Namibia has and continuous to implement various actions to increase the total surface area, across the terrestrial, inland water and marine and coastal ecosystems under some form of conservation. Actions include having strengthened the management and effectiveness of its protected area network through the implementation of approved park management plans (i.e., 15 out of 21 national parks were operating under management plans aligned with SMART principles), introducing monitoring tools such as the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (NAMETT/METT) and the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) to improve law enforcement, infrastructure management, fire management and biodiversity monitoring (i.e., in most of the national parks and few conservancies), promoting ecological connectivity either through delimitating wildlife corridors [i.e., five key corridors that promote transboundary movement and numerous that allow movement between conservancies and or national parks], maintaining and expanding the 86 communal and about 19 freehold conservancies or establishing Transfrontier Conservation Areas (1 inland and 2 coastal), establishment of marine protected areas, gazetting of 10 community fisheries reserves, and developing a national framework for the implementation of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). A key component to the implementation of OECMs is ensuring the rights of IPLCs. Presently, the country following the established guidelines is currently exploring the potential of enlisting the freehold conservancies and private reserves under OECMs. 

Progress

The key headline indicator to track progress of this indicator is 3.1 Coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. At the global level, parties committed that by 2030, 30% of land, waters and seas are conserved. At present, almost half of Namibia total land surface area is under some form of conservation management, 388,039 km2 of 825,615 km² (46.8%). However, less than 2% of its marine system is declared as a protected area (~9,501 km2 of the 553,137.78 km2 Exclusive Economic Zone). In terms of inland water, 10 fisheries reserves have been gazetted. However, the spatial extent of these was unavailable at the time of the compilation of this report. Altogether, these estimates suggest that Namibia is on track to achieve its commitment of conserving 30% of terrestrial landscape by 2030 and that significant efforts are required to reach a similar target for the inland water (and or 20%) and of marine and coastal ecosystems. In terms of effectiveness, protected areas have been effectively managed and attaining their objectives. For instance, anti-poaching efforts with communities playing a central role have been successful in reducing illegal harvesting of high valued species (i.e., rhinos and elephants). Populations of wildlife in protected areas have serve as source and supplementing populations during translocations programs. Fish reserves are reported to equally serve as source populations with communities experiencing higher returns (e.g., able to sell larger fish).  

Overall, the progress towards this target is deemed as partial achieved, with strong institutional and technical improvements but remaining structural, ecological representation, and financing challenges. 

Challenges  

Despite significant progress in strengthening Namibia’s protected area network, several key challenges remain. A major constraint is the absence of a comprehensive and fully operational Sustainable Financing Plan to guide long-term funding for the protected area system. While investments have increased, financing remains project-based and not fully institutionalized. In addition, revenue generation and employment data within the protected area network are not systematically tracked, limiting evidence-based financial planning. Connectivity corridors and buffer zones are also not yet fully established at the conservation area scale, which affects landscape-level conservation effectiveness. For instance, failure in the implementation of certain IRLUPs has resulted in human encroachment into wildlife corridors. Similar reports are noted around State Forest Reserves. This calls for improved integration and alignment of policies of the various administrative tiers ranging from areas headman through ministers. Furthermore, inconsistencies in monitoring capacity and data reporting across parks present ongoing implementation challenges. Not all national parks have finalized and approved management plans. Some biomes are still underrepresented within the protected area system, creating ecological representation gaps.  

To ameliorate the identified challenges, a whole of society approach needs to be cultivated, increase community awareness about the potential of various land uses such as OECMs, review monetary systems (e.g., review park fees), increase ecological representation with the conservation area network, system-wide coverage, expand on existing national platform developed to track this target and moreover strengthen interinstitutional relationship to facilitate flow of resources in particular data.

To improve the likelihood of achieving this target by 2030, the most immediate need is to increase awareness of OECMs across sectors and country at large. This may be attractive as it builds on recognizing the conservation outcomes delivered through community-based natural resource management, private land conservation, fisheries management systems and indigenous stewardship arrangements, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens. Awareness strategies must be tailored to the different segments of the society (e.g., farmers, etc.). A need also exists to interrogate the potential to expand the number of island waters and sea reserves and protected areas. For instance, how can the private sector play a role here. Equally needed is the mapping the spatial extent of the existing 10 fisheries reserves and most importantly continue monitoring the source sink dynamics and the flow benefits to resource users. Complementing these will be needed rresources including technological (e.g., access to high earth observation resolution data to track targets), human (e.g., knowledge and skills regarding effective monitoring) and financial gaps (e.g., to support the integration of fragmented components for effective and efficient tracking of this target). 

Namibia is recognized as a leader in community based natural resource management with 86 communal conservancies covering about 26% of the country total surface area (166,179 km2). Registering of conservancies has been gradual since the amendment of the Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1975 in 1996. Despite enduring diverse operational and socio-ecological challenges, no communal conservancy has, to date, been de-gazetted. This is indicative of the system resilience, and long-term contributions towards the direct conservation of biodiversity. Further information of this action can be found at https://nacso.org.na/books-and-posters/   and spatial dynamics at  https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/45d98abbf1474aa7927060fe234f38dd/page/Home  .

Ecosystem Map for Namibia has been developed through the SBAPP Project Building biodiversity knowledge for action in Southern Africa: spatial biodiversity assessment, prioritisation and planning in South Africa, Namibia, Mozambique and Malawi

Namibia contributes to SDG 15.1 and 15.4 through its extensive conservation estate. Approximately 17% of terrestrial land area is under formal protection (2023), complemented by 86 registered communal conservancies (2024) covering roughly 20% of Namibia’s land surface. This landscape-level conservation network enhances connectivity and ecosystem representation.

Marine conservation measures support SDG 14.5, with marine protected areas contributing to sustainable fisheries management.

Nature-based tourism linked to protected areas contributes significantly to GDP and employment, advancing SDG 8.9.

Aligned agreements:

Convention on Biological Diversity

Ramsar Convention 

Namibia undertook multiple initiatives towards managing sustainably its resources, ranging from agriculture, fisheries, wildlife and forestry. Some of the actions include (1) strengthened rangeland by conducting land degradation assessment to two regions with data available for the three subindicators (NDVI, SOC and LCLU), expanding and managing community forests (i.e., community forests managed through management plans, training on forest inventories, sustainable harvesting, permit systems, and livelihood activities (e.g., beekeeping, devil’s claw) as well as communal conservancies (e.g., conducting audit of event books, conducting annual game counts to inform conservation hunting quota setting), (2) improved environmental compliance in agriculture (i.e., conducting EIAs for major agricultural schemes such as Green Scheme Project, Liselo Irrigation, Katima Farm, Cape Orchard; undertook awareness activities to improve EIA/EMP compliance, though enforcement remains uneven; (3) implemented bush‑control and restoration measures (i.e., producing a national Bush Harvesting Guidelines (2017); supported value chains for charcoal, bush‑based animal feed, and wood products); (4) monitored vegetation and land‑use change (i.e., national assessments confirmed declines in forest land, grassland and cropland, and increases in wooded areas and settlements; mapping of bush encroachment areas); (5) advancing Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) (i.e., developed a draft MSP under the Benguela Current Convention, prepared a Current Status Report and aligned MSP with sectoral and biodiversity priorities); (6) conducted scientific stock assessments (i.e., conducted annual biomass surveys, CPUE analyses, and stock‑status assessments for key fisheries such as hake, monk, red crab, horse mackerel, sardine, rock lobster) and reviewing the hake management plan (the only formal fishery plan in place during the period); (7) strengthened inland fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance (i.e., gazetted 20 Fisheries Protected Areas, conducted riverine patrols, inspections, and joint operations with police, adopted new regulations on gear restrictions and seasonal closures); (8) Regulating aquaculture and mariculture (i.e., required aquaculture licences, Environmental Clearances, Environmental Management Plans, and compliance inspections, drafted biosecurity and shellfish sanitation regulations; monitored aquatic animal health and disease risks); (9) integrated the ecosystem approach in fisheries management (i.e., applied scientific data to define TACs, used observer programmes and monitoring systems to track sustainability indicators); (10) Identifying Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) (i.e., identified, peer-reviewed, and validated seven EBSAs; two were newly identified and five refined). 

1) Summary of progress and main outcomes

Sustainable management of marine and aquatic resources

Overall progress: Partially achieved 
Main outcomes:

Ecosystem‑based fisheries management improved through regular scientific stock assessments (biomass surveys, CPUE analysis) and TAC‑based harvest regulation. Several commercial stocks (e.g., monk, red crab) reached or approached sustainable levels.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) advanced significantly, with a functional National Working Group and a draft Marine Spatial Plan integrating ecological priorities.

