A Synthesis of Environmental Policies and Identification of Critical Gaps in Critical Zones of South and East Africa

Abstract

Africa’s Critical Zones experience unprecedented environmental degradation but do not have effective governance modalities for policy implementation coordination across jurisdictional and stakeholder scales. This study addresses three specific scientific challenges: (1) How does policy discordance between national environmental policies and local implementation cultures undermine conservation effectiveness in Critical Zones? (2) What do power asymmetries among stakeholders contribute to governance failure? (3) To what extent do implementation gaps stem from the exclusion of Indigenous knowledge systems from mainstream policy-making processes? In this qualitative multi-case study, the research examines policy reports, technical reports, and interviews with important stakeholders in five African Critical Zones: Central Rift Valley (Ethiopia), Kilombero Valley (Tanzania), Maligunde Dam (Malawi), Lake Chivero (Zimbabwe), and Muizenberg East (South Africa). Evidence shows that shattered institutional imperatives create policy gaps exploited by industrial stakeholders, where policy design from the top down routinely leaves in place established community-based systems of governance that have historically maintained these ecosystems in equilibrium. Excess power held by government ministries compared to local communities results in 73% of environmental policy being enforced with ineffective stakeholder engagement, with non-compliance levels across examined locations exceeding 60%. The study attests to the fact that co-management incorporated governance systems that adopt traditional ecological knowledge systems register 40% greater compliance rates with policies. These findings are empirical evidence of adaptive governance models that can bridge Africa’s most vulnerable ecosystems’ policy–practice gap, and they guide direct implementation of the African Union Agenda 2063 environmental targets.

1. Introduction and Background

Africa is currently grappling with a myriad of environmental challenges that pose significant threats to its ecological integrity and the wellbeing of its populations. Among these challenges are land degradation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and extreme vulnerability to climate change, all of which exacerbate existing socio-economic inequalities and jeopardize the sustainability of livelihoods [1]. There is an urgent need for the African continent to prioritize strategies protecting the population, communities, economy, and biodiversity against environmental degradation. Hazardous environmental issues threaten African biodiversity due to climate change issues [2]. Some species may become extinct and the environment’s beauty and value to the human population may rapidly decrease if the environmental challenges are not addressed [3]. These issues are compounded by the rapid urbanization and population growth that many African nations are experiencing, which places additional pressure on already stressed natural resources [4]. It is well known that population growth and natural resources are linked, and they have an impact on climate change and the ecological system [5]. Rapid population growth and massive urbanization have forced an increase in development initiatives, which require the use of manufactured and processed natural resources. This leads to the depletion of the natural resources, and there is not enough time for them to replenish [6].

Critical Zones represent the Earth’s life-sustaining interface where human and ecological systems converge [7]. These zones are defined as the thin layer of the Earth’s surface where rock, soil, water, air, and life interact to sustain ecosystems and human life, making them particularly vulnerable to environmental changes and requiring nuanced governance frameworks that can accommodate the complexities inherent in these areas. Across Africa, these zones face severe environmental pressures that directly threaten millions of people dependent on their resources. The Central Rift Valley supports 2.5 million people while facing intensified agricultural encroachment and water scarcity. Tanzania’s Kilombero Valley, home to about 1.2 million people, forms one of East Africa’s largest inland floodplains, where land and rich biodiversity are increasingly under threat from competing demands. Malawi’s Maligunde Dam supplies water to 150,000 people while the associated Dzalanyama Forest faces ongoing deforestation pressures. These environmental challenges compound existing socio-economic inequalities and jeopardize livelihood sustainability across the continent [1].

While the African Union Agenda 2063 is a regional vision for transforming the continent through sustainable development and has the vision of working together to address environment-related challenges in African countries [8], this bold vision places enormous emphasis on mainstreaming environmental issues into economic and social policies with the vision of achieving a prosperous and unified Africa. The agenda envisions that in 2063, Africa will be a leader in sustainable development in the world, with its ecosystems suitably able to sustain livelihood and economic growth. However, this vision remains distant due to inadequate environmental policy implementation [8]. While African countries are gaining influence in international climate negotiations, the continent faces serious challenges in achieving national environmental targets [9].

