Climate Change,a Sustainable Blue Economy and Socio-Ecological Resilience in Namibia: A Contemporary Socio-Legal Perspective

Abstract

The ocean off Namibia’s coast is a part of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem and is one of the most productive ocean zones in the world. It also serves as an important hub for marine biodiversity and food production. However, climate change is affecting Namibia’s blue economy. The establishment and implementation of appropriate climate change policies, legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks are key elements in organizing and directing the advancement of Namibia’s blue economy. If climate change continues unabated, catastrophic weather might overwhelm the coastal countries’ ability to safeguard their people and infrastructure. This paper argues that comprehending the impact of climate change on Namibia’s blue economy demands a thorough grasp of key legal structures and procedures at the international and regional levels. There is a need to identify present gaps and capitalize on collaborative synergies, legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks on climate change and the blue economy.

Introduction

Climate change is internationally recognized as one of the key stressors to marine ecosystems, impacting their resilience, functioning, and related ecosystem services (Gissi et al., 2021: 2). This is a grave cause for concern since coastal communities and economies across the world depend on marine ecosystems for economic growth, survival, and nutrition (Remmert, 2018). Climate change is defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as, ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’ (Kyoto Protocol, 1997; Paris Agreement, 2015; UNFCCC, 1992). Whilst the UNFCCC defines what climate change constitutes, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982), which contributes to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations, as well as to the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples of the world, and to the sustainable development of the oceans and seas (Guilloux & Schumm, 2016: 79), does not have explicit provisions that refer to climate change. Despite this, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) acknowledges that climate change has an impact on ocean acidification and sea level rise. As a result, the UNCLOS encourages member states to increase their scientific endeavours to better understand how climate change affects the marine environment and marine biodiversity, either individually or in conjunction with other pertinent international organizations and bodies. Thus, the UNGA calls on UNCLOS member states to support ongoing scientific coordination to investigate and mitigate the effects of ocean acidification and devise adaptation strategies that appropriately balance ecosystem approaches and precautionary measures (see para 227 of the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 30 December 2022 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/77/L.36)] 77/248).

The UNGA Resolution on the UNCLOS highlights the important role that coastal blue carbon ecosystems – such as mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrasses – play in both mitigating the effects of climate change and adapting to it by sequestering carbon dioxide and strengthening coastal ecosystems’ resistance to ocean acidification (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992). In addition, the resolution lists a number of other advantages that coastal ecosystems offer, such as food security, biodiversity preservation, and coastal protection. Thus, cooperation among member states is encouraged to preserve and restore coastal blue carbon habitats (see para 228 of the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 30 December 2022 (without reference to a Main Committee (A/77/L.36)) 77/248 Oceans and the law of the sea). For example, article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC provides for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is one tool for protecting and restoring blue carbon ecosystems.

In May 2022, Namibia adopted a Sustainable Blue Economy Policy, which sought to integrate conservation, oil and mineral extraction, water resource development, bio-prospecting, marine transport, sustainable energy production, and fisheries and aquaculture (see the foreword of the Namibia Blue Economy Policy, 2022-2031). This policy was developed in line with the country’s National Development Plan 5, with the key objective of reducing environmental and ecological risks in the marine ecosystems. As a part of this objective, Namibia has adopted an arguably robust framework for combating climate change through a number of policies and action plans. These include the National Climate Change Policy, the Third National Communication to the UNFCCC, and the Namibia Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). In Namibia’s 2021 First Adaptation Communication to UNFCCC, the country set national adaptation goals and actions. These national adaptation goals and actions were planned for the short term (2020–2025) and medium term (2020–2025) (Republic of Namibia 2021: 19). These adaptation goals and actions were adopted in response to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, as will later be discussed in this paper. Part of Namibia’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) relates to the need to ensure increased adaptive capacities and reduced vulnerabilities in coastal zones. Emphasis was also placed on adaptation objectives in the form of climate-smart agriculture and climate data and forecasting.

Whilst Namibia has yet to develop a roadmap for adaptation measures in marine ecosystems; it has developed a roadmap for the agriculture sector (Mutumba et al., 2024). It urgently needs to develop one using the adaptation road map for the agriculture sector as a template. Under the Paris Agreement, governments, including Namibia, pledge through NDCs to adopt measures aimed at evaluating climate risks, climate mitigation, and adaptation for their marine ecosystems (Gallo et al., 2017). Through its marine ecosystems, Namibia’s economy may benefit from climate resilience under the CDM. The CDM seeks to encourage sustainable development in developing countries by directing private sector investment toward initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions (UNDP, 2003: 11). Considering that the ocean provides about half of the world’s oxygen and controls temperature, wind direction and rainfall patterns, its effects on the climate are especially concerning (Section 5 Namibia Blue Economy Policy, 2022-2031). Moreover, because the ocean is a significant sink for both heat and carbon dioxide, it contributes significantly to the mitigation of climate change (Bodansky, 2020: 316).

Marine ecosystems provide many benefits in the form of jobs, food, minerals, transportation, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism opportunities (Section 5 Namibia Blue Economy Policy, 2022-2031). The benefits of the marine ecosystem to economies and the livelihoods of coastal communities are acknowledged globally and have necessitated the formulation of a blue economy (BE) approach to the management and use of resources in the ecosystem (Section 6.2 of Namibia’s Blue Economy Policy, 2022–2031). The BE is embedded in the objective of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 (hereafter SDG 14), aimed at ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development (in summary, SDG 14 addresses marine pollution (14.1), healthy ocean (restoration of ecosystems) (14.2), ocean acidification (14.3), sustainable fishing (overfishing) (14.4), marine protected areas (14.5), fisheries subsidies (14.6), economic benefits for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) (14.7), knowledge and technology (14a), small-scale fishers (14b), and development and implementation of law (14c). SDG 14's focus on the biological and environmental perspective is, thus, quite evident, while also considering the asymmetry between different states in the international system with specific reference to SIDS and LDCs).

Namibia is a country that is in the Low Middle Income (LMI) Bracket and thus does not fit into the LDC status. Though Namibia has been lobbying for an LDC status to enable it to deal with its increasing poverty and high HIV/AIDS prevalence rate, the country remains in the LMI category. As a proponent of the BE approach, Namibia recognizes the economic value of marine ecosystem benefits and has joined a global push to implement a BE approach by locally establishing a BE policy that is in accordance with SDG 14. Namibia’s BE policy refers to BE sectors that are crucial to Namibia and the livelihoods of its people, namely: fisheries and aquaculture, mining, transport and logistics, water desalination, and tourism (Section 6.1 of the Namibia Blue Economy Policy, 2022-2031). According to the BE policy, the marine ecosystem in Namibia has the potential for hydropower, marine biotechnology and bioprospecting, coastal wind, green hydrogen, tidal and wave energy, carbon sequestration, and carbon trading as opportunities for development and growth (Section 6.1 of the Namibia Blue Economy Policy, 2022-2031).

