G. Husak, and J. Michaelsen. 2014. A Spatial Analysis of Population Dynamics and Climate Change in Africa: Potential Vulnerability Hot Spots Emerge Where REFERENCES 127 Precipitation Declines and Demographic Pressures Coincide. Population and Environment 35 (3): 323–339. Springer. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-014-0209-0 LTS. 2010. Environmental and Natural Resources Management Action Plan for the Upper Shire Basin: Final Baseline Analysis. Prepared for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Penicuik: LTS International Ltd. ———. 2013(a). Land Use Scenario Analysis, Task 3 Report: Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options for Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation. Penicuik: LTS International Ltd. ———. 2013(b). Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options in Malawi. Land Use Investment Plan. Annex 5b. Linthipe- Nkotakota Lake Shore Data Annex. Submitted to World Bank and Government of Malawi. ———. 2015. Qualitative Analysis of Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Malawi. Submitted to the Malawi REDD+ Readiness Program. Penicuik: LTS International Ltd. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 2009. MARGE International Team. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. Maoulidi, M. 2012. Water and Sanitation Needs Assessment for Blantyre City, Malawi. New York, United States: Millennium Cities Initiative. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:182374 MBS. 2005. Malawi Standard; Drinking Water Specification. Lilongwe: Malawi Standards Board: MS 214:2005, ICS`13.030.40 (First revision). Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Global Assessment Reports. Washington, United States: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Global.html MoIWD. 2016. National Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi. Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. Mortimer, K., C. B. Ndamala, A. W. Naunje, J. Malava, C. Katundu, W. Weston, D. Havens, Daniel Pope, N. G. Bruce, M. Nyirenda, D. Wang, A. Crampin, J. Grigg, J. Balmes, and S. B. Gordon. 2017. A Cleaner Burning Biomass- fuelled Cookstove Intervention to Prevent Pneumonia in Children under 5 Years Old in Rural Malawi (the Cooking and Pneumonia Study): A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. The Lancet 389: 167–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(16)32507-7 Mugo, F., and C. Ong. 2006. Lessons of Eastern Africa’s Unsustainable Charcoal Business. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre. https://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/wp06119.pdf Munthali, S. 2016. Situational Report on Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in the Shire Basin. SRBMP Phase 1. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi. Mwampamba, T. H., A. Ghilardi, K. Sander, and K. J. Chaix. 2013. Dispelling Common Misconceptions to Improve Attitudes and Policy Outlook on Charcoal in Developing Countries. Energy for Sustainable Development 17: 75–85. Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082613000021 NEC (National Economic Council). 2000. Vision 2020—The National Long-term Development Perspective of Malawi: A Summary. Lilongwe: National Economic Council. Neufeldt, H., K. Langford, J. Fuller, M. Iiyama, and P. Dobie. 2015. From Transition Fuel to Viable Energy Source: Improving Sustainability in the Sub-saharan Charcoal Sector. ICRAF Working Paper—World Agroforestry Centre 196. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20173060618 Nkonya, E., A. Mirzabaev, and J. von Braun, eds. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/book/10.100 7%2F978-3-319-19168-3 Nyirenda, P. 2016. Status of Waste Management in Malawi. Presentation on waste management at MaFAAS. PowerPoint presentation. https://www.slideshare.net/FarmRadioMw_2016/status-of-waste-management-in-malawi-200720 OEC (Observatory of Economic Complexity). 2016. Malawi. Observatory of Economic Complexity, MIT Media Lab. https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/mwi/ Onishi, N. 2016. Poverty, Drought and Felled Trees Imperil Malawi Water Supply. The New York Times Company. https:// www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/world/africa/poverty-drought-malawi-water-supply.html 128 Openshaw, K. 2011. Supply of Woody Biomass, Especially in the Tropics: Is Demand Outstripping Sustainable Supply? International Forestry Review 13: 487–499. Commonwealth Forestry Association. http://www.bioone.org/doi/ abs/10.1505/146554811798811317 Otu, M. K., P. Ramlal, P. Wilkinson, R. I. Hall, and R. E. Hecky. 2011. Paleolimnological Evidence of the Effects of Recent Cultural Eutrophication during the Last 200 Years in Lake Malawi, East Africa. Journal of Great Lakes Research 37: 61–74. Elsevier. Pauw, K., J. Thurlow, and D. van Seventer. 2010. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Drought and Floods in Malawi—Assessing the Economy-wide Effects. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/ publication/droughts-and-floods-malawi Pauw, K., J. Thurlow, M. Bachu, and D. E. van Seventer. 2011. The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events: A Hydro- Meteorological CGE Analysis for Malawi. Environment and Development Economics 16 (2): 177–198. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environment-and-development-economics/article/the- economic-costs-of-extreme-weather-events-a-hydrometeorological-cge-analysis-for-malawi/627FB394C812C92E9 03916AD2E7B36B8 Phalira, W. 2016. Community Environment Conservation Fund Presentation. Mott McDonald. https://prezi.com/ izlcvbfoognb/community-environment-conservation-fund-cecf/ Phiri, O., P. Mumba, and B. H. Z. Moyo. 2005. Assessment of the Impact of Industrial Effluents on Water Quality of Receiving Rivers in Urban Areas of Malawi. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2 (3): 237–234. Islamic Azad University. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03325882 PWC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). 2016. Overcoming Poverty in Malawi through Sustainable Environment and Natural Resource Management—Identifying Policy Options to Accelerate Poverty Reduction. PricewaterhouseCoopers. https://www.unpei.org/sites/default/files/e_library_documents/Overcoming_poverty_in_Malawi_through_ Environment%20and%20Natural%20Resource%20Management%20%28ENRM%29_2016%281%29.pdf Ramanathan, V., and G. Carmichael. 2008. Global and Regional Climate Changes due to Black Carbon. Nature Geoscience 1: 221–227. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo156 Record, R., P. Kumar, and P. Kandoole. 2017. Policy and Institutional Actions for Moving beyond “Business as Usual” to Achieve Stable and Sustained Growth and Poverty Reduction. From Falling Behind to Catching Up: A Country Economic Memorandum for Malawi. November 2017. 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1194-4_ch5 ———. 2018. From Falling Behind to Catching Up: A Country Economic Memorandum for Malawi. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28683 Reddy, S. K., and K. J. Gondwe. 2016. Malawi NAP Stocktaking Report, Final Report. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi and UNDP. Reij, C., and R. Winterbottom. 2015. Scaling Up Regreening: Six Steps to Success. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/publication/scaling-regreening-six-steps-success Rockström, J., and J. Barron. 2007. “Water Productivity in Rainfed Systems: Overview of Challenges and Analysis of Opportunities in Water Scarcity Prone Savannahs.” Irrigation Science 25 (3): 299–311. https://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s00271-007-0062-3 Sacramento, A., A. Matavel, M. Basílio, and S. Bila. 2010. Climate Change Impacts and Coping Strategies in Chicualacuala District, Gaza Province, Mozambique. For the Joint Programme on Environmental Mainstreaming and Adaptation to Climate Change in Mozambique. Maputo, Mozambique: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). SADC (Southern African Development Community). 