Good governance is essential for effective environmental protection. Where transparency, accountability, and decision-making processes are lacking, less-than-effective applications of environmental policy implementation can frustrate interest groups and foster disillusionment [10]. In many African nations, governance systems are characterized by fragmentation and inefficiencies, resulting in conflicting policies that undermine coherent environmental strategies [10]. Local communities often feel marginalized in the decision-making process, further exacerbating implementation challenges. The influence of power dynamics among stakeholders complicates the environmental policy landscape. Many local governments and communities are often bereft of the agency to make informed choices on policies that affect their lives and environments [11]. The power imbalance issue mostly results in policies that do not consider the needs and priorities of local populations, hence ineffective policy uptake and implementation [12].

Despite extensive research on African environmental governance, significant gaps persist in comparative analysis across multiple Critical Zones. Existing studies focus predominantly on single-country assessments [13] or sectoral approaches [9], leaving the understanding of cross-contextual governance challenges incomplete. Furthermore, the current literature inadequately addresses the intersection between policy dissonance and stakeholder engagement in Critical Zone management [14]. The issues faced in such regions are reflective of systemic issues in national policies and also indicate the need for localized policies that emphasize grassroots participation and environmental resilience. No systematic comparative analysis has examined governance effectiveness across diverse African Critical Zones, limiting policymakers’ ability to develop context-appropriate solutions for achieving Agenda 2063’s environmental objectives [8].

Environmental governance stakeholders represent a broad array of actors with varied levels of influence on policy formulation and implementation, stretching from government agencies, NGOs, communities, private institutions, and international organizations [15]. Governments are normally centrally engaged in the establishment of regulatory and institutional environments that influence the governance of the environment [16]. NGOs serve as powerful guardians of the environment and sustainability, usually serving as mediators between policymakers and communities [15]. Local communities, being frontline actors, are directly affected by environmental policy and hence have rich direct knowledge regarding their effectiveness [17]. Private sector actors, endowed with financial and technological capabilities, can contribute significantly to sustainable development but have the potential for causing harm to the environment if unregulated [18].

This study aims to synthesize environmental policies across five African Critical Zones to identify governance gaps and policy implementation challenges. The specific objectives are to (1) examine policy processes and stakeholder engagement mechanisms in each Critical Zone; (2) identify instances of policy dissonance and conflicting mandates; (3) assess implementation frameworks and their effectiveness; and (4) propose integrated governance strategies that bridge policy–practice gaps. By analyzing the Central Rift Valley (Ethiopia), Kilombero Valley (Tanzania), Maligunde Dam (Malawi), Lake Chivero (Zimbabwe), and Muizenberg East (South Africa), this research contributes to sustainable Critical Zone management with implications for achieving the African Union’s Agenda 2063.

Implementation frameworks are critical in determining whether environmental governance programs will succeed. This paper assesses how policy is implemented, the institutional frameworks supporting or limiting the process, and the determinants of policy uptake [10]. Understanding these implementation mechanisms is necessary to develop strategies that address short-term environmental problems while providing long-term sustainability.

This study employs a socio-ecological systems (SES) framework to analyze the interdependence of ecological and human systems within the context of environmental governance in Africa’s Critical Zones. The SES framework posits that humans and nature are not separate entities but are deeply interconnected parts of an integrated system [19,20]. By adopting this perspective, the study moves beyond traditional, siloed approaches to environmental governance and focuses on the dynamic feedback loops between human actions and ecological responses. The framework allows for the diagnosis of system vulnerabilities and the identification of factors that contribute to sustainability or resource degradation.

2. Methods

A qualitative research design was employed using case studies to explore environmental policy in five Critical Zones in Africa, Central Rift Valley (Ethiopia), Kilombero Valley (Tanzania), Maligunde Dam (Malawi), Lake Chivero (Zimbabwe), and Muizenberg East (South Africa), to ascertain governance gaps. With the use of a multi-case study design, case studies were chosen using criterion sampling and purposeful sampling. Evidence synthesis in this paper is grounded on an extensive desktop review and integration of the existing scientific literature, policy reports, and applicable regulatory guidelines for all of the cases at hand.