The attainment of a sustainable BE in the face of climate change in Namibia is dependent on a legal framework that fosters climate change in Namibia’s BE. This paper will discuss the BE in Namibia with a specific focus on the blue fisheries sector from a legal perspective. Currently, Namibia’s BE and climate change agendas are informed by policies that are not binding but are rather persuasive. Further, where aspects of the BE and climate change are covered in selected legislation, they are fragmented and incomplete, which has led the Government of Namibia to place a responsibility on the responsible BE line ministries to develop the appropriate laws and regulations (see paragraph 12 of the Namibia Blue Economy Policy, 2022-2031).

The social-ecological resilience framework (Lloyd et al., 2013: 925) will be used as a criterion to ascertain the extent to which Namibian law and policy applicable to climate change and the BE adequately recognise provisions that foster climate change resilience, which promotes a sustainable BE in Namibia’s fisheries sector. Lessons shall also be drawn from the climate laws of commonwealth member states that Namibia can adopt in its legal framework. Lastly, a conclusion will then be reached in terms of the extent to which Namibia’s legal framework promotes climate change resilience, which promotes a sustainable BE, and appropriate recommendations will be proposed.

Climate Change and Namibia’s Blue Economy

Climate change is projected to have a substantial impact on Namibia’s maritime ecosystems and the fisheries they support. Data obtained from a series of workshops held in Henties Bay, Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, Luderitz, and a climate change and maritime Spatial Planning engagement session in Windhoek show that Namibia’s maritime ecosystem is vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Hyder et al., 2024: 1-8). Climate change is closely linked with the ocean, a vital economic resource that supports the livelihoods of coastal communities and several BE sectors (Bodansky, 2020: 316). The ocean absorbs much of the excess heat that is produced by global warming (IPCC, 2019: 9-14). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, concluded that: (1) the ocean has experienced continuous and unabated warming since 1970; (2) the ocean has absorbed more than 90% of anthropogenically induced heat in the climate system; (3) the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled since 1993; (4) ocean warming now reaches to depths over 2,000 m; and (5) marine heatwaves have doubled in frequency and increased in intensity since 1982 (IPCC, 2019: 9). The Special Report indicates that global warming has intensified the impacts of ongoing exploitation for certain fish species, either through significant fish mortality resulting from heatwaves or the cumulative damage inflicted by rising temperatures (IPCC, 2019: 12). This is already creating global climate change winners and (mostly) losers among fishing-dependent communities (Ruhl, 2012: 206).

The IPCC’s 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, notes that climate change is driving sea level rise globally (IPCC, 2014: 42). Melting terrestrial ice of the Arctic and Antarctica and warming seas combine to drive sea level rise, which over the decade from 2006 to 2015 reached a rate of 3.6 mm (0.14 inches) per year on average globally, a rate unprecedented in the last century and 2.5 times the rate occurring from 1901 to 1990 (IPCC, 2019: 10). The rate of rise is projected to be relatively steady, accelerating slightly over time, although storm surges are expected to be the main source of damage to coastal infrastructure (Mapaure, 2022: 550). Coasts will be exposed to increasing risks of coastal erosion, and by 2,080 more millions of people than today will experience floods every year due to sea level rise (Mapaure, 2022: 550). Currently, the IPCC projections show an accelerated increase in sea warming and sea level rise (IPCC, 2023).

Furthermore, the relationship between the ocean and climate change is exhibited in that the ocean is the world’s largest carbon sink (IPCC, 2014: 41). According to the IPCC’s 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, the ocean has absorbed more carbon dioxide and has undergone increasing surface acidification (IPCC, 2019: 9). When carbon dioxide enters the ocean and dissolves in seawater, a process known as ocean acidification takes place (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2023).

This paper adopted a qualitative research methodology characterised by a desktop analysis of literature on climate change. It also employed the social-ecological resilience theory as an instrument for measuring Namibia’s ability to adapt or transform in the face of change in social-ecological systems, particularly unanticipated change, in ways that continue to sustain human well-being.

Climate Change Impacts in Namibia’s Coastal Zones and Namibia’s Obligations in the UNFCCC

Namibia’s first Climate Change Adaptation Communication to the UNFCCC (1992) provides a summary with respect to climate change impacts on coastal zones (Republic of Namibia First Adaptation Communication: Namibia’s Climate Change Adaptation Communication to the UNFCCC, 2021: 10; Section 1.1 of the Namibia Climate Change Policy, 2011). According to the Communication, Namibia lacks any man-made or natural storm surge protection equipment, making these coastal communities very vulnerable to sea level rise. The Communication identifies rising sea surface temperature, which has an influence on fish populations, as one of the major drivers of climate change risks and vulnerabilities that are important to coastal habitats and fisheries. Namibia’s fisheries sector is largely dependent upon the highly productive marine ecosystem driven by the upwelling of the cold, nutrient-rich Benguela Current in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME), while comparatively limited production is from inland fisheries (Mapaure, 2022: 554; Engelhard et al., 2024:1231). The upwelling in the BCLME is caused by the interaction of south-easterly winds with the north-flowing current and the topography of the seabed (Mapaure, 2022: 554). It is reported that recent studies exhibit that sea surface temperatures over the northern Benguela region appear to have become persistently warmer since 1993, consistent with global predictions of rising surface water temperature (Mapaure, 2022: 554). It is possible that observed reductions in pilchard stocks since 1993 could be partially explained by warmer seas (Mapaure, 2022: 554). Furthermore, Namibia’s first Climate Change Adaptation Communication to the UNFCCC identifies changing wind systems as a climate change impact in its coastal zones (Mapaure, 2022: 554). According to Roux (2003: 162), any changes in the distribution and intensity of winds would affect the fisheries sector as it has a direct impact on the upwelling dynamics of the Benguela system. Roux describes the possible scenarios that would result from changing wind systems as a result of climate change (Roux, 2003: 162). An increase in strong offshore winds along the coast in Namibia will affect coastal activities such as tourism, recreational, and rock lobster fisheries. Increased wind will also cause flooding and storm surges, as well as habitat loss for intertidal organisms.