2013. SADC Statistics Yearbook 2013. https://www.sadc.int/ information-services/sadc-statistics/sadc-statistics-yearbook-201/ Sanje, K. 2015. Malawi’s Hydropower Dries Up as River Runs Low, Menacing Forests. Reuters. https://www.reuters .com/article/malawi-energy-hydropower-idUSL8N12S4O920151029 REFERENCES 129 Schure, J., G. P. Dkamela, A. van der Goes, and R. McNally. 2014. An Approach to Promote REDD+ Compatible Wood- fuel Value Chains. REDD+ Energy and Agricultural Programme (REAP). http://cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/ approach-to-promote-redd-wood-fuel.pdf Schütz, J. 2013. Water Quality in Malawi—Effluent Water from a Matchstick Factory in Blantyre. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/5838/7/schutz_j_130704.pdf Sibale, B., and G. Banda. 2004. A Study on Livelihoods, Governance and Illegality: Law Enforcement, Illegality and the Forest Dependent Poor in Malawi. Eldis Document Store. http://www.eldis.org/document/A58912 Smith, H. E., F. Eigenbrod, D. Kafumbata, M. D. Hudson, and K. Schreckenberg. 2015. Criminals by Necessity: The Risky Life of Charcoal Transporters in Malawi. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 24 (4). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/14728028.2015.1062808?journalCode=tftl20 Solimar. 2017. Technical Study to Enhance the Potential for Nature-based Tourism in the Shire River Basin—Tourism Strategy. Washington, DC: Solimar International. Specht, M. J., S. R. R. Pinto, U. P. Albuquerque, M. Tabarelli, and F. P. L. Melo. 2015. Burning Biodiversity: Fuelwood Harvesting Causes Forest Degradation in Human-dominated Tropical Landscapes. Global Ecology and Conservation 3: 200–209. Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989414000894 Spong, P., and B. Walmsley. 2011. Malawi Country Report in Environmental Impact Assessment in Southern Africa. Windhoek: SAIEA. https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/2eb50196/files/uploaded/Malawi1.pdf Tarr, P. 2018. Institutional Assessment for Environmental Management in Malawi. Technical report to the World Bank and Environmental Affairs Department (EAD), Government of Malawi. Taulo, J. L., K. J. Gondwe, and A. B. Sebitosi. 2015. Energy supply in Malawi: Options and Issues. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa 26 (2): 19–32. Cape Town. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid= S1021-447X2015000200003 The Global Economy. 2012. LPG Consumption—Country Rankings. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/ lpg_consumption/ The Nation. 2016. Government Rejects 50 Charcoal License Applications. Nation Publications Ltd. https://mwnation .com/government-rejects-50-charcoal-licence-applications/ Todd, D. 2013. End of Programme Evaluation for the National Programme for Managing Climate Change in Malawi and the Malawi Africa Adaptation Programme. Government of Malawi and UNDP. Lilongwe: Malawi. https://erc.undp .org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/5823 Total Land Care. 2015. FMNR In Southern Africa: Factors Motivating Farmers with Actions and Strategies for Scaling Up. Presentation given at the Southern Africa Conference on Sustainable Food Security through Land Regeneration in a Changing Climate, Lilongwe, Malawi, April 2015. https://www.slideshare.net/FMNR/ fmnr-in-southern-africa-factors-motivating-farmers-with-actions-and-strategies-for-scaling-up Turpie, J. K., K. Forsythe, M. K. Reinecke, G. Diedericks, K. D. Dijkdtra, S. Collins, W. Branch, T. Davies, D. Allan, and N. Avenant. 2016. Climate Resilient Livelihoods and Sustainable Natural Resources Management in the Elephant Marshes, Malawi. Sub-study 4: Biodiversity of the Elephant Marshes. Lilongwe: Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development, Government of Malawi. Shire River Basin Management Program Project. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/304579483_CLIMATE_RESILIENT_LIVELIHOODS_AND_SUSTAINABLE_NATURAL_RESOURCE_ MANAGEMENT_IN_THE_ELEPHANT_MARSH_MALAWI_Biodiversity_of_the_Elephant_Marsh_Herpetofauna Umar, B. B., J. B. Aune, F. H. Johnsen, and O. I. Lungu. 2011. Options for Improving Small-holder Conservation Agriculture in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Science 3 (3): 50–62. UMFULA. 2017. Malawi Country Climate Brief: Future Climate Change Projections for Malawi. South Africa: Climate and Development Knowledge Network. 130 UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2016. The Human Development Report 2016—Human Development for Everyone. New York: United Nations Development Programme. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2016-report UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2018. Lake Malawi National Park. http:// whc.unesco.org/en/list/289/ UNIQUE. 2018(a). Landscape Level Analysis of Land and Natural Resources Degradation in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda [draft]. Inception Report. Freiburg, Germany: UNIQUE Forestry and Land Use. ———. 2018(b). Land and Natural Resources Degradation in the Upper and Middle Shire Valley, Malawi. Technical Report (revised draft 16 August 2018). Freiburg, Germany: UNIQUE Forestry and Land Use. United Nations. 2004. Malawi. Map No. 3858 Rev. 3 United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Cartographic Section. http://www.mw.one.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Malawi-map-1.jpg  ———. 2017. World Population Prospects 2017. Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division. https:// esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). 2015(a). Agricultural Water Management Water and Development Strategy—Implementation Brief. Washington: USAID. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/ Ag%20Water%20Management_Implementation%20Brief_Jan%202015.pdf ———. 2015(b). Protecting Ecosystems and Restoring Forests in Malawi: Governance Assessment of Participatory Forest Management in Malawi. Washington: USAID. ———. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Malawi. Washington: USAID. https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/ asset/document/2016_USAID_Malawi%20GHG%20Emissions%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf Vargus, R., and C. Omuto. 2016. Soil Loss Assessment in Malawi. FAO, UNEP and UNDP. http://www.fao.org/3/a- i6387e.pdf Verdone, M. 2018. The World’s Largest Private Sector? Recognizing the Cumulative Economic Value of Small-scale Forest and Farm Producers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, FAO, IIED and AgriCord. https://portals.iucn.org/library/ node/47738 Vincent, K. D., J. Andrew, D. David, D. D. Mkwambisi, T. Cull, L. C. Stringer, and D. Chanika. 2014. Analysis of Existing Weather and Climate Information for Malawi. Leeds, United Kingdom: Kulima Integrated Development Solutions and University of Leeds. Vincent, K. D., A. Dougill, J. Dixon, L. Stringer, and T. Cull. 2015. Identifying Climate Services Needs for National Planning: Insights from Malawi. Climate Policy 17 (2): 189–202. London: Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14693062.2015.1075374 Walmsley, B., and S. Patel. 2011. Handbook on Environmental Assessment Legislation in the SADC Region. 3rd Edition. Pretoria: Development Bank of South Africa. Warren, A., J. Kosonen, M. Katundu, and B. Matinga. 2001. Causes and Consequences of Anthropogenic Fire in Mulanje Mountain Forest Reserve, Southern Malawi: Report Following ‘Mulanje Fire Research’ Expedition, 2001. Submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of MSc Environmental Anthropology, University of Kent at Canterbury. http:// www.joyhecht.net/mulanje/refs/Warren-et-al-MulanjeFires-2001.pdf Waterland, S., J. Vaughan, E. Lyman, and I. Jurisic. 