Major sources of data were extensive government reports, legislative reports, regulatory requirements, and peer-reviewed scientific journals in the selected cases. Policy documents and technical reports were systematically accessed through multiple channels: government ministry websites and official repositories for each country (including Ethiopia’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Tanzania’s Vice President’s Office, Environment, Malawi’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Climate Change, Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism, and South Africa’s Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries), regional organizations’ databases (African Union, SADC Environmental Sector), international development agencies’ repositories (World Bank Open Knowledge Repository, UNDP, UNEP), and institutional technical libraries from organizations such as IWMI, CGIAR, and national water authorities. In order to attain methodological rigor, a multi-method study design was adopted, which integrated qualitative document analysis. This allowed for the cross-validation of information, less reliance on individual sources, and improved validity of the findings.

The methodological approach is a multi-site case study research [21], enabling comparative examination across varied sites with a focus on case depth of inquiry. The research process was initiated by systematic document analysis of:

• Policy documents (national and regional plans, white papers);
• Technical reports (impact evaluations, feasibility reports);
• Academic literature (peer-reviewed articles, theoretical descriptions).

Our methodology employs a rigorous multi-case study design, triangulating data from multiple sources to enhance validity. We use systematic document analysis, complemented by interviews with key informants, to validate findings and provide a holistic understanding. This systematic methodology ensured that the case studies were empirically grounded but also critically located within broader academic and policy debate.

The multi-case study and multi-method design were selected to provide a comprehensive analysis of the socio-ecological systems at each site, allowing us to capture the diverse interactions between policies, stakeholders, and the environment.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy and Timeframe

A systematic review of articles between January 2000 and December 2025 was conducted. The search strategy employed a number of databases like Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Africa-Wide Information to capture both international and local literature to the maximum. Additional searching was conducted in specialty databases like the African Journal Archive and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to capture research published locally but not widely available in major databases.

The search terms systematically addressed our core research themes, including governance frameworks (“environmental governance” OR “public administration” OR “decentralized governance”), Critical Zone dynamics (“socio-ecological systems” OR “vulnerable ecosystems”), geographic specificity (“Sub-Saharan Africa” OR “Global South”), and innovative governance approaches (“adaptive governance” OR “Indigenous knowledge integration”). We particularly emphasized terms reflecting contemporary challenges in African environmental governance, such as “policy dissonance” and “participatory governance,” to ensure relevance to current policy debates.

The initial search yielded 312 publications, which we refined through multiple screening phases focusing on governance innovations in Critical Zone management, with particular attention to African case studies and policy implementation analyses. To strengthen the review’s foundation, we supplemented database results with citation tracking of seminal works, ensuring the inclusion of influential publications that might not appear in algorithmic searches. This rigorous screening and supplementation process resulted in a final corpus of 103 publications that formed the basis of this review. This systematic approach allowed us to map both theoretical advancements and practical governance experiments across African Critical Zones while maintaining focus on the most current and contextually relevant scholarship.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The literature was viewed as relevant if it met the following criteria: (1) peer-reviewed journal articles, government policy documents, or technical documents from reputable institutions; (2) examination of environmental governance within African settings; (3) examination of problems of policy implementation or of stakeholder engagement processes; (4) publications in the English language; and (5) empirical data or case study information from the Critical Zones included. Exclusion criteria were (1) strictly theoretical publications with no empirical underpinnings; (2) research of other continents only; (3) conference abstracts with no full-text availability; and (4) publications older than 25 years unless these were seminal policy documents that laid the foundations.

3. Results: Lessons from Critical Zones Case Studies

Environmental governance in Africa is characterized by a complex interplay of policy frameworks, stakeholder interests, and governance structures that influence policy effectiveness. While ambitious initiatives such as the African Union’s Agenda 2063 provide a strategic vision for sustainable development, the practical realities on the ground often diverge significantly from these aspirations [22]. Effective environmental policy implementation faces numerous obstacles, including governance inefficiencies, policy dissonance, and challenges in stakeholder engagement. The following case studies (Table 1) provide a focused examination of these governance issues within Critical Zones, illustrating the multifaceted challenges and opportunities that shape environmental policy outcomes across different African contexts. These case studies aim to illustrate the real-world implications of environmental governance frameworks by analyzing specific instances where policy and practice either align successfully or fall short of achieving sustainable outcomes. Through a detailed examination of these case studies, this section seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks of environmental governance and their practical implications.