Seven EBSAs were identified and validated, and incorporated into the draft MSP, along with proposed conservation measures.

Inland fisheries management strengthened, with 20 Fisheries Protected Areas (FPAs) gazetted, new gear restrictions, surveillance patrols, and enforcement operations.

Aquaculture/mariculture regulatory safeguards implemented (licensing, ECCs, EMPs, biosecurity protocols), though income data remains incomplete.

Sustainable rangeland, agriculture, and forest management

Overall progress: Partially to largely achieved 
Main outcomes:

National progress supported by land degradation assessments (UNCCD‑aligned land cover, productivity, soil carbon monitoring).

Community forestry expanded to 46 gazetted forests (≈9 million ha), with active management plan updates and improved permit and monitoring systems.

Bush Control & Biomass Utilisation (BCBU) and other restoration initiatives advanced, producing national bush‑harvesting guidelines and creating bush‑based value chains (charcoal, fodder, wood products).

Increased application of EIAs for major agricultural projects (e.g., Green Scheme), with targeted awareness activities.

National vegetation assessments show major shifts in land cover, with bush encroachment affecting an estimated 45 million ha.

Regional restoration activities and livelihood initiatives (beekeeping, devil’s claw harvesting) have supported sustainable resource use. 

2) Key challenges and suggested approaches for further implementation

Key Challenges

• Legal adoption delays: MSP and sectoral fisheries management plans remain unapproved, leaving proposed conservation measures unenforceable.
• Unsustainable stock levels persist for several key species (e.g., horse mackerel, rock lobster), with sardine and orange roughly still under moratorium.
• Weak enforcement capacity in inland fisheries (staff shortages, limited resources).
• Data gaps on aquaculture income and inconsistent biosecurity compliance.
• Absence of a consolidated national rangeland and agriculture report, limiting national‑scale planning.
• Inconsistent EIA compliance across agriculture, with no national enforcement review.
• Severe bush encroachment continues to degrade rangeland productivity, biodiversity, and groundwater recharge.
• Limited funding and uneven implementation for restoration and sustainable agriculture.
• Some community forests still lack fully implemented management plans and face illegal harvesting pressures.
•  

Suggested Approaches

• Fast‑track Cabinet approval of the Marine Spatial Plan to legalize EBSA protection measures.
• Develop and implement species‑specific fisheries management plans for all major stocks.
• Increase MCS capacity (patrols, cross‑agency cooperation, technology‑enabled monitoring).  
• Strengthen aquaculture monitoring, economic data reporting, and certification to align with international biosecurity standards.  
• Produce a national rangeland and agriculture status report to guide coordinated interventions.
• Strengthen agricultural EIA enforcement, including departmental compliance audits.
• Scale up national bush‑thinning and restoration programmes, with stronger value‑chain development for biomass utilisation.
• Expand community forestry capacity, including enforcement and monitoring support.
• Integrate climate‑smart agriculture more systematically and promote private‑sector partnerships for restoration financing. 

Global data for the Headline Indicator: MEA Tracking Platform of Namibia:  

• Namibia correspondence report to FAO: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 (FAO FRA)
• Global data for Soil organic Carbon (SOC) is available on the ISRIC World Soil Information - Soilgrids is a datsystem for digital soil mapping based on a global compilation of soil profile data (WoSIS) and environmental layers: Soilgrids  
• Indicator metadata and global methodology from UNCCD/LDN Framework

Sustainable Management of Marine & Aquatic Resources

Examples Demonstrating Effectiveness

1. Improved Management of Commercial Fish Stocks

• Example: Scientific stock assessments guided TACs and contributed to sustainability gains.
• Monk and deep‑sea red crab stocks recovered to or near sustainable levels due to consistent biomass monitoring and TAC regulation.
• Hake, although overfished historically, is now harvested at sustainable levels under an established management plan. [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Demonstrates how evidence‑based harvest controls stabilize key fisheries.

2. Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Advancements

• Example: Development of a draft Marine Spatial Plan integrating ecological, social, and economic priorities through the Benguela Current Convention.
• Supported by an active National Working Group.
• Ensures balanced spatial allocation for fishing, conservation, mining, and tourism. [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Establishes a national framework for long‑term sustainable ocean governance. 
  Reference: https://www.mfmr.gov.na/ (contextual source)
•  

3. Identification of Ecologically & Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs)

• Example: Seven EBSAs identified and peer‑reviewed; incorporated into the draft MSP with proposed conservation measures. 
  [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Creates an evidence‑based foundation for future MPAs and ecosystem‑based management.

4. Strengthened Inland Fisheries Enforcement

• Example: Gazettement of 20 Fisheries Protected Areas, enforcement patrols, revised gear regulations, and seasonal closures. 
  [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Reduces illegal fishing pressure and protects spawning grounds in key river systems.

5. Regulated, Safer Aquaculture & Mariculture

• Example: Mandatory aquaculture licensing, Environmental Clearance Certificates, EMPs, and biosecurity protocols help ensure responsible practices. [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Minimizes disease risk, pollution, and biodiversity impacts associated with aquaculture expansion.
• Related material: https://www.mfmr.gov.na/  

Sustainable Rangeland, Agriculture & Forest Management

Examples Demonstrating Effectiveness

1. Expansion & Functionality of Community Forests

• Example: 46 community forests (≈9 million ha) gazetted and actively implementing management plans, conducting forest inventories, and enforcing permit systems. 
  [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Reduces illegal harvesting, improves sustainable forest use, and strengthens local stewardship.

2. Bush Control & Biomass Utilisation (BCBU) Successes

• Example: National Bush Harvesting Guidelines (2017) and bush‑based value chains (charcoal, animal feed) developed; restoration efforts underway. [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness:
• Reduces bush encroachment across 45 million hectares,
• Restores grazing capacity,
• Generates rural employment and export revenue (charcoal).
• Relevant reading:

https://www.bushcontrol.com.na (contextual)

3. Regional Land Degradation Assessments

• Example: UNCCD‑aligned monitoring of land cover, productivity, and soil carbon; regional assessments in Otjozondjupa and Omusati. 
  [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Provides the evidence base to guide large‑scale rangeland restoration.

4. Improved Agricultural EIA Implementation

• Example: EIAs conducted for major agricultural schemes (e.g., Green Scheme Project, Liselo, Katima Farm). [greenclimate.fund]
• Effectiveness: Ensures large-scale farming complies with environmental safeguards, reducing long-term damage.

5. Sustainable Livelihoods Supporting Resource Conservation

• Example: Community forestry programmes created alternative livelihoods, beekeeping, devil’s claw harvesting, etc., reducing pressure on forests and rangelands. [greenclimate.fund]

Relevant SDGs: 

• SDG 14 (Life Below Water) – sustainable fisheries, marine spatial planning, and EBSA identification all directly support SDG 14.2, 14.4 and 14.5. 
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) – sustainable fish stocks and strengthened inland fisheries contribute to food and nutrition security. 
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) – regulated aquaculture, controlled harvesting, and improved MCS systems align with sustainable production targets. 
• SDG 15 (Life on Land) – rangeland restoration, sustainable forest management, and control of land degradation directly support SDG 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3. 
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) – sustainable rangeland management, bush‑control measures, and improved agricultural practices increase productivity and help ensure food security. 
• SDG 13 (Climate Action) – land‑based climate resilience efforts, bush encroachment mitigation and restoration programmes align with climate adaptation commitments. 

Related Agreements: 

• UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) – Namibia’s national land degradation assessments and monitoring (land cover, productivity, soil carbon) are directly aligned with its UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality commitments.  
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – community forestry, restoration, and sustainable agriculture contribute to safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. 
• SADC Forestry and Rangeland Protocols – strengthened community forestry and restoration practices support regional sustainable land‑use cooperation. 
• Benguela Current Convention (BCC) – Namibia’s progress in marine spatial planning and EBSA identification is part of regional cooperation through the BCC.  
• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – improved stock assessment, enforcement, and ecosystem‑based management strengthen Namibia’s compliance with marine resource obligations. 
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – ecosystem‑based fisheries management, coastal conservation and EBSA identification advance CBD marine‑related targets. 

• Implementation of Target 10 contributes to restoring degraded land, strengthening ecosystem and livelihood resilience, and advancing Namibia’s commitments under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by promoting sustainable land‑use systems and improving food security. At the same time, progress under Target 10 also enhances sustainable resource governance across agriculture, rangelands, forestry, and wildlife, strengthens regional cooperation mechanisms, and reinforces Namibia’s compliance with biodiversity‑related obligations. Collectively, these actions help establish biodiversity‑friendly, climate‑resilient production systems that support long‑term national sustainability goals. 