2015. Illegal Wildlife Trade Review Malawi, May 2015. A technical assessment undertaken on behalf of the Department for National Parks and Wildlife of Malawi. https://www .lilongwewildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/IWT-Review-Malawi.pdf Weyl, O. L. F. 2001. Hard Choices for Chambo Management in Area A of the Southeast Arm of Lake Malawi. In Proceedings of the Lake Malawi Fisheries Management Symposium, edited by O. L. F. Weyl and M. V. Weyl. Capital Hotel Lilongwe, Malawi. REFERENCES 131 Weyl, O. L. F., A. J. Ribbink, and D. Tweddle. 2010. Lake Malawi: Fishes, Fisheries, Biodiversity, Health and Habitat. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 3: 241–254. https://www .tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14634988.2010.504695 WHO (World Health Organization). 2013. Progress on Tackling Pneumonia and Diarrhoea in Malawi. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/features/2013/malawi_pneumonia_diarrhoea/en/ ———. 2018. World Health Statistics Data Visualizations Dashboard. Geneva: World Health Organisation. http://apps .who.int/gho/data/node.sdg Wild Dog Conservation Malawi. 2018. Endangered Dogs. http://www.wilddogconservationmalawi.org/ Wilson. n.d. The History of Participatory Fisheries Management in Malawi. [This document cannot be found—no further details]. WITS. 2015. Malawi Trade Summary 2015 Data. World Integrated Trade Solutions. https://wits.worldbank.org/ CountryProfile/en/Country/MWI/Year/LTST/Summary Wood, L., and L. Moriniere. 2013. Malawi Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Washington: USAID. http://www .eldis.org/document/A66263 World Bank. 2006. Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities and Trade-offs. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7132 ———. 2010. The Zambezi River Basin: A Multi-sector Investment Opportunities Analysis (Vol. 3): State of the Basin (English). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/938311468202138918/ State-of-the-Basin ———. 2013(a). Malawi Public Expenditure Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank .org/handle/10986/20586 ———. 2013(b). Caught in Productivity Trap. A Distributional Perspective on Gender Differences in Malawian Agriculture. Policy Research Working Paper No. 6381. DC: World Bank. ———. 2015. The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/847131467987832287/The-cost-of-the-gender-gap-in- agricultural-productivity-in-Malawi-Tanzania-and-Uganda ———. 2016. Malawi Economic Monitor: Absorbing Shocks, Building Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/791871467991930988/Malawi-economic-monitor- absorbing-shocks-building-resilience ———. 2017(a). Malawi Economic Monitor: Harnessing the Urban Economy. World Bank: Lilongwe. http://hdl.handle .net/10986/26763 ———. 2017(b). Republic of Malawi Poverty Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge .worldbank.org/handle/10986/26488 ———. 2017(c). Multi-Sectoral Investment Plan for Climate and Disaster Risk Management in Malawi [draft] Washington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2018(a). Hidden Dimensions of Poverty: Economic Development and Sustainability [draft]. ———. 2018(b). Assessment of the State of Hydrological Services in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/state-of-hydrological-services_web.pdf World Meteorological Organization. 2015. Valuing Weather and Climate: Economic Assessment of Hydrological and Meteorological Services. WMO-No. 1153. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wmo.int/gfcs/sites/default/files/ wmo_1153_en.pdf World Population Review. 2018. Malawi Population 2018. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/ malawi-population/ 132 WSP (Water and Sanitation Program). 2012. Malawi—Economic Impacts of Poor Sanitation in Africa. Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank. https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/WSP-ESI-Malawi.pdf Zulu, L. 2017. Existing Research and Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Agriculture and Communities in Malawi. Malawi Report No. 4. Michigan: Global Centre for Food Systems Innovation, Michigan State University. https://gcfsi.isp.msu.edu/files/4314/8581/2126/Zulu_Climate_Variabilty_LAN_1.cmts_ewc.pdf Zulu, L. C. 2010. The Forbidden Fuel: Charcoal, Urban Wood Fuel Demand and Supply Dynamics, Community Forest Management and Wood Fuel Policy in Malawi. Energy Policy 38 (7): 3717–3730. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0301421510001540 Zulu, L. C., and R. B. Richardson. 2013. Charcoal, Livelihoods, and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development 17 (2): 127–137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0973082612000506 REFERENCES 133 ANNEX 1 Summary of Priority Recommendations These sectoral and thematic recommendations have been prioritized using a multicriteria approach, factoring in the level of impact, the time frame to see initial positive results, technical and institutional capacity, and GoM’s political priorities. In Table A.1, the highest ranking is given to actions/investments that are likely to have the highest impact and shortest time to attain initial results. TABLE A.1. Priority sectoral and thematic recommendations Priority Recommendations Challenges Lead Agencies Cross-Cutting Issues Institutions, policies, and public finance 1. Support the implementation the EMA The new EMA (2017) and the supporting MoFEPD (2017) and the new EPA. EPA have not yet completed their legislative journey, without which it will be difficult to institutionally champion the environmental changes. 2. Utilize the unique opportunity The move toward decentralization of MoNREM provided by the new EMA and the environmental management functions establishment of the EPA to decentralize implemented in 2014 needs to be environmental management functions. strengthened. 3. Develop natural capital accounts to Malawi’s growth is based on an unbalanced MoNREM mainstream the values of key natural portfolio of assets and gains in natural resources in national economic policy capital, and thus total wealth. In addition, and planning. land value statistics do not capture declining soil fertility. The values of key natural resources need to be understood by mainstreaming natural capital accounts into national economic policy and planning. 4. Support GOM’s environmental Current communication methods are communication and education traditional and need to incorporate new strategies and incorporate the Internet methods of communication such as social and social media into traditional media. There is also a need to shift public communication channels. mind-sets to build awareness of key environmental challenges and appropriate positive responses. 5. Support Malawian institutions review Valuation data and data on public MoNREM/MoFEPD public environmental and climate environmental expenditures are outdated change expenditures. and need to be reviewed. Insufficient data on costs of environmental degradation, 6. Use environmental valuation data better particularly on ecosystem services. to frame policies, identify investments, and set budgets. SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 135 Priority Recommendations Challenges Lead Agencies 7. Strengthen Malawi’s EIA and SEA Malawi’s EIA and SEA capacity levels and MoFEPD capabilities, associated regulations, and regulation and certification of practitioners the certification of EIA practitioners. are weak. Climate change and resilience 1. Invest in strengthening Malawi’s Decisions on climate change risks, MoNREM, MoAIWD, weather and climate services capacity opportunities, and responses are currently DoF, DoCCMS to improve flood and weather taken with little or low-quality climate forecasting and more effective information. early warning systems and disaster management. 