The upwelling dynamics of the Benguela Current system as a result of changing wind patterns have reportedly led to the increased reduction in oxygen in Namibian shelf waters (Reid et al., 2007: 12). As a result, the distribution of hake, and possibly other demersal species, could be substantially altered making the fish less available to trawl and long-line fleets (Reid et al., 2007: 12). This has serious negative consequences on the economy and livelihoods of fishing communities (Reid et al., 2007: 12). Namibia’s inaugural Climate Change Adaptation Communication to the UNFCCC identifies supplementary factors contributing to climate change risk pertinent to coastal ecosystems and fisheries. These factors encompass alterations in terrestrial climatic and hydrologic processes, modifications in coastal and oceanic circulation patterns, ocean acidification, elevated sea surface temperatures, and heightened storm intensity at sea (Republic of Namibia, 2021: 5).

Namibia’s BE: Implications for Sustainable Development

The term ‘blue economy’ or ‘blue growth’ refers to the economic strategy of ‘sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and jobs while preserving the health of the ocean ecosystem’ (World Bank, n.d). Namibia is currently facing challenges due to a lack of consensus across BE sectors regarding an appropriate definition of BE that can be universally applied across sectors (Carver, 2020: 135). The BE sectors advance a ‘blue growth’ understanding of the blue economy that only seeks to promote economic activities related to the marine ecosystem, regardless of whether or not these activities are sustainable and socially equitable (Carver, 2020: 135). Such economic activities include but are not limited to phosphate mining, which may benefit Namibians economically in terms of job creation but has devastating effects on the marine ecosystem (Carver, 2020: 132). On the other hand, proponents of a ‘blue degrowth’ seek the BE to recognise a balance of the environmental, social, economic, and cultural pillars of sustainability, through sustainable use and ensuring that local coastal communities actively participate in the decision-making and use of marine resources alongside other stakeholders that are part of the BE sectors (Carver, 2020: 139).

The preceding paragraphs’ explanation of the effects that climate change would have on the ocean leads one to conclude that these effects will have a negative influence on the fishing industry due to the decrease in fish populations brought on by the effects of climate change. This will affect the country’s gross domestic product earnings and the employment of those who work in the fisheries sector. This effect of climate change on marine ecosystems will be worse for vulnerable small-scale fishers (SSF) who rely on a healthy functioning marine ecosystem for survival. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate ways to guarantee the survival of marine ecosystems in the face of climate change. The resilience theory, as will be discussed in the next section of this paper, offers a basis for unlocking solutions for addressing the effects of climate change on Namibia’s BE sectors.

The Social-Ecological Resilience Theory Applied to Marine Ecosystems

Marine ecosystems are among the most abundant and diverse globally, offering essential ecosystem services for marine environments and atmospheric composition. (Carver, 2020: 139). For example, marine fishing continues to tie SSF to their ancestors, fishing ‘not only survived but expanded to provide rations for pharaohs, provisions for Norse sailors, and, today, food for millions of mankind’ (Craig, 2022: 5). The theory of social-ecological resilience has been developed in response to the need for understanding how linked social-ecological systems operate under conditions of complexity (Humby, 2014a: 1682). Social-ecological systems are often referred to as ‘coupled human-natural systems’ (Berkes, 2017: 1232). People depend on ecosystems in a wide variety of ways, and this dependency often requires modifying or managing ecosystems to enhance the delivery of ecological goods and services (Cumming & Allen, 2017: 1710). As ecosystems respond to this intervention and use by people, unexpected things may happen, such as plastic pollution, overfishing, and illegal and unreported, and unregulated fishing (Cumming & Allen, 2017: 1710). Measures thus have to be adopted to mitigate the impacts of these unexpected developments, which have the effect of infringing upon society’s ability to optimally benefit from such ecosystems. The socio-ecological resilience theory is advanced by Ostrom (2009) as a mechanism to address unanticipated events, such as climate change, that negatively affect society’s capacity to maximise the benefits of its proximity to an ecosystem.

Ostrom (2009: 420) defines a socio-ecological system as the study of the relationships between ecosystems and socio-economic systems, looking at the different processes that affect them. There are several levels of nested systems in the socio-ecological system paradigm, including resource systems, resource units, governance systems, and users. These fundamental subsystems are linked to a nation’s social, political, and economic systems as well as associated ecosystems. In the Namibian context, resource systems would include the defined protected area that encompasses a coastal area, whilst resource units would comprise, among other marine resources, hake and mackerel. The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, the responsible line ministry, the Namibian government, and other stakeholders, including business and civil society, would all be part of the governance structure. From the above, it appears that social-ecological ecosystems include the ocean and the surrounding coastal area as resource areas, where human-natural systems or resource units are constantly interrelating, involving social, economic, and ecological elements as well as the interactions between them (Cummings et al., 2015: 301), and that are governed by rules that apply to the resource users.

Social-ecological resilience has its roots in the work of Holling in the 1960s and early 1970s. The resilience theory ‘reflects a paradigm shift in ecology, natural resources management and environmental law away from believing that social-ecological systems operate around an equilibrium that can be maintained by “optimising” the use of particular natural resources’ (Humby, 2014a: 89). According to Humby (2014: 89), ‘there is now an understanding that the various elements that constitute social-ecological systems impact upon and change each other such that the system can both maintain a steady state (for as long as the type of relationships and feedbacks between the various elements are maintained) as well as to adapt and change over time in response to various anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic shocks’. As such, ‘resilience’ has thus been defined as ‘the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still maintain its basic structure and function’ (Holling, 1973: 17-19). In general, social-ecological resilient systems can: (i) absorb shocks and stresses; (ii) self-organise; and (iii) learn and adapt (Berkes, 2017: 1235). The capacity to absorb disturbance is qualified by adaptation and transformation. This implies that Namibia has to adapt and transform to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities of its BE sectors to the impacts of climate change. It is in this context that the next section of this paper discusses adaptation as a mechanism for managing disturbance in a socio-ecological system.

Climate change can be considered a disturbance in Namibia’s marine ecosystem and subsequently the country’s BE sectors. A relatively small disturbance in a social-ecological system typically triggers short-term or coping responses (Berkes, 2017: 1235). However, if this coping or absorptive capacity is exceeded, individuals and communities would then exercise their adaptive resilience (Walker et al., 2004: 5). At the core of resilience is the adaptive capacity, which refers to the ability of the social-ecological system to learn and to adjust its responses to the impacts of external drivers and internal change (Walker et al., 2004: 5). There is therefore need to explore the conceptual mechanisms of adaptation to determine how Namibia can address the disturbance brought about by climate change to the country’s marine ecosystem and resultantly its BE sectors.