Namibia has taken a number of actions towards implementing this target. Central here is the establishment of the Namibian Invasive Alien Species Working Group in 2022, which is a collaborative effort between the Namibian government and non-governmental partners in response to the increasing threats caused by invasive alien plant species in Namibia. Through this working group the country conducted a review of its legislation on invasive alien species and found that a distinct lack of cohesion prevails in the current legal landscape. This prevailing fragmentation within the legal framework engenders the potential for regulatory gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies, ultimately diminishing the overall effectiveness of the legislative regime established to combat invasive alien species. The group is also in the process of drafting of a national Action Plan. Additional actions include some localized interventions, interventions including establishing trial sites for the biological control of invasive cacti, continued monitoring of Salvinia molesta in the Zambezi Region, and targeted assessments through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes. For the Prosopis species, a project has been initiated that envisages to clear and rehabilitate 6000 hectares of degraded land, mostly in the southern part of Namibia. While focusing on its eradication, the latter project also explores the provisional services of Prosopis such as firewood, animal feed, and wood for carving and construction. This follows a similar pathway of converting much of the 45 million hectares of encroached bush into value-added products such as energy production and feed pellets alongside control measures. Another action has been the launching of a citizen science atlas project. 

Progress towards this target is tracked through a headline indicator “6.1 Rate of invasive alien species establishment," and a binary “6.b Number of countries adopting relevant regulations, processes, and measures to reduce the impact of invasive alien species." At the time of this submission, data to produce the headline indicator was unavailable. Nonetheless, some recent studies indicate that thinning can be used to restore wildlife habitat on the Namibian farmland, as it is shown to be effective in reducing tree/shrub abundances (significantly reduced tree/shrub abundances of the 1–3- and >3-m height classes, which was still evident 7.2 years after thinning and may equalize in ~ ~14 and 15 years) conditioned that post-thinning management is implemented to maintain an open savannah vegetation structure, as the 0–1-m height class cohort, which had a faster regrowth rate post-thinning, will eventually grow into mature trees/shrubs.

In terms of binary indicator, Namibia has achieved this, as there are a number of regulatory frameworks including the Environmental Management Act. 2007: Commencement, Activities and Regulations. 2012 and Announcement of prohibition on importation of large predators and alien species of wild animals (2019). In view of these, this target is deemed to require fast-tracking if it is to be achieved.  

Additional advancements include updating the 2004 national review of invasive alien species and implementing priority control measures. While awareness materials have been updated to include 50 invasive species and a citizen science atlas project has been launched to support future mapping, a comprehensive and formally endorsed review has not yet been produced. Some progress has been made in piloting control measures, including the establishment of trial sites for biological control of invasive cacti using cochineal agents, as well as continued but limited monitoring of Salvinia molesta in the Zambezi Region and Prosopis along the Fish River. Recognition of the socio-economic dimensions of Prosopis has also prompted early efforts to explore value addition through its use for firewood, animal feed, and construction material, though these remain at a small scale. Institutional coordination has only recently improved, with the formal establishment of the Alien Invasive Species Working Group and the drafting of a national Action Plan in 2023.

Despite these steps, interventions remain under-resourced, geographically restricted, and insufficient to address the scale of the problem. Comprehensive, species-specific management plans and sustained funding streams are still absent. Overall, the target has not been achieved.

A key approach to fast-track the implementation of this target is the promotion of a whole-of-society approach. This is necessitated considering that there are over 100 invasive species and that there is limited knowledge about these species' spatial extent, biology, and ecology. Implementation should those focus on impact management and control of established invasive alien species populations, using integrated, ecosystem-based approaches that combine mechanical, biological, and indigenous ecological and traditional knowledge systems (i.e., cultural control methods) as appropriate. Priority is to be given to species and locations where invasive impacts are highest, including areas of high biodiversity value, key ecosystem service providers, or critical infrastructure.  

Control efforts should be aligned with restoration actions to ensure that areas cleared of invasive species are rehabilitated with native species and resilient ecological processes, reducing the likelihood of re-establishment. Integrated control plans will be developed through multi-stakeholder engagement, incorporating scientific guidance and local knowledge to select cost-effective and ecologically appropriate methods.  

Prioritising capacity building at national, regional, and community levels to ensure that institutions and practitioners are equipped with the skills, tools, and coordination mechanisms needed for sustained invasive species management. This includes training for extension staff, conservancy agents, land managers, and community stewards. Community engagement and awareness-raising will be integrated into control programmes to foster local ownership, support behavioural change and promote early reporting of invasive species resurgence. 

Global-Biodiversity-Information-Facility 

The Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS) presents validated and verified national checklists of introduced (alien) and invasive alien species at the country, territory, and associated island level. 

The GBIF Indicator Dashboard is embed on the MEA Tracking Platform of Namibia 

For the Alien Invasive Working Group, https://n-c-e.org/namibian-invasive-alien-species-working-group/ and review of legislation on invasive species Legal-review-Invasive-Alien-Species-in-Namibia-with-annexes.pdf 

For actions to eradicate or manage invasive species https://orasecom.org/namibia-prepares-for-combating-prosopis/ 

Distribution of invasive alien species https://atlasofnamibia.online/chapter-6/invasive-alien-plants 

Effectiveness of mitigation measures such as thinning https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpab009 on vegetation and water https://the-eis.com/elibrary/sites/default/files/downloads/literature/Impacts%20of%20bush%20encroachment%20on%20groundwater%20recharge.pdf 

Management measures addressing invasive species advance SDG 15.8. Control of invasive encroacher bush species and aquatic invasives supports ecosystem productivity and agricultural resilience, contributing to SDG 2.4.

Aligned agreement:

International Plant Protection Convention 

Namibia undertook a significant action to implement the target which was the establishment of a Multilateral Environmental Agreement Monitoring Unit (MEA MU) through project funding (GEF through UNDP) that will elapse in June 2026. The Unit is an inter-institutional, composed of members from various department in the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism, namely Department of Environmental Affairs and Remote Sensing, and from the University of Namibia including Department of Environmental Science and Wildlife Management and Tourism Studies. The focus of this Unit has been to increase the country efficiency in reporting to MEAs including the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). The main output of this Unit was to develop a digital system that operationalizes the GBF. To achieve this the team established strategic partnerships for capacity building on developing targets/indicators including dashboards. The Unit has also trialled innovative monitoring tools such as use of drones, and environmental DNA from water and soil. Outside of this Unit, team members attended various webinars. Beyond the Unit, Namibia has benefited from the strengthening of institutional and technical capacities regarding implementing a comprehensive Transparency Framework for Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) of climate actions and to report on NDC implementation under the Paris Agreement. Additionally, through the Biodiversity Finance Initiative, which is a response to the urgent global need to divert more finance from all possible sources towards global and national biodiversity goals, members of key financial and private sector stakeholders were capacitated on how to explore innovative financing mechanisms that promote environmental sustainability

Summary of progress towards the target, including the main outcomes achieved

The mandatory means to measure progress towards this target at the global scale it is through the binary indicator “20.b Number of countries that have taken significant action to strengthen capacity-building and development and access to and transfer of technology, and to promote the development of and access to innovation and technical and scientific cooperation.". Considering the actions taken and main outcomes, the target is assessed as partially achieved, reflecting tangible advances in the transfer of skills and knowledge, education, and awareness despite the lack of formal monitoring evidence. Capacity-building workshops on building indicators established a foundation that will allow the digitalisation of NBSAP3 and promote the development of an integrated monitoring system across all sectors of society. Empowerment of members of the Multilateral Environmental Agreement Monitoring Unit resulted in the establishment of a digital platform that hosts nine headline indicators.  

summary of key challenges encountered and different approaches that may be taken for further implementation

A key challenge in the implementation of this target was the lack of a formal monitoring framework, in particular its alignment (and broadly across the framework) with technical and infrastructure needs. Additionally, there was the insufficiency of dedicated human resources.

Different approaches that may be taken for further implementation

To fast -track the implementation of this target, there is a need to conduct a skills needs assessment against the entire framework. Complementing this should be an assessment of existing infrastructure in country. Jointly these gap assessments will serve as a road map to identify strategic partnerships. Emphasis is that capacity building will be required within key government institutions, local authorities, community-based organisations and other implementing partners responsible for biodiversity conservation, land and resource management, and development planning. Sessions should apply a train-the-trainer approach and ought to be practical, demand-driven capacity development that supports implementation, compliance, monitoring, and adaptive management, rather than one-off or ad hoc training activities. Strengthening collaborations with research institutions across the country will be central.  

