Eight Zambezi Basin Countries Set Priorities for Proposed $130 Million Climate Programme

Eight countries sharing the Zambezi River Basin have agreed on priorities for a proposed $130 million programme to strengthen food systems, livelihoods and ecosystems. The African Development Bank said on September 23 that representatives from Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe had reviewed the regional design at a workshop in Harare. An appraisal mission is still to assess the proposal. The agreement is a planning milestone, not an announcement that the entire programme has been approved, financed or put into operation.

That distinction is important for a river system that supports farms, fisheries, drinking water, tourism and major hydropower plants across national borders. The bank identifies four components for the proposed Programme for Building Resilience of Food, Livelihoods and Ecosystems in the Zambezi River Basin: natural-resource management, community climate resilience, institutional capacity and knowledge, and coordination. Each is plausible on its own. Their value will depend on whether country-level investments add up to measurable benefits for the basin as a whole.

One river, many national decisions

The Zambezi links communities with very different needs. Water stored or used upstream affects downstream agriculture, energy production and ecosystems. Drought can reduce hydropower output and strain irrigation, while floods can damage crops, homes and transport routes. A programme that treats each country’s project list as an isolated portfolio could miss the very reason to work at basin scale. Shared information and compatible decisions are essential.

The Zambezi Watercourse Commission, known as ZAMCOM, is part of the proposed programme’s coordination. Its executive secretary told the Harare meeting that investments must reflect national priorities while contributing to common basin-wide results. That principle is easy to state and harder to apply. A restoration project, for example, should be judged not only by hectares treated within one district but also by effects on soil, water availability and livelihoods that matter across the catchment.

The September 9-11 workshop included the African Development Bank, ZAMCOM, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification’s Global Mechanism, Climate Investment Funds, basin organizations, dam operators, civil society and private-sector participants. The gathering reviewed technical design, financing allocations, implementation arrangements, geographic priorities and environmental and social safeguards. Those are the questions an appraisal must resolve before a broad programme can become a credible set of investments.

Where the proposed spending would go

The bank describes possible work in landscape restoration, water management, climate-smart agriculture and stronger value chains, with opportunities for women and young people. For farmers, that may mean land and water measures that reduce the damage from erratic rainfall, alongside better access to markets. For communities exposed to floods, it could mean planning that makes settlement and infrastructure less vulnerable. The announcement does not provide a final allocation by country or a list of approved local projects, so those examples remain potential uses rather than delivered outcomes.

Effective land restoration requires more than planting. Local users need secure and understandable rights, realistic maintenance responsibilities and reasons to protect a restored area over time. Where a basin programme includes climate-smart farming, farmers need tools suited to local conditions and a route to earn income from what they produce. Training without inputs, or improved yields without buyers, will not deliver resilience. These are implementation tests, not claims that the proposed programme has already failed.

Gender and youth inclusion should also be measurable. Counting attendance at meetings is weaker evidence than showing who can access land, finance, equipment and sales contracts. The bank says participants discussed tracking gender outcomes and keeping communities engaged. A useful monitoring system would publish those results by location and make space for community feedback, including from people who may bear costs from land-use changes.

Why the basin needs joint measurement

The bank said in an earlier September discussion that about 51 million people live in the basin and estimated that 44% are below the poverty line, while 51% of its land is moderately degraded. Those basin-wide figures describe the scale of the challenge; they do not identify which households a new programme will reach. The proposal needs a baseline for each intervention and indicators that show whether drought and flood risks, food availability and incomes improve. Otherwise, large regional totals could obscure uneven outcomes.

Hydropower illustrates the cross-border stakes. The Kariba and Cahora Bassa systems are part of the basin’s energy economy, but water must also serve people, farms and ecosystems. A prolonged dry period forces difficult trade-offs. Better coordination will not make drought disappear, yet it can help countries share data, anticipate shortfalls and avoid working at cross-purposes. The ZAMCOM strategic planning material has long treated flood and drought management as basin issues. The proposed programme should show how its investments improve that existing framework rather than duplicate it.

Several funding streams and earlier initiatives touch the Zambezi. In February, the Global Environment Facility approved a $9.45 million grant for a separate regional water-governance effort led by the African Development Bank. That grant should not be added mechanically to the proposed $130 million programme or presented as proof that the new programme is fully financed. The Harare meeting discussed how different investment streams can complement one another; the appraisal should clarify their boundaries, contributions and accountability.

Financing and safeguards still need answers

The bank’s announcement describes the $130 million initiative as a regional programme under preparation and says the workshop preceded an appraisal mission. It does not state a final financing package, approval date or start date for field activities. Workshop recommendations included an appeal for participating countries to allocate at least 10% of national budgets to priority spending under the basin programme. That is a recommendation, not evidence that the eight governments have adopted identical budget commitments. Governments will need to show how any national contribution fits their fiscal capacity and existing obligations.

Safeguards matter because land and water projects can change who has access to resources. Appraisal should identify the people affected, how grievances will be heard and how ecological gains will be protected when construction or land-use changes occur. It should also specify which institution is responsible for each output and who pays for maintenance. A basin-wide plan can look compelling on paper while leaving those basic duties unclear.

The agreement among eight governments is a meaningful step toward treating the Zambezi as a shared economic and ecological system. It is still only a step. The next evidence to watch is the appraisal: a defined set of projects, transparent financing, realistic country commitments, safeguards and indicators that connect local work to common basin outcomes. Until those pieces are settled, the $130 million figure describes an ambition under development, not resilience already delivered.