Conceptual Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change Disruptions

The process of adaptation is a problem-solving process whereby priority is given to communication, perspective sharing, social learning, negotiation and the development of adaptive collaborative strategies for moving forward (Walker et al., 2004: 5). Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management techniques, which encourage learning while managing natural resources, are the foundation of the adaptation process, which is carried out through adaptive management (Berkes et al., 2000: 1252; Berkes et al., 2000: 1252). For example, in Canada, expert judgement is drawn from indigenous communities to improve the adaptive management of salmon (Zedler, 2016: 2). A thirty-year-old study found that traditional ecological knowledge helped expert farmer-fishers adapt to both gradual and unpredictable changes in flood patterns (Berkes et al., 2000: 1253). It is widely accepted that adaptive management is an approach for monitoring the response of social-ecological systems to different policies and practices and attempts to reduce inherent uncertainty in ecological systems, through a system of monitoring and iterative decision-making and experimentation (Cosens & Williams, 2012: 3; Allen & Garmestani, 2015: 107). As such, uncertainty is inherent in any management decisions that are made regarding these dynamic complex systems (Silvy, 2020: 44; Allen & Garmestani, 2015: 103).

The core principles of adaptive management are that it is experimental, multi-scalar, and place-based (Graham & Hicks, 2015: 132; Norton, 2003: 517; Uy & Shaw, 2012: 3-17 & 241; Green et al., 2015: 131; Allen & Garmestani, 2015: 131). Management actions must be designed in a structured way that lessons can be rigorously inferred, similar to how experiments are designed (Allen & Garmestani, 2015: 131). The adoption of an appropriate legislative framework aimed at minimising the effects of climate change must follow from the lessons learnt by Namibia, concerning the effects of climate change on the country’s marine ecosystems. To guarantee adaptation, Namibia must implement a regulatory response targeted at resolving disruptions brought on by climate change. Namibia has so far only adopted a non-binding policy response instead of a binding regulatory approach, in response to the disruptions to marine ecosystems brought on by climate change. Adaptive management should have enabled Namibia’s policymakers to predict the future of ecosystems, including the interaction with the human component thereof, much as to prompt proactive management – addressing marine ecosystems related climate change issues before they adversely impact the country’s BE sectors. In the ocean and coastal area context, such management will require scientific input and proactive action to prevent marine social-ecological shocks that cannot be managed, through processes such as social learning, monitoring, and review. The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources has been collecting scientific data on the impact of climate change on Namibia’s marine ecosystems. This data must now be utilised to adopt suitable laws to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the country’s marine ecosystems.

Adaptive management is at times merged with co-management of ecosystems to bring about the process of adaptive co-management (Fabricius and Currie, 2015: 147). The process of ‘adaptive co-management has four cornerstones, namely: (i) an enabling environment through institutional arrangements (norms and rules), leadership, policies and legislation; (ii) learning through experimentation, monitoring and evaluation in a real-world setting; (iii) collaboration towards a diversity of stakeholders sharing a resource, rights and responsibilities at multiple levels and scales; and (iv) in a repeated process’ (Fabricius and Currie, 2015: 148). As such, ‘adaptive co-management thus refers to an ongoing process that allows stakeholders to share responsibility, find common ground, learn from their institutions and practices, and adapt and modify them for subsequent cycles’ (Fabricius and Currie, 2015: 148). In the context of Namibia, and in relation to co-management of the ocean and surrounding marine ecosystems, stakeholders will cooperate in the process of sharing a common-pool resource. Rights and responsibilities will also be shared, giving due consideration to diverse forms of knowledge and engaging in social learning, monitoring, and review in order to be able to deal with climate change-related impacts on the marine ecosystem.

Interlinked to the concept of adaptive management and adaptive co-management is the adaptive governance approach (Humby, 2014a: 98). This governance approach combines the results of learning by doing from adaptive management and the collaboration of stakeholders in the decision-making process from adaptive co-management at different levels (Humby, 2014a: 98). It is critical to note that, ‘adaptive governance involves the devolution of management rights and power-sharing that promotes participation, among resource stakeholders’ (Roe, 2020: 106). It involves collaboration between protected area agencies, non-governmental organisations, private landowners, and local community members, amongst others (Humby, 2014b). Processes such as marine spatial planning can be used as a platform for co-management in Namibia. The marine spatial planning steering committee in Namibia has different stakeholders, which include government ministries, the commercial fisheries representatives, selected higher education institutions, and local government authorities. Folke et al refer to these as ‘institutional structures that involve governance through multiple, layered authorities, each with its sphere of responsibility’ (Folke, 2005: 450; Folke, 2005: 450; Gruby & Carlisle, 2019: 927; Novellie, 2017: 82; Brown et al., 2013: 48). Adaptive governance therefore includes the collaboration by ‘a diversity of stakeholders sharing a resource, rights and responsibilities at multiple levels and scales’ (Folke, 2005: 450) considering diversity of knowledge and information sharing as well as social-learning, monitoring, and review. Social-ecological resilience, merged with adaptive governance, can therefore for purposes of this paper be defined as the (i) capacity of a linked marine social-ecological system to adapt, absorb and transform in the face of disturbance and still maintain functions; (ii) through processes such as the collaboration by a diversity of stakeholders sharing a resource, rights and responsibilities at multiple levels and scales taking into account diversity of knowledge and information sharing; and (iii) social-learning, monitoring and review. The next section of this paper discusses how social-ecological resilience is embedded in the African Regional legal framework on environmental matters.

Social-Ecological Resilience and the African Regional Legal Framework

In this section, the elements of the definition of social-ecological resilience in this paper shall be analysed with respect to African regional documents applicable to marine ecosystems and climate change. This is done because Namibia’s National Climate Change policy acknowledges that the effects of climate change are multi-sectoral in nature and that they are not always limited to national borders (Section 6.1 of the Namibia Climate Change Policy, 2011). A discussion of the African Regional legal framework would assist in evaluating Namibia’s commitment to mitigating the effects of climate change within the broader context of the country’s blue economy. Adaptation strategies for resilience building to climate change are recognised in some of the African Union’s documents. For example, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981) recognises an environmental right in article 24 of the African Charter. The environmental right in article 24 is a collective right as it provides that, ‘all peoples shall have a right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development’.

Namibia, through its spheres of government, is obligated by the African Charter to ensure ‘an environment generally satisfactory’ to Namibia’s people (Du Plessis & Du Plessis, 2011: 41-42). The signatory states have a positive duty to enforce such a right, and how they do so will depend on the specific circumstances of each state party (Article 95(l) of the Namibia Constitution of 1996 gives effect to the right to the environment). Article 24 should also be read in conjunction with article 26 of the African Charter which states that: ‘States Parties to the present Charter... shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter’ (Scholtz, 2010: 1; Van der Linde & Louw, 2003: 167). It can therefore be deduced that the African Charter requires the Namibian government to provide conditions that enable the promotion of ‘an environment generally satisfactory to development’. This would imply that coastal communities, private government, the private sector, and other interested and affected parties may rely on this regard to ensure that not only the marine ecosystem is protected, but that there will be some opportunities for them to benefit from the utilisation of resources within the marine ecosystem. The Revised African Convention includes a similar right in that the right of all peoples to a satisfactory environment favourable to their development is protected (Article 111 (1) of the Revised African Convention).