This pathway will also strengthen scientific and technical cooperation, both nationally and internationally, to improve access to expertise, research partnerships, and knowledge exchange. Emphasis will be placed on strengthening links between government agencies, research institutions, and practitioners, and on improving the translation of scientific knowledge into policy and practice. Learning from NBSAP2, this proposal aims to avoid fragmentation and duplication and increase resource efficiency. 

Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer on developing KMGBF Indicator Spatial Products, led by NatureServe and CSU.

Knowledge management for Biodiversity (KM4B).

UNAM MEFT_MEA_MU_Training_Workshop_Outcome_Report_April2025 - draft.pdf 

Development of Spatial Data Products and MEA Tracking Platform.pdf 

Namibia has taken significant steps towards this target. A key action is the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilisation into Namibia’s Sixth National Development Plan. This is a continuity as the explicit inclusion of biodiversity was equally integrated on the Fifth NDP (NDP5).  The plan recognised ecosystem services as critical assets for sustainable development and integrated related objectives in environmental protection, water, tourism, and agriculture. The inclusion of biodiversity priorities in NDP6 demonstrates a commitment in aligning national development planning with biodiversity values. This inclusion has a cascading effect in the development of operational plans at all administrative levels, should in principle account for biodiversity values and ecosystem services. 

Summary of progress towards the target, including the main outcomes achieved    

Tracking progress towards this target is through a binary indicator to be aggregated by the secretariat to “14.b Number of countries integrating biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning, development processes, poverty eradication strategies and, as appropriate, national accounts, within and across all levels and across all sectors, and progressively aligning all relevant public and private activities and fiscal and financial flows with the goals and targets of the Framework”. In terms of integration of biodiversity and its multiple values, Namibia has fully implemented this action in view of the fact that the country’s recently developed main development plan (NDP6) integrates ecosystem services across the plan. Similarly, Namibia has used the environmental economic accounting framework, since 1993. Other notable progress is the completion of key valuation studies such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) assessment, the Biodiversity Expenditure Review, and the development of natural capital accounts for water and fisheries, and the gradual integration by public and private institutions across various sectors of ecosystem services into management plans. These efforts supported improved understanding and awareness of the economic value of biodiversity. Despite these frameworks, the integration of biodiversity across all sectors is deemed to have been partially achieved. 

Summary of key challenges encountered and different approaches that may be taken for further implementation  

The key challenge encountered was the fragmentation of data and absence of a monitoring framework to establish the effectiveness of integrating biodiversity values and ecosystem services across sectors. An approach to circumventing this is building awareness of the value of monitoring this integration, building human resources, and establishing a centralized monitoring framework. Further progress is required to align private, and all entities plans the goals and targets of the Framework. 

To demonstrate actions to implement the target sections of the National Development Plan make specific references to the importance of ecosystem services in development.  

@ https://www.npc.gov.na/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/NDP6-Booklet.pdf 

In terms of environmental economic accounting, Namibia is a continental leader as described @

https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/kavezepa_et_al.pdf 

https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/kavezepa_et_al_0.pdf 

An example of the inclusion of biodiversity in the mining sector can be found @ https://debmarine.com/sustainability/environment/biodiversity   

1. Briefly describe the main actions taken to implement the target

• Namibia has implemented ecosystem-based and nature-based approaches through:
• Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) across communal conservancies.
• Restoration of degraded rangelands and bush encroachment control programmes.
• Forestry rehabilitation and afforestation initiatives.
• Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and basin-level planning.
• Wetland protection and catchment management initiatives.
• Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) integrated into national climate change policies.
• Sustainable rangeland and soil conservation practices.
• Mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs).
• Pollution control and hazardous waste management frameworks.
• Urban green infrastructure planning in selected municipalities.
• These actions collectively aim to maintain ecosystem regulation services, improve resilience to drought and floods, enhance soil fertility, and sustain biodiversity-dependent livelihoods. 

3. Provide a summary of progress towards the target, including the main outcomes achieved

Namibia has made measurable progress in maintaining ecosystem services, particularly through landscape-level conservation and community governance systems.

Key outcomes include:

Improved rangeland condition in areas under active community management.

Increased ecosystem resilience through bush control and restoration initiatives.

Strengthened water resource governance in a highly water-scarce country.

Integration of ecosystem-based adaptation into climate policy frameworks.

Maintenance of large, connected conservation landscapes supporting ecological processes.

Improved regulation of environmental impacts through EIAs and SEAs.

Ecosystem services such as water regulation, grazing productivity and climate resilience continue to underpin rural livelihoods and national economic sectors including tourism, agriculture and fisheries. 

However, challenges remain:

• Persistent land degradation and bush encroachment in parts of the country.
• Recurring droughts and climate variability.
• Limited long-term ecological monitoring data for certain ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, disease regulation).
• Financial and technical constraints for scaling up restoration efforts.
• Data gaps for measuring quantitative improvements in ecosystem service delivery.
• Future implementation will require scaling up nature-based solutions, strengthening ecosystem service valuation systems, improving monitoring frameworks, and enhancing cross-sector coordination. 

Provide examples or cases to illustrate the effectiveness of the actions taken

Community Conservancies: Conservancies demonstrate improved wildlife recovery, sustainable grazing management and diversified livelihoods through ecosystem stewardship.

NAMIBIA – LDN Report Land Degradation Neutrality National Report 2015

Bush Encroachment Control Programmes: Targeted bush thinning has improved grazing capacity and water infiltration in affected rangelands.

Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Projects: Climate adaptation projects in arid regions have strengthened drought resilience and reduced vulnerability of pastoral communities.

Wetland and Basin Management: Improved floodplain and catchment management reduces flood risk and improves water availability.

Supporting documentation and national reports are available through Namibia’s national biodiversity information systems and environmental reporting platforms

Implementation of Target 11 contributes directly to:

• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) through watershed protection and water resource management.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action) through ecosystem-based adaptation and carbon sequestration.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land) through land restoration and biodiversity conservation.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) through improved soil health and sustainable grazing.
• UNCCD implementation through land degradation neutrality efforts.
• UNFCCC commitments through nature-based mitigation and adaptation actions. 

Namibia has made moderate progress toward conserving the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed animals.  Seed conservation initiatives and regional cooperation projects have been advanced, and core elements of the legislative framework for biosafety have been drafted and approved by Cabinet, though they remain to be fully enacted. The biosafety system is structurally well developed, with an operational Biosafety Council, Secretariat, and Clearing House, as well as active public awareness and training initiatives. A GMO testing laboratory has been established, though it is not yet accredited, limiting its enforcement function. These advances provide a strong institutional foundation, but enforcement mechanisms remain incomplete, and the absence of a national strategy to support local crop and livestock  varieties constrains the broader impact of these efforts. Overall, while Namibia has laid promising groundwork, the target remains only partially achieved. Namibia participates in SADC Technical  Cooperation Programme linking breeders, gene banks, and farmers Two bills approved by Cabinet (Seed and Seed Variety Bill; Plant Breeders and Farmers’ Rights Bill) but not yet enacted No formal national adoption strategy; on-farm conservation uptake limited. Fully operational Biosafety Clearing House established; Biosafety Council and Secretariat Functional. Supported by UNEP/GEF-assisted biosafety documentation pending Council approval. National workshops and training conducted on application evaluation and decision-making. Accredited GMO testing laboratories not yet operational; enforcement capacity incomplete.Seed conservation initiatives and regional cooperation projects have been advanced, and core elements of the legislative framework for biosafety has been drafted and approved by Cabinet, though they remain to be fully enacted. A workshop convened under the Strengthening the Implementation of the National Biosafety Frameworks in Southern Africa (SINBF) Project was held in February 2026, the workshop designed to enhance Parliament’s legislative and oversight capacity in reviewing the Biosafety Act of 2006 and the National Biotechnology Policy of 1999.  

Progress and outcome 

Strong institutional and legislative groundwork laid for genetic diversity conservation, including gene bank holdings and biosafety governance. However, there is an absence of an adoption strategy, pending legislation, and incomplete enforcement  infrastructure have limited full Implementation. Namibia has made moderate progress toward conserving the genetic diversity  of cultivated plants and farmed animals.  Surveys in Kavango East and West documented 143 indigenous seed samples; 28 redistributed via NPGRC , National gene bank holds 4,169 accessions; Seed conservation initiatives and regional cooperation projects have been  advanced, and core elements of the  legislative framework for biosafety have been drafted and approved by Cabinet,  though they remain to be fully enacted.  The biosafety system is structurally well developed, with an operational Biosafety Council, Secretariat, and Clearing House, as well as active public awareness and training initiatives.  