2. Scale up the implementation of Changes to climate and weather patterns MoAIWD, MoNREM improved land management practices exacerbate existing vulnerabilities of as part of integrated landscape Malawi’s natural resource base. approaches to land, forest, and water resources management, to reduce the rate of land degradation and Environment-related issues are often key deforestation, build resilience to factors that increase adverse impacts and climate change impacts, and slow the costs of disasters. drawdown on natural capital. (See also the similar recommendation in Land Degradation below) 3. Build capacity of both government and Effective policies and actions must be MoAIWD, MoNREM community institutions at local levels to tailored for specific, varied, and localized strengthen their ability to support and impacts and needs. implement actions that build resilience to climate change impacts. 4. Improve planning of the built Adequate ‘climate proofing’ is not yet Ministry of Transport environment to include design that part of building and design regulations for and Public Works takes account of climate impacts and public buildings and economically important (MoTPW) can protect against the damage caused infrastructure. by extreme weather events. Key Environment and Natural Resources Management Themes Land degradation 1. Reform incentives for farmer-level Current legal provisions, incentives, and MoAIWD, MoNREM scale-up of SLM practices by compliance mechanisms are not adequate •• Introducing sustainable incentives for to address the challenges of reversing land good/improved land management, degradation. such as directing subsidies to support SLM interventions and climate- resilient agriculture; •• Removing disincentives to sound land management, most notably those generated by the current FISP; •• Reforming FISP from an input subsidy program focused only on inputs (fertilizer and mostly maize seed) to a sustainable land stewardship program that promotes agroforestry, forest restoration, and SLM practices; and •• Addressing key evidence gaps on SLM impacts and adoption rates. 136 Priority Recommendations Challenges Lead Agencies 2. Elevate land restoration to a national The serious environmental and economic policy priority (NFLR Strategy, 2017, impacts of land degradation are not provides framework). adequately reflected in national policy. 3. Invest in SLM At present, the high cost of FISP crowds (See also the similar recommendation out finance available to the Ministry of under Climate change and resilience Agriculture and hence limits opportunities to above) support land regeneration efforts. •• Public investments can address Some SLM practices have longer short-term, up-front costs payback periods, which discourages poor households from adopting them. 4. Develop a results-based mechanism to Insufficient understanding of why SLM deliver environmental services practices are adopted or not adopted. •• PES schemes in Malawi should be supported and taken to scale. •• Build on existing positive experience with ‘Community Environment Conservation Fund’ in the Shire River basin. Forest and woodlands 1. Use limited public financing to leverage Forest and woodland restoration is an MoNREM, DoF additional private sector investment in urgent but massive task, with formidable forest management and restoration. financial and implementation challenges. •• Developing institutional and licensing frameworks for legal and sustainable charcoal value chains (See also the similar recommendation under Biomass energy below) •• Provide funding for forest carbon management •• Finance the implementation of the National Forest Policy (2016) and the NFLR Strategy (2016). •• Supplement scarce public finance through PES mechanisms. (See also the similar recommendation under Land degradation above) 2. Explore opportunities to increase SMEs have potential roles in both plantation private sector investment in forestry forestry and value addition to forest •• Explore potential for SMEs to become products but face regulatory hurdles and more active in forest management, barriers to new revenue streams such as including in the wood fuel subsector PES. (see also section on Biomass energy) 3. Strengthen forest data and use them Forest management decision-making is more effectively in economic planning hampered by data gaps. •• Support the implementation of the ‘Roadmap for Developing Malawi’s National Forest Monitoring System 2015 •• Build on the recent donor initiatives to address forest data gaps SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 137 Priority Recommendations Challenges Lead Agencies 4. Scale up forest co-management Current centralized forest management approach to balance responsibility and does not provide incentives for local authority between communities and the communities to manage forests more government sustainably. 5. Promote agroforestry and tree-based Tree-planting projects are often systems to reduce pressure on Malawi’s unsuccessful as the returns do not justify natural forests. the land or other resources that farmers (See also proposed change at point 4 must invest. above) 6. Update forest data to include data on Lack of data on land cover and the DoF biomass energy, other informal sector production and use of forest products forest activities, and the related impacts limits understanding of the country’s forest on national accounting (the key data resources and their contribution to the need is to better understand the scale economy. of forest degradation linked to GHG emissions) 7. Promote agroforestry and FMNR to Tree-planting projects are often DoF reduce pressure on Malawi’s natural unsuccessful as the returns do not justify forests. the land or other resources that farmers had (See also proposed change at point 3 to invest regulatory them. above). 8. Undertake further analysis of the SMEs have potential roles in both plantation DoF potential for SMEs to become more forestry and value addition to forest products active in plantation forestry. but face regulatory hurdles and barriers to new revenue streams such as PES. Biomass energy 1. Support GoM’s new policy approach Malawi’s wood fuel sector is dominated by MoNREM, DoF that seeks the formalization of a rural households working at a small scale. sustainable and commercial wood fuel But many small-scale producers struggle to sector. engage with a formalized wood fuel sector. 2. Review and reform the policy, legal, and 98% of the population uses biomass fuels regulatory provisions for wood fuels in and over 60% uses charcoal, yet all charcoal Malawi, to make it easier for informal in Malawi remains technically illegal. producers, working at multiple scales, to operate within a formal setting. 3. Additional analysis needed on the Wood fuel industry currently carries a nature, significance and potential of the stigma that works against developing it wood fuel industry. into a sustainable and secure source of energy, employment, and revenues that complements other energy systems. 4. Raise awareness of the role of wood Policy reform is constrained by the lack of fuels as a conditionally renewable, information on the nature, significance, and secure, and economically vital source of potential of the wood fuels industry. energy for Malawi. 5. Modernize the energy sector by Currently, only small numbers of people use promoting fuel efficiency and, where clean fuels and/or fuel-efficient appliances. feasible, encourage fuel switching to LPG. 138 Priority Recommendations Challenges Lead Agencies HAP 1. Immediate interventions should include The level of HAP is extremely high and is MoH education and public awareness raising a significant health burden, particularly for strategies that make the severe health women and children. risks apparent. 