Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in South Africa’s local municipal plans

Phikolomzi Matikinca; Balbina Nyamakura; Sheona Shackleton

doi:10.17159/sajs.2024/15797

Authors

Phikolomzi Matikinca 1.Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa; 2.Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6317-4911
Balbina Nyamakura 1.Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa; 2.Water Resources and Ecosystems Department, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8056-3078
Sheona Shackleton 1.Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa; 2.African Climate and Development Initiative, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6133-9070

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2024/15797

Keywords:

climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, social vulnerability reduction, resilience building, municipal plans

Abstract

Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) agendas converge in their priorities to reduce social vulnerability and enhance resilience in the face of climate change. However, they are often treated separately in practice and in local government plans. In South Africa, while municipalities are legally mandated to develop Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and Disaster Management Plans (DMPs), this is not the case for CCA. In this study, we assessed the engagement with, and linkages between, CCA and DRR in 20 local municipalities from contrasting socio-economic contexts in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa by conducting an analysis of their IDPs, DMPs and any plans or strategies pertaining to CCA. Our results show that none of the municipalities had separate CCA strategies, with only two municipalities complying with the mandate to have DMPs. While municipalities mostly included CCA- and DRR-related activities in their IDPs, there were no explicit linkages made between the two approaches. Apparent was the prioritisation of bolstering infrastructure with little attention towards addressing social vulnerability and building resilience. Overall, little has been done to prioritise or link CCA and DRR at the local government level, especially in the context of addressing social vulnerability and building resilience. These findings suggest the need for South Africa to implement and promulgate legal instruments, policies and resources to capacitate local municipalities in mainstreaming and integrating CCA and DRR.

Significance:

This study highlights that, while CCA and DRR converge in theoretical frameworks and international and national policies, little has been done to link the two at the local government level in South Africa.
Overall, findings indicate that social vulnerability reduction and resilience building are still not recognised as important aspects of CCA and DRR.
Local municipalities prioritise technical solutions and infrastructure maintenance, with little attention to development and structural causes of vulnerability.
Support, in terms of resources, is needed to capacitate local municipalities in (1) linking CCA and DRR and (2) reducing social vulnerability and building resilience.