Implementation.  

Challenges and Implementation approach  

A GMO testing laboratory has been established, though it is not yet accredited, limiting its enforcement function. These advances provide a strong institutional foundation, but enforcement mechanisms remain incomplete,  and the absence of a national strategy of support local crop and livestock varieties constrains the broader impact of these efforts. Overall, while Namibia has laid promising groundwork, the  

target remains only partially achieved.

Implementation approach for Strengthening the effective implementation of the Biosafety Act and its Regulations programme :

Purpose

This programme will operationalise and strengthen the effective implementation and enforcement of the Biosafety Act and its regulations governing genetically modified organisms and specified GMO products, ensuring science-based and precautionary management of risks to biodiversity and human  and animal health, while enabling responsible biotechnology development and equitable benefit sharing.Implementation approach Namibia adopts an integrated programme approach that consolidates legal, institutional, scientific,  compliance and awareness-related actions under a single strategic programme to ensure coherent and effective implementation and enforcement of the Biosafety Act and its regulations, and fulfilment of  national and international biosafety obligations. The programme will prioritise the completion and operationalisation of the current review of the Biosafety Act and its regulations, ensuring a clear, stable and implementable legal framework for the duration of this NBSAP cycle. Over the next ten years, emphasis will shift from legislative reform to  strengthening institutional, technical and enforcement capacity to give full effect to the Act. Technical guidelines, standards and standard operating procedures will continue to be developed and refined to address practical implementation challenges and evolving developments in modern biotechnology. Implementation will strengthen regulatory systems governing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and specified GMO products resulting from modern biotechnology, ensuring that decisions are science-based, transparent and precautionary. Risk assessment, risk management and monitoring mechanisms will be enhanced to effectively manage potential impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems and  human and animal health. The programme will also ensure that Namibia’s biosafety framework provides regulatory clarity and predictability to support responsible research, innovation and application of modern biotechnology. Efficient and transparent permit processes, strengthened scientific capacity, and clear technical guidance will facilitate the safe and beneficial use of biotechnology in sectors such as agriculture, health and industry, consistent with national development priorities. Institutional coordination will be strengthened among authorities responsible for environment,  agriculture, health, trade, research and border control to ensure effective oversight of the import, export, contained use, release and marketing of GMOs and related biotechnology products. Capacity  building for inspectors and customs officials, improved detection and identification systems, and strengthened compliance monitoring will support effective enforcement. In line with Article 19 of the Convention, implementation will promote participation in biotechnology research and strengthen coordination between biosafety and access and benefit-sharing frameworks to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from modern biotechnology based on Namibia’s genetic resources. Public awareness, stakeholder engagement and access to biosafety information will be enhanced to promote transparency and build public confidence.Through this integrated approach, Namibia will regulate and manage risks associated with modern biotechnology while enabling responsible innovation, supporting sustainable development and safeguarding biodiversity and human health.

Primary implementation instruments

This Programme will be implemented through the following policies, frameworks and instruments:

• Biosafety Act No. 7, 2002

• National Biosafety Policy

Implementation considerations

Key considerations include the need for:

• Strengthening institutional, scientific and technical capacity for risk assessment, monitoring, inspection and enforcement related to genetically modified organisms and applications of modern biotechnology.

• Ensuring that regulatory decision-making remains science-based, transparent and  precautionary, particularly where scientific uncertainty exists, while avoiding unnecessary  barriers to responsible research and innovation.

• Enhancing inter-institutional coordination among authorities responsible for environment, agriculture, health, trade, research and border control to ensure coherent governance and avoid regulatory gaps or duplication of mandates.

• Building and sustaining capacity of inspectors and customs officials to detect, identify and manage the transboundary movement of GMOs and related biotechnology products.

• Providing regulatory clarity, predictability and efficiency in permit processes to support responsible use of modern biotechnology in line with national development priorities.

• Strengthening transparency, information-sharing and public participation to promote trust and informed engagement in biosafety decisions.

• Ensuring effective coordination between biosafety and access and benefit-sharing frameworks to promote equitable sharing of benefits arising from biotechnology based on Namibia’s genetic resources.

• Maintaining adaptive technical guidance and operating procedures to respond to evolving  developments in modern biotechnology without requiring frequent legislative amendments.

• Securing sustainable financial and human resources to support long-term implementation, including monitoring, compliance and capacity development functions. 

https://www.parliament.na/lawmakers-attend-high-level-workshop-on-strengthening-biosafety-governance-in-namibia-23-february-2026/    

The current framework is anchored by established bodies that these new targets aim to strengthen

https://youthfilter.com/news/biocontainment-protocols-ensuring-lab-safety/#:~:text=The%20implementation%20of%20international%20regulations%20often%20requires,investing%20in%20infrastructure%20to%20meet%20international%20standards 

Biosafety regulation safeguards genetic resources, contributing to SDG 2.5 and ecosystem protection under SDG 15.

Aligned with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 

1. Vulnerability Assessments Conducted Across Multiple Institutions

Namibia carried out several ecosystem and climate vulnerability assessments through key agencies, including:

• The Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM)
• The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR)
• The Namibia Meteorological Service
• These assessments informed early warning systems, food security monitoring, and climate impact analyses.  

2. Contribution to Regional Vulnerability Assessment Systems

Namibia actively participated in the SADC Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis Programme, strengthening harmonised data collection and enabling cross‑border comparison of climate impacts.  

3. Local‑Level Vulnerability Mapping in Conservancies

Localized climate vulnerability mapping was carried out in several communal conservancies, including:

• Okongo Conservancy
• Mukoya Conservancy
• Nyangana Conservancy

These assessments helped identify ecosystem‑specific pressures and adaptation priorities at community level.

4. Development of National Climate Adaptation Policy Frameworks

• Namibia strengthened its adaptation planning through:
• The National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (NCCSAP 2013–2020)
• Revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) commitments
• The Namibia Climate Resilient Development Strategy (NCRC)
• These frameworks incorporate ecosystem‑based adaptation and guide national and sectoral responses.

5. Establishment of Institutional Coordination Mechanisms

• The National Committee on Climate Change (via the NCRC) supports cross‑sectoral coordination.
• Multi‑institutional collaboration improved information flow and supported adaptation planning.  

• 6. Support to Ecosystem‑Based Adaptation Measures
• While no full national evaluation has been conducted, the NCCSAP and NDCs promoted specific adaptation actions such as:
• Sustainable land management,
• Water resource protection,
• Strengthening protected area resilience.

7. Strengthening Climate Information and Early Warning Systems

• Climate data collection improved through DDRM and the Namibia Meteorological Service, enabling more reliable climate projections and risk analysis.  

Target 9 sought to ensure that ecosystems most vulnerable to climate change and their anthropogenic pressures are identified by 2016, and that appropriate adaptation measures are developed by 2018. 

According to the attached report, progress toward Target 9 is assessed as Partially Achieved – Yellow.  

Main Outcomes Achieved 

a) Multiple vulnerability assessments conducted 

Several national agencies carried out climate vulnerability assessments, including: 

Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM) 

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR) 

Namibia Meteorological Service 

These assessments informed food security analysis, early warning systems, and climate‑related decision‑making.  

b) Regional alignment through SADC frameworks 

Namibia contributed to the SADC Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis Programme, strengthening harmonised data and regional climate risk understanding.  

c) Local‑level ecosystem vulnerability mapping 

Targeted vulnerability mapping was carried out in conservancies such as Okongo, Mukoya, and Nyangana, providing location‑specific data on climate-sensitive ecosystems and pressures.  

d) Development of national climate adaptation frameworks 

Several strategic frameworks were introduced or strengthened: 

National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (NCCSAP 2013–2020) 

Updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) 

Namibia Climate Resilient Development Strategy (NCRC) 

These policies embed ecosystem‑based adaptation into national planning.  

e) Improvement of climate information and early warning systems 

Data collection by DDRM and the Meteorological Service strengthened climate monitoring and supported risk‑based decision‑making.  

2) Summary of Key Challenges and Approaches for Further Implementation of Target 9 

Target 9 sought to ensure that ecosystems most vulnerable to climate change and their anthropogenic pressures are identified by 2016, and that appropriate adaptation measures are developed by 2018.

According to the attached report, progress toward Target 9 is assessed as Partially Achieved – Yellow.  