2. Provide subsidies for more efficient Inefficient cookstove technology and MoNREM stoves and improved ventilation. inadequate ventilation magnify HAP risks. Fisheries 1. Support new fisheries co-management Previous efforts to initiate co-management DoFi, Department of programs that learn lessons from of fisheries resources failed to achieve Tourism (DoT) previous co-management attempts. buy-in from fishing communities who did not (Revised National Fisheries Policy, 2016, feel their interests were being represented. provides framework) 2. Strictly enforce the Fisheries Key drivers of the decline in fish stocks are Conservation and Management inappropriate fishing technologies, pollution Regulations and increase surveillance and other environmental changes, and and monitoring of fish populations and the weak capacity of the government and catch volumes. local institutions to work together to better (Revised National Fisheries Policy, 2016, manage fisheries resources. provides framework) 3. Update information on the current Inadequate and outdated data on fish status of fish stocks and the impacts stocks, fishing practices, and environmental of fishing practices and environmental changes hinder effective fisheries changes (including climate change). management. Biodiversity and protected areas 1. Expand opportunities for the private Many key sites for biodiversity conservation, DNPW, DoT sector to improve the management such as protected areas, forest reserves, of protected areas and raise tourism and wetlands, are understaffed or not revenues at the same time. staffed at all. 2. Expand nature-based tourism Protected areas, especially forest reserves, revenues to help finance biodiversity face considerable illegal logging and conservation. encroachment, while government funding is limited. 3. GoM should continue to implement the Malawi was weak at prosecuting wildlife recommendations of the illegal wildlife crime in the past but is now strengthening trade review and improve awareness wildlife crime management efforts. and the handling of wildlife crime. 4. Improve surveillance and monitoring of Government funding for conservation is protected areas and natural resources inadequate, and there are currently limited to ensure better targeting of limited incentives for the private sector to invest. field-level resources. Water resources 1. Expand sustainable catchment Water resource management does not use a MoAIWD, MoNREM management practices and adopt more catchment-level approach (except as pilots) efficient technologies. and efficient technologies are often absent. 2. Ensure that institutional mandates in Overlapping functions across the various MoAIWD the water sector are implemented and regulatory and institutional structures enforced to realize the benefits of these responsible for water and sanitation lead to reforms. weak policy implementation. SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 139 Priority Recommendations Challenges Lead Agencies 3. Strengthen systems and capacities for A lack of detailed procedures and protocols, NWRA licensing, allocation, and monitoring of combined with weak capacity of key staff, water use. results in ineffective water management. 4. Strengthen water monitoring A lack of data and regular monitoring capabilities. hinders effective management of ground and surface water resources. Waste management 1. Private sector and multi-stakeholder Managing Malawi’s liquid and solid waste is MoNREM partnerships for solid waste a significant challenge, and the government management could improve the current does not have either the financial resources situation at local levels. or implementation capacity to address this effectively. 2. Invest in sustainable urban planning Long-term sustainability issues are not and development in expanding small currently factored into waste management towns that includes effective systems decisions. The current relatively slow pace for sanitation and solid waste collection. of urbanization provides a window to ensure waste management is embedded 3. LCAs can be used as a tool to manage in sustainable urban planning and waste more efficiently and reduce development.  waste volumes. 140 ANNEX 2 International and Regional Agreements to Which Malawi Is a Party Malawi is a party to a number of international and regional environmental conventions, treaties, and protocols. Many of them are the focal points of the EAD. See Table A.2. TABLE A.2. Focal points of the EAD Name Web Page The Convention on Biological Diversity (including the https://www.cbd.int/ Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants http://chm.pops.int/ United Nations Framework Convention of Climate https://unfccc.int/ Change Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/ international-actions-montreal-protocol-substances- deplete-ozone-layer Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent http://www.pic.int/ Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/ Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal tabid/1271/Default.aspx The Global Environment Facility https://www.thegef.org/ INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL AGREEMENTS TO WHICH MALAWI IS A PARTY 141 Table A.3 presents a list of other international and regional environmental conventions, treaties, and protocols to which Malawi is also party, along with the relevant responsible departments and webpage links. TABLE A.3. Other agreements and their focal points Name Focal Point Web Page Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of Director of National Parks and https://www.ramsar.org/ International Importance Wildlife Convention on International Trade DNPW https://www.cites.org/ in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Convention on the World Heritage No focal point https://www.unccd.int/ Sites The United Nations Convention DoF https://www.unccd.int/ to Combat Desertification and Drought International Treaty on Plant Malawi Plant Genetic Resource http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en Genetic Resources for Food and Centre Agriculture Convention on International Plant Department of Agricultural https://www.unccd.int/ Protection Research Services UN Convention on the Law of the No focal point Sea Protocol on Shared Watercourse Ministry of Foreign Affairs and https://www.sadc.int/ Systems and Revised Protocol on International Cooperation documents-publications/show/1975 Shared Watercourses Protocol on Wildlife Conservation No focal point https://www.sadc.int/ and Law Enforcement documents-publications/protocols/ SADC Policy and Strategy for Ministry of Foreign Affairs and https://www.sadc.int/issues/environment- Environment and Sustainable International Cooperation sustainable-development/ Development 142 ANNEX 3 A Summary of the Shared EIA Roles and Responsibilities TABLE A.4. Shared EIA roles and responsibilities Institution Responsibilities Environmental Affairs ●● Facilitating the EIA process Department ●● Ensuring compliance with EIA provisions in the EMA ●● Production and updating of guidelines on EIA practice and procedures ●● Preparing sector-specific guidelines on EIA practice and procedures ●● Updating the list of prescribed projects ●● Secretariat to the TCE and the National Council for the Environment ●● Maintaining a register of projects being appraised under the EIA process ●● Maintaining a central library of EIA reports ●● Maintaining a directory of EIA consultants Technical Committee ●● Evaluating project briefs, EIA terms of reference, and EIA reports on the Environment ●● Developing terms and conditions for project approval ●● Reviewing and monitoring project auditing programs ●● Recommending courses of action to the Director ●● Reporting to the National Council for the Environment National Council for ●● Advising the minister regarding environmental protection and management and the the Environment conservation and sustainable utilization of natural resources ●● Recommending measures for the integration of environmental considerations in all aspects of economic planning and development ●● Recommending measures for the harmonization of the activities, plans, and policies of lead agencies and NGOs concerned with the protection and management of the environment and the conservation and sustainable