Article 24 of the African Charter was dealt with in the decision of the African Commission in the case of Social and Economic Rights Action Centre for Economic and Social Rights (SERAC) v Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Social and Economic Rights Action Centre for Economic and Social Rights (SERAC) v Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Comm No 155/96 (2001) para 53). This decision emanated from a complaint brought against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, alleging that the military government of Nigeria, through its involvement in oil production in Ogoniland, violated article 24 of the African Charter (Scholtz, 2010: 109; Van der Linde & Louw, 2003: 167). The SERAC case provided the African Commission with an opportunity to interpret the content of article 24 right to environment, formally (Du Plessis & Du Plessis, 2011: 41-42). The African Commission found that the right to environment imposes clear positive and negative obligations upon government as, ‘it requires the State to take reasonable and other measures to prevent pollution and ecological degradation, to promote conservation, and to secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources’ (SERAC para 52). The wording reflects the objective of Article 95 (1) of the Namibian Constitution which provides that ‘the state shall actively promote and maintain the welfare of the people by adopting policies that include the maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilisation of living natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians’. All resource use would therefore still be subject to the obligation to protect the environment.

Adaptation strategies for resilience building to climate change are recognised in the Revised Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (hereafter Revised African Convention), which makes provision for biodiversity conservation (Revised African Convention, 2003; Lubbe, 2003: 133). The Revised African Convention, for example, in article VIII which requires ‘Namibia, as a member state of the Convention, to take all necessary measures for the protection, conservation, sustainable use and rehabilitation of vegetation cover’ (Article VIII(1) of the Revised African Convention). Within the ocean and surrounding coastal areas, the government is therefore obligated to ‘adopt scientifically-based and conservation, utilisation and management plans for forests, woodlands, rangelands, wetlands and other areas with vegetation cover’, which should include sound traditional practices (Article VIII(1) (a) of the Revised African Convention). These actions should take into account ‘the social and economic needs of the people concerned, the importance of the vegetation cover for the maintenance of water balance of an area, the productivity of soils and the habitat requirements of species’ (Article VIII(1) (a) of the Revised African Convention).

Namibia should accordingly ensure that the measures that are devised to protect, conserve, and sustainably use resources within the marine social-ecological systems take into account the realities of the coastal communities that rely on natural resources. Local coastal communities such as the Topnaar rely on fishing and the gathering of seaweed and sea oil for medicinal purposes for their livelihood. However, there is also a competing need to ensure that local communities’ practices do not adversely impact the protection, conservation, sustainable use, and rehabilitation of vegetation cover in the coastal areas. Further, promoting adaptation strategies for resilience building resilience to climate change is recognised in article IX of the Revised African Convention. Namibia has an obligation, as a member state to the Convention, to ‘maintain and enhance species and genetic diversity of plants and animals, whether they are terrestrial, fresh-water or marine’ (Article XI (1) of the Revised African Convention). In so doing, the Namibian government is required to establish and implement policies for the conservation and sustainable use of such resources (Article XI (1) of the Revised African Convention).

At the Southern African Development Community level (SADC), Protocols such as the SADC Protocol on fisheries recognise adaptation practices that foster resilience to climate change. The Protocol aims to promote the responsible and sustainable use of aquatic resources and ecosystems (see Article 3 of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries, 2001. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) defines sustainable use as, ‘the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations’). Sustainable use is further reiterated in article 4 (3), which obligates member states of the Protocol, including Namibia, to ‘take appropriate measures to regulate the use of living aquatic resources and protect the resources against over exploitation, whilst creating an enabling environment and building capacity for the sustainable utilisation of the resources’.

The SADC Protocol on Fisheries obligates Namibia and other member states to ‘ensure that their nationals and juridical persons act in a responsible manner in the use of living aquatic resources in areas within and beyond the limits of national jurisdiction’ (Article 5 (2) of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries, 2001). Ecosystem-based adaptation strategies for resilience building to climate change are also recognised in Article 5, which states that ‘…State Parties, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, shall, through proper conservation and management measures, ensure that aquatic living resources in the areas under their national jurisdiction are not endangered by over-exploitation (Article 5 (5) of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries, 2001).

Article 7 of the Protocol on Fisheries makes provision for the establishment of joint instruments for the coordination, cooperation, and management of shared natural resources. To this end, the Fisheries Protocol mentions specialist scientific/technical advisory groups and joint ministerial commissions (Article 7 (4) of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries, 2001). The Benguela Current Commission (hereafter BCC) is one such institution that was established in 2007 (Benguela Current Convention (BCC), 2023. The BCC is established between South Africa, Angola, and Namibia). The objective of the BCC is to foster integrated management, sustainable development, and an ecosystem approach in governing the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem. This approach is promoted in the Benguela Current Convention (The Benguela Current Commission established the Benguela Current Convention on the 18th of March 2013), which confirms the ecosystem approach. The Convention takes a holistic view of environmental governance by acknowledging cooperation, collaboration, and sovereign equality, sustainable use, and management. It further recognises the precautionary and preventative principle, avoidance and mitigation of pollution, the polluter pays principle, and the protection of biodiversity in the marine ecosystem (Article 4 (1) of the Benguela Current Convention).

Provisions recognising adaptation practices that foster resilience to climate change are recognised in article 14 of the Fisheries Protocol, which provides for the protection of the aquatic environment (Article 14 of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries, 2001). These measures require member states to: ‘(i) conserve aquatic ecosystems, including their biodiversity and unique habitats, which contribute to the livelihood and aesthetic values of the people and the Region; (ii) apply the precautionary principle to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control do not cause excessive transboundary adverse impacts; (iii) address the causes of aquatic environmental degradation by undertaking measures in conformity with the Treaty and its Protocols and other international treaties and conventions of relevance to the environment; (iv) in close co-operation with the SADC institutions and relevant international agencies take concerted action to protect endangered living aquatic species and their habitats; (v) co-ordinate the establishment of inland and marine protected areas, with particular reference to critical habitats and endangered species, especially migratory species in transboundary areas; (vi) adopt the necessary legislative and administrative measures to prevent pollution of waters by inland, coastal or offshore activities; and (vii) promote the use of energy efficient and clean technologies in the fishing and aquaculture sectors’.