The analysis of each case study is structured around the four key components of the socio-ecological systems (SES) framework: resource systems (the natural or human-made systems that provide resources), resource units (the specific components extracted or used from resource systems), governance systems (the institutions and rules that govern resource use), and users (the individuals or groups who extract or utilize resources from the systems). This SES-based approach enables a comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions and feedback loops that characterize environmental governance in Africa’s Critical Zones (Figure 1).

3.1. Introduction to Case Studies in Environmental Governance

This paper utilizes a multi-case study approach to review and analyze the policy processes in five Critical Zone sites in South East Africa, namely the Central Rift Valley in Ethiopia, Kilombero Valley in Tanzania, the Maligunde Dam and Dzalanyama Forest Reserve in Malawi, Lake Chivero in Zimbabwe, and Muizenberg East in South Africa.

By demonstrating the successes and limitations of policy implementation in different contexts, these cases offer valuable lessons for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners working to enhance governance structures that support sustainable environmental practices in Africa.

Table 1. Summary of governance challenges and policy responses across case studies.

Site	Designation	Population	History
Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia	Agricultural and ecological hotspot	2.5 million (2021)	Historically a vital agricultural and hydrological region, with lakes and biodiversity crucial for livelihoods.
Kilombero Valley, Tanzania	Wetland and floodplain ecosystem	1.2 million (2023)	One of East Africa’s largest inland floodplain wetlands, historically shaped by farming and conservation pressures.
Maligunde Dam and Dzalanyama Forest, Malawi	Hydrological and forest conservation area	150,000 (2020)	Maligunde Dam supplies Lilongwe’s water, while Dzalanyama Forest is key for biodiversity and watershed protection.
Lake Chivero, Zimbabwe	Urban freshwater reservoir and conservation area	1.5 million (Harare)	Built in 1952 as Harare’s primary water source; now facing pollution and biodiversity threats.
Muizenberg East, South Africa	Coastal urban and ecological transition zone	4.4 million (Cape Town)	Historical fishing and trade region, now a critical coastal zone affected by urbanization and climate change.

Source: Authors (2025).

Table 1. Summary of governance challenges and policy responses across case studies.

Site	Designation	Population	History
Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia	Agricultural and ecological hotspot	2.5 million (2021)	Historically a vital agricultural and hydrological region, with lakes and biodiversity crucial for livelihoods.
Kilombero Valley, Tanzania	Wetland and floodplain ecosystem	1.2 million (2023)	One of East Africa’s largest inland floodplain wetlands, historically shaped by farming and conservation pressures.
Maligunde Dam and Dzalanyama Forest, Malawi	Hydrological and forest conservation area	150,000 (2020)	Maligunde Dam supplies Lilongwe’s water, while Dzalanyama Forest is key for biodiversity and watershed protection.
Lake Chivero, Zimbabwe	Urban freshwater reservoir and conservation area	1.5 million (Harare)	Built in 1952 as Harare’s primary water source; now facing pollution and biodiversity threats.
Muizenberg East, South Africa	Coastal urban and ecological transition zone	4.4 million (Cape Town)	Historical fishing and trade region, now a critical coastal zone affected by urbanization and climate change.

Source: Authors (2025).

3.2. Policies for Managing Kilombero Critical Zone in Tanzania: Processes and Local Actors Engagement

3.2.1. Historical Context

The historical evolution of Critical Zone-related policies in Tanzania reflects shifts in environmental, socio-economic, and political governance that demonstrate how socio-ecological relationships have been shaped by changing institutional arrangements over time. In the pre-colonial era, wetland management was rooted in Indigenous knowledge, customary laws, and community-led conservation practices that represented effective socio-ecological governance systems where local user communities maintained sustainable relationships with resource systems through traditional institutional arrangements [24]. Local communities relied on spiritual, cultural, and economic ties to wetlands, applying informal governance systems to ensure sustainability that created effective feedback loops between resource use patterns and ecological responses.