utilization of natural resources Ministry of Economic ●● Determining if public sector projects are prescribed under the EMA and referring Planning and Project Submission Documents to the Director of Environmental Affairs Cooperation ●● Participating in the TCE A SUMMARY OF THE SHARED EIA ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 143 Institution Responsibilities Sectoral or line ●● Ensuring that their own projects adhere to EIA requirements ministries ●● Ensuring that private sector projects within their jurisdiction adhere to the EMA ●● Participating in the TCE ●● Providing information and advice to project developers ●● Incorporating EAD-approved terms and conditions in EIA certificates ●● Ensuring that the terms and conditions contained in the EIA certificate are met, including those specified by the Director of Environmental Affairs District Environmental ●● Undertaking environmental inspections and monitoring in the district Officers ●● Supervising the preparation of a District Environmental Action Plan every five years ●● Advising the District Development Committee on all matters relating to the environment and on the performance of its environmental functions ●● Reporting to the Director on all matters relating to the protection and management of the environment and the conservation and sustainable utilization of natural resources ●● Submitting reports to the Director as required ●● Promoting environmental awareness in the district regarding the protection and management of the environment and the conservation of natural resources ●● Gathering and managing information on the environment and the utilization of natural resources in the district ●● Performing other functions as the Director may, from time to time, assign 144 ANNEX 4 EIA Process Flowchart SCREENING CONCEPT PROJECT Is the proposed project a prescribed activity? Is an EIA likely to be mandatory or may be required? Guidance from EAD and licensing authorities Project brief prepared by developer Project exempt No EIA required Certificate of Exemption PRE-FEASIBILITY Review of project brief by the Director of Environmental A airs Department Approval by licensing authorities and Technical Committee on the Environment Commence with project EIA required? Prepare environmental management plan CONDUCT EIA Undertake scoping, prepare EIA TORs (approved by Developer DESIGN AND ENGINEERING EAD). Commence with EIA: appeals to the Environmental • Describe project; FEASIBILITY Appeals • Describe biophysical and socioeconomic environment; Tribunal • Assess impacts (identification, prediction, evaluation); • Prepare environmental management plan (EMP). EIA review by the Director of Environmental A airs, Technical Committee on the Environment and National Committee for the Environment EIA approval and project acceptance MONITORING EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION AND EIA rejected— Director’s certificate project rejected or needs redesign terms and conditions are issued Approval by licensing authorities Commence with project Source: Walmsley and Patel. 2011. Handbook on Environmental Assessment Legislation in the SADC Region. Note: TORs = Terms of references. EIA PROCESS FLOWCHART 145 ANNEX 5 An Overview of Natural Disasters Since 1990 TABLE A.5. Malawi’s natural disasters 1990­ –2017 Estimated Natural Estimated People Economic Loss and Estimated Year Disaster Location Affected Damage Recovery Cost 2017 Floods Malawi 55,920 affected 2015–2016 Drought Malawi 6.7 million affected USD 365.9 million USD 500.2 needing food aid million 2015 Floods Malawi—15 1,101,360 affected USD 335 million USD 494 million districts 230,000 displaced (equivalent to 5% declared state of GDP) emergency 106 killed 172 reported missing 2013 Floods Malawi—74% in 33,000 affected Southern Malawi 2012 Drought Malawi 1,900,000 affected 2012 Floods Malawi—Nsanje 90,740 affected USD 7.3 million District 2011 Floods Malawi 83,590 affected 2010 Floods Malawi 21,290 affected December Earthquake Malawi—Karonga 145,000 affected USD 5.2 2009 to 4 killed million/20% drop in January rice production in 2010 Karonga 2008 Floods Malawi 16,380 affected 2007 Drought Malawi 520,000 affected 2007 Floods Malawi 180,000 affected 2006 Floods Malawi 16,000 affected 2005 Drought Malawi 5,100,000 affected 2005 Floods Malawi 44,500 affected 2003 Floods Malawi 81,000 affected 2002 Drought Malawi 2,830,000 affected 2002 Floods Malawi 396,340 affected 2001 Floods Malawi 508,750 affected 2000 Floods Malawi 20,000 affected 146 Estimated Natural Estimated People Economic Loss and Estimated Year Disaster Location Affected Damage Recovery Cost 1997 Floods Malawi 400,000 affected 1995 Floods Malawi 1,300 affected 1991/92 Droughts Malawi 7,000,000 affected USD 1 billion in USD 500 cereal losses/maize million in cereal production fell by imports 60% GDP contracts by as much as 10.4% 1991 Floods Malawi 268,000 affected Sources: GoM. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report; GoM. 2014(b). Joint Public Expenditure Review of Malawi’s Environment and Disaster Risk Management Sectors, 2006–2012; Benson and Clay. 2003. Economic and Financial Impacts of Natural Disasters: An Assessment of Their Effects and Options for Mitigation; EM-DAT. 2018. The International Disaster Database; Pauw et al. 2010. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Drought and Floods in Malawi—Assessing the Economy-wide Effects; GoM. 2015(g). National Disaster Risk Management Policy; GoM. 2015(a). Malawi 2015 Floods Post Disaster Needs Assessment Report. AN OVERVIEW OF NATURAL DISASTERS SINCE 1990 147 ANNEX 6 Sustainable Land Management Sustainable Land Management (SLM) brings major environmental benefits, but these are not with- out costs. While some practices, such as intercropping maize and legumes, are cheap and easy to adopt, others, such as contour bunding, require considerable amounts of labor to construct and main- tain. Many SLM enterprises, based on renewable use of natural resources, require up-front finance. This limits uptake by poor households and leads to dropout. Dropout rates are reduced when direct support for SLM investments is paired with other interventions such as rural roads and support for small enterprise development. Cost-benefit analysis of SLM implementation in the Shire River basin has shown that benefits can accrue fairly rapidly. It also shows that small farmers are the main winners from SLM investments. Many activities break even within one or two years. However, some have longer payback periods, which discourages poorer households from adopting some SLM practices. In addition, SLM practices have to appear to be financially beneficial to farmers or they will not adopt them. The poorest households need to be supported to adopt SLM practices. Extremely cash-poor house- holds find it difficult to make the investments required to adopt SLM activities and enterprises. This applies even when these investments are small or when payback periods are short. For this rea- son, interventions need to support this group to enable them to participate in, and benefit from, SLM interventions. Subsiding SLM activities can substantially increase participation and uptake rates. This issue emerged during the early implementation of catchment management support in the Shire River basin, where uptake of SLM practices, despite project support, remained limited—a situation made worse by two years of El Nino–induced drought, which severely affected agricultural yields and livelihoods. A revolving fund—called the CECF—was introduced to support and incentivize participation in partici- patory SLM activities on customary land. This substantially increased participation and uptake rates. Substantial and long-lasting public investments and policy reforms are needed to overcome multiple SLM adoption barriers. SLM adoption barriers include limited market access and access to finance, lack of tenure security, limited access