The SADC Protocol on Environmental Management and Sustainable Development (hereafter SADC Protocol on Environmental Management – see https://pmg.org.za/files/190305SADC_Enviro_Protocol.pptx, accessed 20 July 2023. The SADC Protocol on Environmental Management and Sustainable Development was signed by Namibia, 2014), recognises adaptation practices that foster resilience to climate change. It requires member states to adopt the following measures that are aimed at the following: (i) the conservation of ecosystems that support peoples’ livelihoods; (ii) the adoption of laws directed towards protecting natural resource for both present and future generations; and (iii) ensuring the equitable access and benefit sharing of natural resources and through ecosystem-based approached that promote climate resilience to climate impacts (Article 8 (1)-(7) of the SADC Protocol on Environmental Management). In addition, article 12 of the SADC Protocol on Environmental Management provides for climate change resilience measures that member states are required to comply with. These measures include the adoption of legislative and administrative measures that foster climate resilience. Further, member states are required to collaborate with other member states, regionally and internationally, to exchange knowledge, build capacity, and transfer technology that promotes adaptation and mitigation to climate impacts.

From the discussion in the paragraphs above, it can be deduced that the African regional documents, as well as the interpretations of the African Commission, provide for environmental rights. They also require governments to contribute to the realisation of the right to the environment, as well as environmentally sustainable development and utilisation of natural resources (Article 24 of the African Charter, Article 111 (1) of the Revised African Convention; Social and Economic Rights Action Centre for Economic and Social Rights (SERAC) v Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Comm No 155/96, 2001). The SADC Protocol on Environmental Management also recognises ecosystem-based adaptation strategies for resilience building with respect to climate change. In this regard, Namibia should include climate-specific regulatory measures that recognise adaptation strategies for climate resilience building, including (a) natural resource conservation; (b) preventing ecological degradation; and (c) sustainable use and management of natural resources. Namibia could benefit from learning from South Africa (which has a specific law called the Climate Change Act 22 of 2024) and the United Kingdom (which has the Climate Change Act of 2008) insofar as adopting laws to provide long-term frameworks to manage climate change. Additional lessons could be drawn from Australia and Canada, as will be discussed later in this paper.

The Social-Ecological Resilience Framework and Namibia’s Climate Change Laws and Policies

In this section, elements of the social-ecological systems framework will be used to analyse Namibian laws and policies on climate change and the blue fishing economy. It should be noted from the onset that while Namibia has a policy about climate change, it does not have a dedicated law that addresses the issue specifically, unlike countries such as South Africa and the United Kingdom. Namibia has a fragmented legal system with provisions on climate change, which will be covered in more detail below.

Environmental Management Act

The Environmental Management Act, 2007 (hereafter EMA), whose aim is to ‘promote the sustainable management of the environment and the use of natural resources’ (Section 1 of the EMA), recognises adaptation strategies that foster resilience building to climate change. For instance in Section 3(2) of the EMA which provides for the principles of environmental management, namely: ‘(i) renewable resources must be used on a sustainable basis for the benefit of present and future generations; (ii) sustainable development must be promoted in all aspects relating to the environment; (iii) Namibia’s cultural and natural heritage, including its biological diversity, must be protected and respected for the benefit of present and future generations; (v) polluter pays principle’ (Section 3(2) (k) of the EMA); and (vi) precautionary (Section 3(2) (j) of the EMA); and (vii) prevention principle (Section 3(2) (I) of the EMA).

Provisions that promote collaboration by a diversity of stakeholders are recognised among the principles of environmental management in the EMA, namely: ‘(i) community involvement in natural resources management and the sharing of benefits arising from the use of the resources, must be promoted and facilitated and (ii) the participation of all interested and affected parties must be promoted and decisions must take into account the interest, needs and values of interested and affected parties’ (Sections 3(2) (b) and (c) of the EMA). It can also be argued that regulations to the EMA on environmental impact assessments recognise the collaboration of a diversity of stakeholders, as they require interested and affected parties which include traditional authorities to be consulted before any listed activity occurs within marine ecosystems (Section 7(1) read together with section 21 of Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations GN 30 of 2012 in GG 4878, n.d.). However, there is no compelling evidence to suggest extensive collaboration with different stakeholders, in particular, marginalised communities. This is an area that needs significant improvement in Namibia.

Marine Resources Act

The Marine Resources Act, 2007 (hereafter MRA), recognises the importance of ecosystem-based approaches to foster resilience to climate change. Its preamble states that the purpose of the Act is, ‘to provide for the conservation of the marine ecosystem and the responsible utilization, conservation, protection and promotion of marine resources on a sustainable basis’. Further, the promotion of ecosystem-based approaches to foster resilience to climate change are recognised in Section 37 of the MRA which requires Namibia as a party to the UNCLOS, to comply with provisions in the Convention that deal with the protection and preservation of the Marine Environment (Section 37 (3) (a) of the MRA. Part XII of the UNCLOS deals with the protection and preservation of the Marine Environment).

Furthermore, the recognition of adaptation strategies to foster climate resilience is arguably recognised in regulations of the MRA on conservation. The measures for conservation are those related to the following: (i) fishing gear used for commercial purposes, the clearance of fishing vessels (see Sections 12 and 13 in GN 2657 in GG 241 of 7 December 2001); measurement of meshes of fishing nets and any attachments to trawl nets (see sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 in GN 2657 in GG 241 of 7 December 2001); protected marine species that are not allowed to be killed, disturbed or injured (see sections 18, 19 and 20 in GN 2657 in GG 241 of 7 December 2001) and marine reserves (see section 22 in GN 2657 in GG 241 of 7 December 2001). However, the MRA excludes marginalised communities from its coverage. As a result, the MRA framework needs to be amended to adopt an inclusive approach. There is also disagreement about which statute governs marine-related environmental concerns (Minister of Tourism and Environment Report of the 2016/17 implementation of the Environmental Management Act, 2007 (Act 7 of 2007) to the National Assembly). It appears that in practice, the EMA’s application is limited to land-based environmental protection, whereas the MRA pertains to the maritime environment. There is a need to clarify this issue to promote resilience to climate change in Namibia as section 95(l) of Namibia’s constitution commits the state to ensuring the ‘maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilisation of living natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians, both present and future’.

Aquaculture Act

The adaptation strategies that foster climate resilience are recognised in section 13 of the Aquaculture Act, 2002. In terms of this section, ‘any person who intends to practice aquaculture is required to do so with a license issued by the Minister in accordance with the provisions of section’. Section 13 also recognises the precautionary principle as it requires the applicant of the license to have obtained an environmental clearance certificate where an environmental impact assessment is required according to the relevant laws (Section 13 of the Aquaculture Act 18 of 2002).