Main Outcomes Achieved

a) Multiple vulnerability assessments conducted

Several national agencies carried out climate vulnerability assessments, including:

• Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM)
• Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR)
• Namibia Meteorological Service
• These assessments informed food security analysis, early warning systems, and climate‑related decision‑making.  

b) Regional alignment through SADC frameworks

• Namibia contributed to the SADC Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis Programme, strengthening harmonised data and regional climate risk understanding.  

c) Local‑level ecosystem vulnerability mapping

• Targeted vulnerability mapping was carried out in conservancies such as Okongo, Mukoya, and Nyangana, providing location‑specific data on climate-sensitive ecosystems and pressures.  

d) Development of national climate adaptation frameworks

Several strategic frameworks were introduced or strengthened:

• National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (NCCSAP 2013–2020)
• Updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
• Namibia Climate Resilient Development Strategy (NCRC)
• These policies embed ecosystem‑based adaptation into national planning.  

e) Improvement of climate information and early warning systems

Data collection by DDRM and the Meteorological Service strengthened climate monitoring and supported risk‑based decision‑making.  

2) Summary of Key Challenges and Approaches for Further Implementation of Target 9

Key Challenges Encountered

a) Absence of a consolidated national vulnerability assessment

While numerous assessments were conducted, Namibia did not produce a single national‑level, integrated assessment of climate-vulnerable ecosystems.  

b) No formal evaluation of adaptation measure implementation

The country did not systematically evaluate whether adaptation measures delivered under NCCSAP or NDCs were effective.  

c) Fragmentation of climate data and assessment outputs

Vulnerability assessments exist across several institutions, but outputs remain fragmented, making national prioritisation difficult.  

d) Capacity limitations

Sustained implementation of adaptation measures is weakened by:

Limited funding

Insufficient technical capacity

Challenges in coordinating across multiple sectors and governance levels 

 

e) Limited ecosystem-based adaptation coverage

Ecosystem‑based adaptation actions exist, but they are not implemented at sufficient scale, limiting resilience improvements.  

Approaches for Further Implementation

1. Develop a consolidated national vulnerability assessment

Integrate data from DDRM, MAWLR, Meteorological Service, conservancies, and regional bodies into one comprehensive national assessment to guide interventions.  

2. Establish a national system for evaluating adaptation measures

Create a monitoring and evaluation framework for NCCSAP, NDCs, and ecosystem-based adaptation initiatives to determine effectiveness and guide resource allocation.  

3. Strengthen institutional coordination mechanisms

Enhance cross-sector coordination under structures such as the Climate Resilient Development Strategy (NCRC) to streamline adaptation planning and reporting.  

4. Increase investment in ecosystem-based adaptation

Scale up sustainable land management, water conservation, rangeland restoration, and protected area resilience measures.  

5. Improve climate information systems and data sharing

Expand early warning systems, ensure regular data sharing across ministries, and strengthen community-level data integration.  

1. Climate Vulnerability Assessments Strengthening Early Warning and Decision-Making

Multiple institutions, including the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management (DDRM), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), and the Namibia Meteorological Service, conducted climate vulnerability assessments that fed directly into early warning systems and food security monitoring, improving national preparedness for climate-related shocks. 
These assessments enhanced the responsiveness of government planning and enabled more targeted adaptation discussions.

Related resource:

Namibia’s National Climate Change Strategy & Action Plan (NCCSAP): 
https://www.meft.gov.na/files/files/NCCSAP%202013-2020.pdf

2. Regional Vulnerability Assessment Through SADC Improving Cross-Border Resilience

Namibia’s participation in the SADC Regional Vulnerability Assessment & Analysis Programme strengthened harmonised data collection and provided a regional basis for comparing climate risks and impacts. 
This enabled Namibia to align local vulnerability findings with regional food security and climate risk assessment trends, supporting more robust planning.

Related resource:

SADC RVAA Programme: https://www.sadc.int

3. Local-Level Vulnerability Mapping in Conservancies

Vulnerability assessments within Okongo, Mukoya, and Nyangana conservancies produced ecosystem-specific profiles that helped communities identify climate-sensitive resources and prioritize adaptation actions. 
 

These localized assessments strengthened community-based adaptation planning by incorporating real-time observations from on-the-ground resource users. 

 

Related resource:

Community-based climate adaptation case examples (NACSO): https://www.nacso.org.na

4. Integration of Vulnerability Information into National Adaptation Frameworks

The development and implementation of:

the National Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan,

Namibia’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and

the Namibia Climate Resilient Development Strategy (NCRC)

demonstrate that vulnerability findings were being systematically integrated into policy and planning frameworks. 
These frameworks have guided ecosystem-based adaptation and supported long-term climate resilience planning.

Related publications:

Namibia NDC (UNFCCC): https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/Home.aspx

Namibia Climate Resilient Development Strategy: https://www.meft.gov.na

5. Strengthening of Climate Data and Monitoring Systems

Climate information systems were expanded through DDRM and Namibia Meteorological Services, resulting in more reliable climate datasets, risk analysis, and projections. 
This improved the evidence base for adaptation, making national and regional decision‑making more effective.

Related resource:

Namibia Meteorological Service: https://www.meteona.com.na 

1. Linkages to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 

1.2 SDG 13 – Climate Action 

Implementation of Target 9 directly supports SDG 13 through: 

Vulnerability assessments conducted by DDRM, MAWLR, and the Namibia Meteorological Service, which strengthen early warning systems and climate‑risk preparedness.  

Development of national frameworks such as the NCCSAP, NDCs, and the Climate Resilient Development Strategy, which align with SDG 13 targets on integrated climate policies and adaptive capacity.  

1.2 SDG 15 – Life on Land 

By identifying climate‑vulnerable ecosystems and promoting ecosystem‑based adaptation, Target 9 supports: 

Conservation and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems 

Adaptive management of rangelands, forests, and dryland systems 
These actions contribute to SDG 15’s objective of enhancing ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change.  

1.3 SDG 2 – Zero Hunger (Food Security & Resilience) 

Vulnerability assessments contribute to SDG 2 by informing: 

Food and nutrition security monitoring 

Early warning systems linked to climate shocks 
This supports climate‑resilient agricultural planning and reduces climate‑related risks to food systems. 

1.4 SDG 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation 

Identifying climate‑vulnerable aquatic ecosystems and integrating adaptation into water management contributes to SDG 6, especially: 

Sustainable water resource management 

Protection of climate‑sensitive river basins and wetlands 

2. Linkages to Other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) 

2.1 UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 

Target 9 implementation aligns strongly with UNFCCC obligations because: 

National adaptation frameworks (NCCSAP, NDCs, NCRC) were developed or strengthened in line with UNFCCC reporting requirements. 

Vulnerability assessments inform Namibia’s climate adaptation commitments under the NDCs. 

2.2 CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) 

Ecosystem‑based adaptation (EbA) actions encouraged under Target 9 contribute to the CBD’s goals to: 

Address ecosystem vulnerability 

Integrate biodiversity considerations into climate strategies 

2.3 SADC Regional Vulnerability Assessment & Analysis Programme 

Namibia’s participation in this programme strengthens regional cooperation and harmonised climate risk monitoring, aligning with SADC regional frameworks and supporting transboundary resilience efforts. 

2.4 UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification) 

Target 9 activities, especially: 

ecosystem‑based land restoration, and 

assessment of climate pressures on drylands, 
directly support Namibia’s commitments to combat land degradation under the UNCCD framework. 

Main action taken  

Namibia has designated a National Focal Point (NFP) for the Nagoya Protocol within the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT). The NFP is responsible for liaison with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, coordination of national reporting obligations, representation in international negotiations (including DSI and PABS discussions), and ensuring intergovernmental communication on ABS matters. 

The NFP works in close coordination with the Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Office (ABS Office), ensuring alignment between policy representation at the international level and operational implementation at the national level. 

• Namibia has established a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) through: 
• Enactment of the Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act (2017) and its Regulations (2021). 
• Designation of a National Focal Point (NFP) for the Nagoya Protocol within the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT). 
• Establishment of the ABS Office as the Competent National Authority (CNA). 
• Development of procedures for Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT). 
• Issuance of ABS permits and Internationally Recognized Certificates of Compliance (IRCCs). 
• Publication of legislation and procedures in the ABS Clearing-House (ABS-CH). 
• Development of an online permitting system (pending full operationalisation). 
• Awareness-raising and capacity-building programmes in all 14 regions. 
• Community engagement and legal advisory support to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). 
• Participation in international negotiations on Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and multilateral benefit-sharing mechanisms. 
• These actions collectively operationalise Namibia’s obligations under the Nagoya Protocol and support equitable benefit-sharing from genetic resource utilization. 