to information and knowledge, and a weak policy environment. Some of these constraints are being addressed by the government (including land tenure) but need to be followed through systematically and sustainably. Reforming the currently weak public extension 148 system seems to be a key factor, since global experience shows that access to knowledge and experi- ence is a prerequisite for the adoption of new technologies and practices. The private sector can play a significant role in climate-smart and sustainable land use ­investments— its potential needs to be unleashed. The justification for public sector investment in SLM is mainly based on market failures, such as externalities and non-excludability of users, and the public good argument. While public investments are key, the private sector has to play a key role in significant scale-up of productivity-enhancing technologies. One reason is that value chains need to be fully developed to make on-farm investments profitable. Currently, a weak investment, business, and regu- latory climate inhibits development of agricultural and forestry enterprises and value addition. Scaling up SLM needs to include the provision of sound advisory services to land users, provision of financial incentives for SLM adoption, and leveraging private sector investments. The approaches for advisory service provision need to be revised. Promising models are based on the extension ser- vice delivery that goes beyond public organizations but includes multiple service providers. Mod- ernization of the extension system would also include capacity development of extension agents to ensure excellency and relevance of their service. Financial attractiveness of SLM practices can be fur- ther increased by implementing innovative but cost-efficient PES schemes (including carbon schemes at landscape levels). The private sector should be incentivized to undertake productivity-enhancing, sustainable, and even climate-smart land use investments. As an example, a Catalytic Project Development Facility can facili- tate and incentivize the collaboration of the different actors needed to plan, finance, and implement this type of investment. The actors would include supply chain companies, private investors, financial institutions, and development agencies. Valuable lessons can be learned from previous and existing SLM interventions from inside and outside Malawi. Previous implementation experiences provide a good understanding of the con- straints and challenges that hamper the widespread uptake of SLM practices and how these can be addressed. There are lessons to draw on from outside Malawi too. For example, in Ethiopia work- based social protection programs have played a key role in supporting SLM interventions. However, important evidence gaps remain: ●● The role of land tenure and how reforms to customary land tenure arrangements influence the uptake of SLM practices ●● The institutional challenge of delivering extension support in a cost-effective manner to scale up SLM interventions ●● Practical and financially viable ways to support and incentivize farmers to use SLM techniques and enterprises in the longer term SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT 149 ANNEX 7 Forest and Land Data TABLE A.6. Change in Malawi forest cover 1972–1992 Rate of Rate of 1972 Forest 1992 Forest Total Forest Deforestation Deforestation Region Extent (ha) Extent (ha) Lost (ha) (ha/year) (%/year) North 1,507,266  470,238 1,037,028  51,851.40 3.44 Central 1,488,110  777,217  710,893  35,544.65 2.39 South 1,404,510 650,860  753,650  37,682.50 2.68 Total 4,399,886 1,898,315 2,501,571 125,078.55 2.84 Source: Kainja. 2001. Forestry Outlook Studies in Africa (FOSA)—Malawi, p. 9. TABLE A.7. Land cover 1990–2010 Area in Each Category, in km2 Change in Area, as Share of Total Country 1990 2000 2010 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 Agriculture 47,053 48,094 48,277 0.883% 0.155% Bare 233 232 233 −0.001% 0.001% Herbaceous 10,130 10,344 10,477 0.182% 0.113% Shrub 1,250 1,215 1,252 −0.030% 0.032% Natural forest 32,740 31,729 31,635 −0.857% −0.080% Plantation 1,239 1,162 899 −0.065% −0.223% Urban 1,362 1,387 1,390 0.022% 0.002% Water 23,853 23,695 23,695 −0.134% 0.000% Total 117,858 117,858 117,858 Source: FAO. 2013. Atlas of Malawi: Land Cover and Land Cover Change 1990–2010. 150 TABLE A.8. Forest land by tenure type, 2002 (or earlier) Forest Resource Area (ha) Forests on customary land/village forest areas 1,000,000 Forest reserves (indigenous woodland) 980,000 State-owned plantations: ●● Industrial plantations 73,000 ●● Wood fuel and pole plantations 23,000 ●● Woodlots 15,000 Private sector: ●● Fuelwood plantations 13,000 ●● Industrial plantations 2,000 Total 2,106,000 Source: Casey and Kafakoma. 2013. Institutional Assessment of the Forestry Sector and Organisational Review of the Department of Forestry. Note: This table is based on the data available in 2013, which dates back at least as far as 2002 and possibly further. The authors report that no more recent data were available, and these are not accurate. They are confident that the area on customary land is lower than 1 million ha at present. However, this does give some sense of the scale of different forest ownership types—and of the need for improved monitoring systems. In the source document the total was given as 1,906,000. TABLE A.9. Load losses and cost imposed on hydropower system by soil erosion Energy Revenue Lost Load Losses Due to Weeds and Sediment Lost (kWh) (MK, millions) Revenue Lost (USD) Insufficient generation capacity 11,575,684 68.47 46,000 Maintenance, faults, outage, nonavailability 11,760,392 69.56 46,000 Removal of trash, low headpond/penstroke pressure 16,662,615 98.55 66,000 Total load loss costs 39,998,691 236.58 158,000 Historic expenditures on vegetation Annual cost Annual cost and sediment control (MK, millions) (USD) Liwonde Weed Management Station 51,286,000 366,329 Nkula power station 43,000,000 307,143 Tedzani power station 60,000 429 Kapichira power station 40,000,000 285,714 Total historic expenditures 134,346,000 959,615 Annual costs Investment costs Estimated future expenditures needed (USD) (USD) Sediment control 22,000 11,602,500 Vegetation control 449,900 2,105,470 Total future costs 471,900 13,707,970 Source: LTS. 2010. Environmental and Natural Resources Management Action Plan for the Upper Shire Basin: Final baseline analysis. pp. 145–146. FOREST AND LAND DATA 151 TABLE A.10. Forest sector budgets and revenue in millions of Malawi kwacha, 2006–2017 Total Forest Regional Regional Sector Total DoF Office Office DoF Yeara Budget Expenditureb DoF Budget Expenditure Budget Expenditure Revenuec 2006 48,230,875 154.03 2007 53,406,467 150.19 2008 57,197,139 202.94 2009 61,200,939 163.16 2010 n.a. 2011 256,770,000 433.62 2012 n.a. 2013 n.a. 2014 131,611,813 47,487,540 32,217,351 9,069,416 40,529,328 15,808,950 963.16 2015 136,898,753 74,802,834 34,397,720 20,946,435 50,441,408 26,084,638 664.46 2016 219,054,996 98,867,967 42,000,000 19,343,625 87,788,211 48,162,466 648.49 2017 183,821,864 109,435,518 37,481,655 19,737,983 72,051,074 40,209,176 682.95 Source: GoM. 2009–2017. Annual Economic Reports. Note: a. Data for different years may not be compatible with each other. The source documents sometimes refer to ‘budget’, sometimes to ‘other recurrent expenditures’, and sometimes to ‘program funding’. This particularly pertains to 2011 data. The source documents do not explain whether any of these data include personnel costs. b. Expenditures and revenues in each year may be only up to a date slightly before the end of the fiscal year; therefore, actual expenditures that year may have been higher. c. This is largely revenue from plantation forest activities, including royalties, log sales, concession charges, license fees, and so on. 152 ANNEX 8 ROAM RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM), produced by the IUCN and