Namibia’s aquaculture is dominated by commercial marine aquaculture (mariculture) (Series Report No. 2 on the Fisheries and Aquaculture review in the 22 ATFALCO member countries 2012: 12). Such mariculture is dominated by oyster and abalone production in Luderitz, Swakopmund, and Walvis Bay. The Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and European oyster (Ostrea edulis) are grown in Namibia. There is also mariculture based on seaweed (Gracilaria verricosa). Most notable about seaweed mariculture in Namibia is the fact that Kelp Blue, a Netherlands-based organisation that grows kelp, was in 2024 awarded a 15-year commercial licence to cultivate the giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) across a 6400-ha offshore site located in the//Kharas region at Luderitz (Ndadi, 2024). Kelp is a seaweed that grows quickly and can improve fish populations, increase marine biodiversity, and store more carbon dioxide (CO2) than terrestrial forests. Other ecological advantages of seaweed include reducing ocean acidification and decarbonisation in the fight against climate change. It is anticipated that seaweed aquaculture will mitigate the effects of climate change in Namibia. To date, the number of resident marine species has increased from 135 to around 800 thanks to Kelp Blue’s kelp forests in Shearwater Bay in Namibia.

Climate Change Policy

Namibia’s climate policy arguably recognises adaptation strategies that foster resilience building to climate change through its provisions on disaster reduction and risk management (Section 4.13 of the Namibia Climate Change Policy, 2011). To this end, the policy requires the state, ‘to ensure disaster risk reduction and adequate preparedness for climate change-induced disasters’ (Section 4.13 of the Namibia Climate Change Policy, 2011). Namibia’s climate change policy recognises the collaboration of a diversity of stakeholders in climate change implementation (Section 3.3 of the Namibia Climate Change Policy, 2011). To this end, the policy recognises ‘the need to ensure the participation of women, children and other vulnerable/marginalised groups and individuals, as well as the use of appropriate local knowledge for adaptation’. However, the wording of the policy needs to be translated into legislation. Policies are compelling but not binding. Namibia requires a climate change law that addresses more comprehensive aspects of climate change, particularly in coastal zones. To address this dilemma, this paper recommends, among other things, a Climate Change Act for Namibia. The next section of this paper provides a brief overview of selected Commonwealth member states’ climate legislation in order to draw lessons for Namibia.

Lessons from Climate Laws of Commonwealth Member States

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act 2008 provides a statutory long-term emissions target. The Act states that the economy-wide annual emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 should be 80% lower than the 1990 levels (The United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act, 2008, Part 1). The purpose of this provision is to offer a clear legal signal about the long-term direction of policy travel (Fankhauser et al., 2018: 2). The target was informed by science, which is central to the credibility of the framework (Part 1 of the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act, 2008). The Act aims at ensuring the reduction of marine carbon dioxide levels. A reduction in levels of carbon dioxide in marine ecosystems is crucial because oceans absorb 31% of carbon dioxide emissions annually and store about 93% of the earth’s carbon dioxide. A climate law that mandates measures to ensure that marine ecosystems sequester carbon is critical. An additional noteworthy feature in the United Kingdom Climate law is the introduction of carbon budgets, which has facilitated emissions reduction, particularly in the power sector (Part 1 of the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act, 2008). The Act requires the adoption of a rolling set of medium-term targets called carbon budgets (Part 1 of the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act, 2008). Each carbon budget provides a statutory cap on economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions over a period of 5 years (Part 1 of the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act, 2008). The time span and the economy-wide scope provide the flexibility to accommodate fluctuations across time and space (Part 1 of the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act, 2008). The Act also prescribes a continuous approach to adaptation (Fankhauser et al., 2018, p. 2). There is a 5-year cycle that begins with a comprehensive Climate Change Risk Assessment, which is followed by a National Adaptation Programme, before the cycle starts again (Fankhauser et al., 2018: 2).

The United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act is a notable development in that most pieces of marine legislation in the United Kingdom did not explicitly consider natural climate variability or anthropogenic climate change (Frost et al., 2016). Further, the pieces of legislation were fragmented and not consolidated, as is the case in Namibia. The 2008 Climate Act, when read together with the United Kingdom Marine Strategy Framework Directive of 2010, presents an important marine legislative framework to address climate change’s impact on marine biodiversity. Emphasis in these pieces of legislation is placed on promoting sustainable marine resource management. Namibia could do well to adopt a dedicated climate change law that covers areas relating to marine ecosystem management. Climate change is not an express feature of the current environmental and fisheries laws in Namibia. There has been a notable increase in knowledge of climate change impacts, which requires contemporary legislation to take such impacts into account. Marine biodiversity laws must take into account contemporary trends in climate change impacts on marine biodiversity in Namibia, as has been the case in the United Kingdom.

Canada

Canada has a Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, 2021, which sets out Canada’s federal emissions reduction targets in law and creates new mechanisms for legislative oversight of action to meet them (Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability, 2021, c. 22 Assented to 2021-06-29). In terms of section 9 of the Act, the Minister is obligated to develop a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan for 2030 within 6 months of the passage of the Act, including an interim objective for 2026 (Sections 9(1), (2) and (2.1) read together with section 7 of the Act of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability, 2021). A key feature of the Act are provisions that require public participation in the emissions target setting process (Section 13 of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability, 2021) and public access to progress reports pertaining to emissions targets, as this promotes transparency and accountability to ensure progress (Sections 13 and 14 of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability, 2021). The public participation component of Canada’s Act would be a plausible addition to Namibia’s Climate Change Act, should policymakers adopt one. Further, Canada’s Act sets an example on how to mitigate the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems. Climate change impacts cause notable damage to marine organisms and ecosystems (Williamson & Guinder, 2021, 115).

Canada is also in the process of adopting a biodiversity accountability law that is aimed at ensuring that it fulfils its marine and terrestrial nature commitments. A bill was tabled in late 2024 to commence the process of passing a law that ensures that strategies and plans are in place to ensure effective national biodiversity strategies and action plans. The new biodiversity law is anticipated to add impetus to efforts already set in motion through the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to ensure that a concrete biodiversity strategy is in place in Canada. The key takeaway from Canada’s experience is that they are taking deliberate measures aimed at ensuring that they have adequate laws that speak directly to climate risk vulnerability in the context of marine ecosystems. Namibia needs to adopt climate-specific laws aimed at mitigating the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems.