Summary of Progress  

There is a growing engagement with local communities, which is signalling a functional basis for benefit-sharing. Namibia ratified the Nagoya Protocol in 2014, demonstrating early commitment to international standards on ABS. The Access to Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act was passed in 2017 and came into force in 2021, establishing a strong legislative foundation for implementing Namibia’s obligations under the Nagoya Protocol. While the accompanying regulations have been gazetted, the full operationalisation of the Act remains incomplete. Delays in tabling the ABS Bill in Parliament and the gap between legal adoption and actual enforcement have slowed momentum, limiting practical application. As a result, although the legal framework is formally in place, its incomplete implementation continues to constrain Namibia’s ability to realise effective access and benefit sharing 

Mechanisms. Institutional structures have been established, including the designation of the Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge Unit as the Competent National Authority, and interim measures such as a functioning ABS office and bioprospecting committee. However, the formal staff establishment structure is still pending approval by the Office of the Prime Minister. Despite these interim efforts, the lack of a fully staffed and operational structure suggests that institutional readiness is progressing but incomplete. 

 bia has made substantial progress in signing ABS agreements with local communities, particularly around Commiphora, Colophospermum, Devil’s Claw and Marula species. These agreements have led to tangible outcomes, such as the development of cosmetic products, improved access to markets, and benefit-sharing arrangements with conservancies and Indigenous Local Communities (ILCs). Awareness campaigns and training initiatives have further supported implementation and uptake of the agreements, reflecting solid achievement under this indicator. 

Namibia has made substantial institutional and legislative progress in operationalising ABS. 

Legal and Institutional Implementation 

• ABS Act enacted in 2017; Regulations adopted in 2021. 
• National Focal Point designated and functioning. 
• ABS Office formally designated as Competent National Authority. 
• Core legislation and measures published in the ABS Clearing-House. 

Access Procedures 

• Access subject to mandatory Prior Informed Consent (PIC). 
• Defined 90-day processing timeline. 
• Written decisions issued upon approval. 
• Requirement for negotiated Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT). 

Permits and Compliance 

More than 300 ABS permits and Material Transfer Agreements issued during the reporting period (2017–2026). 

• IRCC publication in ABS-CH ongoing. 
• Dispute resolution mechanisms included in MAT. 
• Legal recourse available through national courts. 

Benefit-Sharing Outcomes 

Monetary benefits recorded: over N$ 200,000 (≈ USD 12,000) during reporting period. 

Types of monetary benefits: 

• Access fees 
• Upfront payments 
• Contributions to community funds 
• Non-monetary benefits include: 
• Capacity-building and training (500+ individuals trained) 
• Scientific collaboration (UNAM, NUST partnerships) 
• Technology transfer 
• Sharing of research results 
• Strengthened negotiation capacity of IPLCs 

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities 

• Community PIC required where genetic resources or traditional knowledge fall under customary control. 
• Recognition of customary laws in ABS procedures (to some extent). 
• Community advisory support strengthened negotiation outcomes. 
• Women play a central role in value chains (e.g., marula-based enterprises). 

Digital Sequence Information (DSI) 

• Namibia actively participates in international DSI negotiations. 
• National legislation does not yet fully operationalise DSI benefit-sharing. 
• Traceability and monitoring of DSI remain technically challenging. 
• Namibia supports multilateral solutions to ensure equitable benefit-sharing from DSI. 

Challenges Identified 

Regulatory inertia hampered Namibia’s commitments under the Nagoya Protocol. The Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Act of 2017 only became operational in 2021, and institutional structures mandated to implement it were slow to establish. These ABS delays created a prolonged gap between policy adoption and functional enforcement, limiting opportunities for communities and the state to benefit from genetic resource use. Delays in tabling the ABS Bill in Parliament and the gap between legal adoption and actual enforcement have slowed momentum, limiting practical application. Challeges like staffing constraints; cross-border traceability; Limited downstream monitoring capacity; growing complexity due to DSI discussions were also experienced. Specific Challenges include: 

• Skeleton staffing (less than three full-time staff in ABS Office). 
• No operational checkpoints yet designated under Article 17. 
• Limited digital traceability once resources leave national jurisdiction. 
• Modest monetary benefit flows to date. 
• Need for interoperable global systems for monitoring DSI and utilization abroad. 
• Institutional realignment delayed operationalisation of the Bioprospecting Fund. 
• Overall, Namibia has established strong legal foundations but requires enhanced institutional capacity, digital infrastructure, and multilateral cooperation to significantly increase benefit flows by 2030. 

Implementation approach  

Programme: Strengthening implementation of access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge 

Purpose 

To strengthen the effective implementation of Namibia’s access and benefit-sharing framework for genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, ensuring that access is regulated, benefits are shared fairly and equitably, and biodiversity-based research and development contribute to national development and conservation objectives. 

Implementation approach 

• Implementation will focus on operationalising the provisions of the Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act, 2017, with emphasis on strengthening institutional coordination, administrative procedures and practical application of access permits, prior informed consent and benefit-sharing agreements.  
• Implementation will also take into account emerging international guidance and national policy considerations related to digital sequence information on genetic resources, with a view to clarifying administrative procedures, capacity needs and benefit-sharing approaches applicable to the use of digital sequence information (DSI). 
• Actions will prioritise improving awareness and understanding of ABS requirements among government institutions, research organisations, private sector actors and local communities. Particular attention will be given to strengthening the participation and rights of holders of traditional knowledge, including through culturally appropriate processes for prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. Given the relatively limited number of implemented ABS cases to date, the programme will emphasise capacity building, piloting and learning-by-doing. 
• The programme will also support the functioning of the ABS Office and related coordination mechanisms, including the development and refinement of guidelines, model agreements and support services that facilitate compliance while enabling responsible research, innovation and biotrade activities. 

Primary implementation instruments 

• Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act, 2017 
• ABS regulations and guidelines  
• Guidelines or procedures addressing access to and use of digital sequence information (where applicable) 

Institutional roles 

Lead institution: 

Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) 

Supporting institutions: 

• Relevant sector ministries and regulatory authorities 
• Research and academic institutions 

Implementation considerations 

Key considerations include the need for: 

• Strengthening institutional capacity to administer and monitor ABS processes 
• Ensuring procedures are clear, transparent and accessible to users and rights holders 
• Aligning ABS implementation with biodiversity conservation, research and innovation objectives 

7 Provide examples or cases to illustrate effectiveness  

First National Report on the Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (2017 – 2025) 

• Namibia’s Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act and the Protection of Local Communities: https://share.google/pnNs9QwbeBb8qwyND. The Act applies to biological and genetic resources as found in or outside of their natural habitat, the derivatives of such resources, associated traditional know. 
• Marula-based enterprises: Community value chains strengthened through formal ABS processes, increasing negotiation power of women producers. 
• Research collaborations: International academic partnerships conducted under formal PIC and MAT frameworks. 
• Capacity-building initiatives: National workshops across all regions enhanced awareness and compliance. 
• GEF-supported ABS project: Strengthened institutional capacity and legal operationalisation. 

Implementation of Target 13 contributes to: 

• SDG 15 (Life on Land) – Sustainable use of biodiversity. 
• SDG 1 (No Poverty) – Community income generation from biodiversity. 
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality) – Women’s participation in biodiversity value chains. 
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) – Bio-based enterprises. 
• SDG 16 (Strong Institutions) – Transparent governance frameworks. 
• Nagoya Protocol – Direct implementation. 
• International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) – Agricultural genetic resources coordination. 
• Ongoing negotiations on DSI and multilateral benefit-sharing mechanisms under the CBD. 

Overall Assessment for Target 13 

Namibia has successfully established a functioning national ABS system with legislative clarity, institutional designation, permit issuance, and measurable benefit flows. However, scaling up monetary benefits, operationalising checkpoints, strengthening digital traceability, and resolving DSI governance challenges remain priorities to achieve a significant increase in benefit-sharing by 2030. 

ABS implementation contributes to SDG 10 by promoting equitable sharing of genetic resource benefits and advances SDG 15.6. Aligned with the Nagoya Protocol. 

1. Expanded Domestic Biodiversity Funding 

• Increased use of Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF), which disbursed about N$100.1 million (2019–2024) for conservation, anti‑poaching, and human–wildlife conflict management. 
• Continued collection of conservation fees, generating N$108.6 million (2014–2024). 
• Introduced and strengthened environmental levies (e.g., plastic bag levy; new levies such as e‑waste and batteries under consideration). 
• Began conceptual work on park pricing reforms and cost‑recovery mechanisms, although implementation remains slow. 