the World Resources Institute (WRI), provides a framework to rapidly identify and analyze areas that are primed for forest landscape restoration (FLR) and to identify specific priority areas at a national or subnational level. ROAM provides decision-makers and stakeholders the following types of outcomes: ●● Better information for improved land use decision-making ●● High-level political support for forest landscape restoration ●● Fundamental inputs to national strategies on FLR, REDD+, climate and disaster risk adap- tation and mitigation, and biodiversity conservation and restoration, among others, for a mutually reinforcing convergence between such strategies ●● A basis for better allocation of resources within restoration programs ●● Engagement of and collaboration among key policymakers and decision-makers from different sectors, as well as other stakeholders with interests in how landscapes are managed ●● Shared understanding of FLR opportunities and the value of multifunctional landscapes Source: https://www.iucn.org/theme/forests/our-work/forest-landscape-restoration/ restoration-opportunities-assessment-methodology-roam ROAM 153 ANNEX 9 Biomass Energy TABLE A.11. Projected estimates for urban household charcoal demand (2008–2016) with corresponding employment and market estimates 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Urban — 3.716 3.759 3.78 3.819 3.857 3.909 3.965 4.017 population growth (annual %)a Employment 102,600 106,412.6 110,412.7 114,586.3 118,962.3 123,550.7 128,380.3 133,470.5659 138,832.1 (low estimate)b Employment 114,000 118,236.2 122,680.7 127,318.1 132,180.3 137,278.5 142,644.8 148,300.6287 154,257.9 (high estimate) Estimated 218,620c 226,743.9 235,267.2 244,160.3 253,484.8 263,261.7 273,552.6 284,398.9 295,823.3 urban household consumption of charcoal (tons) Number of bags 5,753,158 5,966,945 6,191,243 6,425,272 6,670,653 6,927,940 7,198,753 7,484,183.6 7,784,823.3 equivalentd Market price (MK)e 46,708,939,672 Market price (USD)f 66,727,056.7 Note: a. World Bank estimates based on United Nations World Urbanization prospectives data were used to estimate urban population growth (annual percentage). b. MARGE (2009) estimated that 57% of wood fuel employment was attributed to the charcoal sector (102,600–114,000 people). c. 2008 estimate for urban household demand for charcoal taken from MARGE (2009). d. A standard bag weighs about 38 kg3. e. Assuming an average bag sold cost around MK 6,000 in Blantyre. f. USD 1 = MK 700. 154 TABLE A.12. Energy demand trends (%)409 Census ISH2 ISH3 ISH4 1998 2006 2012 2017 Total Charcoal 2.5 6.8 8.9 16.0 Firewood 94.3 89.9 87.7 80.5 Electricity 2.2 1.7 2.5 1.9 Other 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.5 Urban Charcoal 15.5 48.2 44.6 62.2 Firewood 69.0 37.9 41.9 27.9 Electricity 13.3 11.5 12.6 9.4 Other 2.2 2.4 0.9 0.6 Rural Charcoal 0.4 1.2 2.3 5.2 Firewood 98.5 97.0 96.2 92.9 Electricity 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 Other 0.7 1.4 1.0 1.8 409 GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. BIOMASS ENERGY 155 TABLE A.13. Wood fuel consumption by household (%)410 ISH2 BEST Interpolated Consumption ISH3 ISH4 Extrapolated among Users 2006 2008 2008 as Main Fuel 2012 2015 2017 2018 2020 2025 2030 % of kg per % of % of % of % of % of % of % of HHs year % of HHs kg per year HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs HHs Rural Fuelwood 97 601.1 96.6 622 96.2 94.2 92.9 92.5 91.7 89.6 87.6 Charcoal 1.2 7.21 1.8 412 2.3 4.0 5.2 5.6 6.4 8.3 10.2 Urban  Fuelwood 38 292.2 39.9 732 41.9 33.5 27.9 26.6 23.9 17.2 10.6 Charcoal 48 94.0 46.4 203 44.6 55.2 62.2 64.0 67.5 76.2 85.0 Note: HH = Household. 410 GoM. 2009. Malawi Biomass Energy Strategy. 156 TABLE A.14. Wood fuel summary data, 2008–2030   2008 2015 2018 2020 2025 2030 Notes and Sources Population (million) Rural 11.30 14.49 15.67 16.45 18.52 20.66 https://esa.un.org/Unpd/Wup/ Urban 2.33 2.82 3.19 3.44 4.26 5.31 https://esa.un.org/Unpd/Wup/ Total 13.63 17.31 18.86 19.89 22.78 25.97 Wood fuel consumption (kg per year) Rural fuelwood 601 586 576 570 558 545 622 kg per year among users (BEST 2008), extrapolated using ISH data Rural charcoal 7.2 16.6 23.0 26.2 34.1 42.0 412 kg per year among users (BEST 2008), extrapolated using ISH data Urban fuelwood 292 245 195 175 126 77.4 732 kg per year among users (BEST 2008), extrapolated using ISH data Urban charcoal 94.0 112 130 137 154 172 203 kg per year among users (BEST 2008), extrapolated using ISH data Fuelwood consumption (‘000 tons air dry) Rural 6,790 8,500 9,020 9,380 10,330 11,260 Urban 680 690 620 600 540 410 Total 7,470 9,190 9,640 9,980 10,870 11,670 15.0% 15.0% 16.5% 17.5% 18.8% 20.0% Assumed to rise from 15% to of which traded 20% by 2030   1,100 1,400 1,600 1,700 2,000 2,300 balance collected 6,370 7,790 8,040 8,280 8,870 9,370 Charcoal consumption (‘000 tons) Rural 82 241 360 430 631 867 Urban 219 315 413 471 657 914 Total 300 556 774 901 1,288 1,781 ‘000 tons wood 1,300 2,500 3,400 4,000 5,700 7,900 equivalent Kiln efficiency (tons 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 22.5% wood:charcoal wood/tons charcoal) conversion Roundwood consumption (‘000 tons wood equivalent) Fuelwood (collected) 6,370 7,790 8,040 8,280 8,870 9,370 Fuelwood (traded) 1,100 1,400 1,600 1,700 2,000 2,300 Charcoal (wood 1,300 2,500 3,400 4,000 5,700 7,900 equivalent) Total roundwood 8,770 11,690 13,040 13,980 16,570 19,570 consumption BIOMASS ENERGY 157   2008 2015 2018 2020 2025 2030 Notes and Sources Value of wood fuel (USD, millions) Fuelwood (collected) 389 678 814 928 1,281 1,743 Assumes firewood price rise matches that of firewood collected Fuelwood (traded) 67 122 162 191 289 428 Assumes firewood price rise matches that of firewood collected Charcoal 45 118 191 247 454 809 MK 6,000 per 38 kg bag in 2016, that is, USD 226/t (5.2% per year rise since 2008) Total value 112 240 353 438 743 1,237 (traded wood fuel) GDP (current USD) 3,500 6,373 7,459 8,183 10,507 13,492 https://data.worldbank.org extrapolated post-2015 at 5% per year Traded wood fuel 3.2 3.8 4.7 5.4 7.1 9.2 as % of GDP Employment generated by wood fuel (years) Fuelwood (collected) 127,000 156,000 161,000 166,000 177,000 187,000 6 days per ton (300 working days per year) BEST 2008 Fuelwood (traded) 59,000 75,000 85,000 91,000 107,000 123,000 16 days per ton (300 working days per year) BEST 2008 Charcoal 58,000 107,000 150,000 174,000 249,000 344,000 58 days per ton (300 working days per year) BEST 2008 Total employment 117,000 182,000 235,000 265,000 356,000 467,000 (traded wood fuel) Taxable revenue lost to illicit payments (USD, millions) Fuelwood 6.7 12.2 16.2 19.1 28.9 42.8 Assumed losses half those of charcoal, as less transported Charcoal 9.0 23.6 38.2 49.4 90.8 161.8 Kambewa (2007) high estimate of 20% Total 15.7 35.8 54.4 68.5 119.7 204.6 158 ANNEX 10 Changes in Fish Catch 2006–2016 TABLE A.15. Fish catch by water body, 2006–2016 Upper, Lower Lake Lake & Beach Malawi- Malawi Lake Lake Lake Middle Price Artisanal Commercial Malombe Chilwa Chiuta Shire Total Landed Value (MK/ Year (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (MK ‘000) kg) 2006 51,796 4,413 780 4,350 1,085 3,840 65,484 6,810,336 104.00 2007 50,527 4,102 530 5,904 1,024 3,643 65,200 7,563.200 116.00 2008 56,846 3,597 671 6,006 1,018 3,128 71,266 9,478,378 133.00 2009 56,850 3,752 590 5,879 1,034 3,184 71,289 16,895,493 237.64 2010 80,623 3,470 3,336 8,019 2,549 1,197 95,724 19,900,000 210.00 2011 56,923 1,296 4,109 16,960 2,627 451 82,366 18,944,180 230.00 2012 106,769 2,367 1,608 7,993 1,322 269 120,328 35,903,597 298.38 2013 102,079 1,867 1,847 2,982 290 823 109,889 52,422,568 477.05 2014 105,284 2,455 4,170 2,889 293 1,037 116,128 74,332,669 640.09 2015 127,438 2,672 5,904 5,660 1,150 1,491 144,315 108,703,888 753.24 2016 143,556 4,416 4,053 2,834 1,298 1,111 157,268 129,738,211,690 824.95 Source: Department of Fishers (DoF). CHANGES IN FISH CATCH 2006–2016 159 33946