Australia

Australia has a Climate Change Act, 2022, which sets out greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets as a 43% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050 (Section 10(1) (a) and (b) of the Australian Climate Change Act, 2022). A key feature of the Act is that it obligates the Minister for Climate Change to deliver an annual statement to Parliament detailing Australia’s progress towards achieving its emissions reduction targets, including providing updates on the effectiveness of Australia’s climate change policies in achieving these targets and any relevant international developments (Section 12 of the Australian Climate Change Act, 2022). An additional key feature of the Climate Change Act is that it confers advisory functions on the Climate Change Authority, which is independent, to advise the Minister on the preparation of annual climate change statements (Section 14 of the Australian Climate Change Act, 2022). Further, the Authority has the responsibility to advise the Minister on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to be included in a new or adjusted nationally determined contribution (Section 15 of the Australian Climate Change Act, 2022). The Act also requires the Minister to implement periodic review of the operation of the Climate Change Act, and this process must make provision for public participation (Section 17 of the Australian Climate Change Act, 2022). The element of periodic review should be an integral feature of the Climate Change law, which Namibia should adopt.

The aquaculture industry has seen significant change as a result of the adoption of the Australian Climate Change Act. In order to ensure that aquaculture businesses survive and even prosper in the face of climate change, the Act has established new sustainability criteria and prioritised climate-resilient infrastructure, carbon footprint reduction, and technology utilisation. The Act promotes net-zero goals by 2050 by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. It encourages fish farms to switch to renewable energy sources and imposes stricter environmental reporting requirements on aquaculture companies. Namibia is susceptible to the effects of climate change even after completing its Long-term Low-Emission Development Strategy in May 2025, which establishes the framework for the country’s transition to a net-zero and climate-resilient economy by 2050. Droughts, water scarcity, and rising temperatures have all been occurring in Namibia. These pose a threat to the country’s main economic sectors, which include tourism, agriculture, and fishing. According to projections by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Tourism, if climate change is not appropriately addressed, there might be a 3.6% annual Gross Domestic Product loss in Namibia by 2050 (MEFT, 2025). It is therefore prudent that Namibia adopts strict regulatory measures and not policy measures to curb the effects of climate change in the marine ecosystem.

South Africa

South Africa has a Climate Change Act 22 of 2024, the Act seeks to ‘enable the development of an effective climate change response and a long-term, just transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy and society for South Africa in the context of sustainable development’ (see the long title of the South Africa Climate Change Act 22 of 2024). A number of measures in the South Africa Climate Change Act could promote climate resilience in the blue economy, which Namibia could modify to fit its unique circumstances. The Climate Act’s section 25 on sectoral emission objectives that specifically include the fishing industry, which is listed in Schedule 2 of the Act, is a crucial component in this respect. According to this part, the Environment Minister should, for example, work with the Fisheries Ministry to develop strategies that increase marine ecosystems’ ability to withstand the effects of climate change, such as rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification. Section 31’s provision on cooperative governance, which mandates that the Minister in charge of environmental affairs consult with representatives from the national, provincial, and local levels of government before using any authority related to climate change, is another important aspect of the Climate Act. Integrating information from different governmental levels will encourage inclusive policies that support climate resilience.

Another important provision of the Climate Act is section 32. Section 32 promotes climate resilience and places emphasis on public participation before any powers can be exercised by designated authorities with respect to climate change. In this regard, the Environment Minister, provincial executive members, and mayors are also obliged to publish notices inviting the public, including members of marginalised communities, to table ideas relating to adaptation plans that can be adopted to curb the impact of climate change. In the context of the blue economy, this is a crucial part of marine spatial planning, which ensures inclusive decision-making by giving coastal communities an opportunity to incorporate their traditional knowledge and customs in addressing climate change vulnerabilities relating to diminishing fish stocks and rising sea levels. Based on the above analysis of South Africa’s Climate Change Act, Namibia can draw various lessons that can be implemented to promote climate change resilience that fosters a sustainable blue economy: (i) sectoral adaptation plans based on emissions targets; (ii) cooperative governance; and (iii) multi-level stakeholder involvement in climate-related decision-making.

To promote a sustainable blue economy, Namibia, which is dependent on fisheries and coastal tourism, should learn from South Africa’s Climate Change Act in the following ways: (1) Embed Constitutional Protections for Marine Environments: Namibia can strengthen legal frameworks to protect marine ecosystems, ensuring sustainable use of resources like fish stocks, as inspired by South Africa’s Preamble. This supports long-term resilience for coastal communities. (2) Prioritize Adaptation for Marine Sectors: Developing sector-specific adaptation plans for fisheries and coastal management, as outlined in South Africa’s Schedules 1 and 2, can help Namibia address climate threats like ocean warming and acidification, preserving its blue economy. (3) Promote Inclusive Stakeholder Engagement: Adopting South Africa’s public participation model (Section 32) ensures that Namibian fishing communities and marine stakeholders are involved in policy-making, aligning climate strategies with local needs. (4) Enhance Transparency and Access to Information: Implementing South Africa’s approach to information access (Section 34) empowers Namibian stakeholders with climate data, enabling informed adaptation decisions for marine ecosystems. (5) Foster Cooperative Governance: Namibia can emulate South Africa’s cooperative governance model (Section 31) to integrate national, regional, and local inputs into marine climate policies, ensuring holistic and inclusive resilience strategies. (6) Support a Just Transition for Coastal Communities: Drawing from South Africa’s just transition framework, Namibia can develop programs to transition coastal economies to low-carbon practices, such as sustainable aquaculture, while supporting livelihoods.

Conclusion

Noting that climate change impacts in the ocean will have severe consequences to the sustainability of Namibia’s fishing sector, this paper proposes adaptive governance as a mode of governance that can foster climate resilience that promotes sustainability within Namibia’s economy. The research of the legislative framework conducted in the paper revealed that there is a need for a dedicated law aimed at building climate resilience and promoting sustainability in Namibia's BE. Whilst climate change is acknowledged in policy documents, there is no express Namibian legislation on climate change. It is proposed that Namibia adopt a climate law that draws lessons from important elements of selected Commonwealth states discussed in this paper.

In addition to suggesting a climate law for Namibia, the authors of this paper suggested amending the EMA and the MRA as the framework law to include short-term provisions that would promote climate resilience and the achievement of sustainability in the blue economy by implementing provisions that acknowledge the following: (i) adaptation strategies for social-ecological resilience building to be collectively devised and implement by government, local community groups, private landowners and civil society; (ii) the collaboration of stakeholders sharing a resource, rights and responsibilities at multiple levels and scales; (iii) diversity of knowledge in decision-making; information sharing; (iv) provisions of social-learning sharing in the form of researches, educational workshops and seminars; (v) monitoring rule compliance and change within the environment; and (vi) review of management plans and programmes to cater for changes in the environment.