2. Significantly Increased Donor and International Finance 

• Namibia mobilised substantial Official Development Assistance (ODA) through multilateral and bilateral channels. Examples include: 
• GEF projects such as NAMPLACE (US$4.5m), PASS (US$5m), and NILALEG (US$10m). 
• KfW‑funded programmes: NamParks IV (EUR 14m), NamParks V (EUR 34.5m), Integrated Wildlife Protection (EUR 17.1m), and Community Conservation Fund (EUR 8m). 
• Green Climate Fund programmes (>US$8–10 million each) focusing on ecosystem‑based adaptation and climate‑resilient agriculture. 

3. Broadened the Funding Base by Engaging the Private Sector 

• Namibia initiated several private‑sector‑linked innovative financing mechanisms, including: 
• Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) model aligned with tourism. 
• Nedbank Go Green Fund support to conservation projects. 
• Biomass energy partnerships (Ohorongo Cement, Nampower) linked to bush‑control and restoration. 
• Early‑stage exploration of crowdfunding, eco‑labelling, and an environmental lottery. 

4. Identification of 10 Innovative Biodiversity Finance Instruments 

• Under the BIOFIN framework, Namibia identified and conceptually developed multiple new mechanisms, such as: 
• Biodiversity offsets 
• Green bonds 
• PES schemes 
• Park tariff reforms 
• Carbon/biodiversity credit schemes 

5. Enhanced Institutional Foundations for Finance Mobilisation 

• Namibia strengthened its institutional environment by: 
• Developing a conceptual National Biodiversity Financing Framework. 
• Strengthening roles of MEFT, EIF, and GPTF in financing coordination. 
• Improving tracking of conservation‑related investment through donor project management systems. 

1) Summary of Progress Toward Target 17 (including main outcomes achieved) 

Target 17 aimed to increase mobilisation of financial resources from all sources by 2022 (compared to 2008–2012) to enable effective implementation of NBSAP2. 
The overall progress status = Partially Achieved. 

Main Outcomes Achieved 

a) Significant mobilisation of international/donor funding 
Namibia attracted extensive multilateral and bilateral support, including: 

• GEF-funded programmes (e.g., NAMPLACE, PASS, NILALEG). 
• KfW-funded programmes, such as NamParks IV & V, Integrated Wildlife Protection, and Community Conservation Fund. 
• Green Climate Fund allocations for climate‑resilient agriculture, EbA programmes, and adaptation projects. 
  These contributions resulted in KPI 3 (ODA mobilisation) being fully achieved (Green). 

b) Strengthening of domestic biodiversity financing mechanisms 

• Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF) disbursed approx. N$100.1 million (2019–2024) to support wildlife conservation, HWC mitigation, and anti-poaching. 
• Conservation fees generated N$108.6 million (2014–2024). 
• Government continued exploring options for environmental levies (e.g., plastic bag levy, e-waste levy). 
  Domestic financing therefore grew, but remained below required levels. 
• c) Diversification of revenue sources 
  Namibia initiated several mechanisms that broadened the funding base, such as: 
• Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) pilots. 
• Private sector conservation contributions (Nedbank Go Green Fund; biomass partnerships with Ohorongo Cement and Nampower). 
• Conceptual work on mechanisms like eco-labelling, crowdfunding, environmental lotteries. 
  These actions supported KPI 2 (diversification of sources), though several remained in early stages. 

d) Initial development of a biodiversity finance framework 
Work began on a more integrated national financing framework, supported by the EIF, MEFT, and partners, providing conceptual direction for long-term mobilisation. 

2) Key Challenges Encountered and Possible Approaches for Further Implementation 

Challenges Identified 

a) Heavy reliance on donor funding 
Despite strong donor mobilisation, domestic public financing remained insufficient, leaving Namibia vulnerable to external funding cycles and project-based support. 

b) Slow operationalisation of new finance instruments 
Although 10 innovative mechanisms were identified, most remained conceptual or pilot‑phase, including PES expansion, biodiversity offsets, and park tariff reforms. 

c) Limited domestic revenue earmarking and delayed fund transfers 
Revenue streams such as environmental levies experienced delays in transfer to the EIF, reducing predictability of funding availability. 

d) Absence of a comprehensive national biodiversity finance strategy 
There is no fully implemented national plan coordinating public, private, and donor financing flows, resulting in fragmentation. 

e) Institutional and capacity constraints 
Insufficient technical capacity in ministries/agencies limits the development, implementation, and monitoring of finance instruments. 

Approaches for Strengthening Implementation Going Forward 

1. Strengthen domestic financial commitment and revenue predictability 

Increase allocation to MEFT and related agencies within the national budget. 

Improve earmarking and ring‑fencing of environmental levies for biodiversity. 

Fast‑track consistent transfer of collected levies to the EIF. 

2. Operationalise innovative financing instruments 

Move biodiversity offsets, PES, and park pricing reforms from pilot/conceptual phase into national implementation. 

Develop sustainable models for biodiversity credits, green bonds, and eco-labelling to attract private investment. 

3. Develop and implement a National Biodiversity Finance Plan 

Consolidate existing mechanisms into a coherent strategy aligned with NBSAP3 and BioFin methodologies. 

Establish clear roles, targets, and financing pathways across sectors. 

4. Strengthen institutional and technical capacity 

Enhance financial planning, project management, and monitoring capacities within MEFT, EIF, GPTF, and NPC. 

Establish a permanent multi-stakeholder finance coordination platform. 

5. Expand private sector engagement 

Promote corporate biodiversity commitments through incentives. 

Scale nature-based enterprise models (e.g., bush biomass value chains, wildlife credits). 

Formalise PES markets linked to tourism, water, and carbon

Target 17 sought to increase financial resources for biodiversity conservation, compared to the 2008–2012 period. The following cases illustrate where the actions taken produced tangible, measurable gains. 

 1. Large‑scale Donor Investments Strengthening Protected Areas 

Case Example: NamParks IV & V (KfW-funded programmes) 

NamParks IV invested EUR 14 million to strengthen protected area infrastructure and management in the North-East and Tsau //Khaeb National Park. 

NamParks V invested EUR 34.5 million, significantly improving coastal park infrastructure, digital systems (SMART patrols), law enforcement, and tourism facilities. 

These investments directly enhanced management effectiveness across several national parks. 

➡ Effectiveness: 

Improvement in Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) scores for parks such as Etosha, Bwabwata, and Nkasa Rupara. 

Modernisation of anti‑poaching systems and improved visitor infrastructure. 

2. Integrated Wildlife Protection Project (IWPP) 

Case Example: EUR 17.1 million investment 

This programme funded anti-poaching infrastructure such as: 

Ranger bases 

Patrol vehicles 

Surveillance equipment 

Cross-border wildlife monitoring under the KAZA TFCA 

➡ Effectiveness: 

Strengthened national anti-poaching capabilities, contributing to increased law enforcement success and better cross-border coordination. 

3. Community Conservation Fund of Namibia (CCFN) 

Case Example: EUR 8 million support to mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflict (HWC) 

Focus: poverty-oriented HWC prevention/mitigation in the 20 most-affected conservancies. 

➡ Effectiveness: 

Improved funding stability for conservancies. 

Direct support to communities living with wildlife helped sustain tolerance and participation in conservation—critical for species protection. 

4. COVID‑19 Emergency Support to Communal Conservancies 

Case Example: EUR 11 million grant (KfW, 2020–2024) 

Provided emergency financing to keep conservancy operations running after tourism collapse. 

➡ Effectiveness: 

Conservancies continued paying game guards, monitoring wildlife, and maintaining governance structures. 

Avoided collapse of conservation economies during COVID‑19 shock. 

5. NILALEG Project – Landscape Restoration & Governance 

Case Example: US$10 million (GEF/UNDP) 

Supports integrated landscape management, community governance, and restoration in multiple regions. 

➡ Effectiveness: 

Strengthened regional planning and community forestry. 

Enabled local livelihood diversification and restoration of degraded ecosystems. 

6. Climate Resilience & Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (EbA) 

Case Example: GCF-funded projects (US$8.9–10 million each) 

Projects such as CRAVE and SAP006 support: 

Climate‑resilient agriculture 

Restoration of natural buffers (wetlands, forests) 

Strengthening local institutions and early warning systems 

➡ Effectiveness: 

Enhanced resilience of rural livelihoods and ecosystems. 

Increased integration of biodiversity into climate financing streams.