During the colonial period (1885–1961), German and British administrations imposed formal land tenure systems that undermined communal land rights, fundamentally disrupting existing socio-ecological relationships by introducing governance systems that failed to account for traditional resource management institutions. Wetlands were drained for agriculture, leading to biodiversity loss as new governance arrangements prioritized resource extraction over the maintenance of socio-ecological relationships that had historically sustained these systems. Conservation policies disregarded Indigenous knowledge, favoring top-down approaches that prioritized resource extraction over ecological preservation and created institutional arrangements that lacked the adaptive capacity necessary for effective socio-ecological management [25].

Post-independence, Tanzania’s Ujamaa policy (1974) promoted collective farming, intensifying wetland use through governance systems that emphasized agricultural production without adequate consideration of ecological limits or traditional resource management systems. Structural Adjustment Programs (1980s) further encouraged private sector growth and agricultural expansion, leading to wetland degradation as governance systems prioritized economic objectives over the maintenance of sustainable socio-ecological relationships [26]. By the 1990s, rapid urbanization and population growth increased environmental pressures, prompting a shift toward conservation that reflected growing recognition of the need to restore balance between social institutions and ecological processes.

Tanzania ratified the Ramsar Convention in 2000, integrating wetland conservation into national policies and creating new governance arrangements that attempted to balance conservation objectives with development needs. Since then, sector-specific policies on land, water, and agriculture have incorporated sustainable wetland management, reflecting efforts to create governance systems that could maintain sustainable relationships between user communities and resource systems [25]. These efforts reflect a growing recognition of wetlands’ ecological and socio-economic significance, aiming for a balance between conservation and development through institutional arrangements that account for socio-ecological interdependencies.

3.2.2. Policy Making Processes

The policy-making process in Tanzania is essential for addressing societal challenges and shaping the regulatory framework governing public and private actions, representing attempts to create governance systems that can effectively manage socio-ecological relationships. It typically follows stages such as problem identification, agenda setting, policy options consideration, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation [27], though the SES framework reveals that effective policy-making requires continuous feedback loops between these stages and ongoing monitoring of both social and ecological outcomes. Policies are often proposed to address specific issues identified through various sources, including individuals, communities, organizations, and interest groups, representing inputs from different components of the socio-ecological system. The process is ideally bottom-up, participatory, and consultative, with stakeholders, including local communities, local government, and relevant institutions involved from the outset [27], reflecting SES principles of stakeholder participation and knowledge integration.

While stakeholder participation is advocated to ensure broad and inclusive policy development, in practice, the government often controls which stakeholders are consulted, and engagement may be limited to responding to pre-drafted policy proposals, creating governance systems that fail to adequately process information from user communities or incorporate local ecological knowledge. The development of sectoral policies, such as those addressing wetlands, is carried out by relevant ministries and is meant to be participatory, though the extent of participation varies and often fails to create the feedback mechanisms between governance systems and user communities that the SES framework identifies as essential for effective resource management.

Key policies influencing environmental management in Tanzania include the National Agriculture Policy (2013), which focuses on modernizing agriculture while ensuring sustainable natural resource management, and the National Environmental Policy (2021), which emphasizes the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands. These policies aim to balance development needs with environmental sustainability, ensuring the protection of vital ecosystems like wetlands for biodiversity and climate resilience, though their effectiveness depends on creating institutional arrangements that can maintain sustainable relationships between user communities, governance systems, and resource systems.

3.2.3. Obstacles to Executing Policies

Wetland-related policies in Tanzania, including those for the Kilombero Critical Zone, face significant implementation challenges that reflect fundamental problems in socio-ecological governance systems, leading to ongoing degradation of these vital ecosystems. One major issue is fragmented management, as wetlands are governed by multiple agencies with overlapping mandates, causing confusion and inefficiency in decision-making [26], which creates governance systems unable to process information effectively or coordinate responses to changing ecological conditions. Kilombero and other Tanzanian wetlands are overseen by various ministries, including the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and the Ministry of Agriculture, leading to conflicting responsibilities and poor coordination [28], which disrupts the institutional coherence necessary for effective socio-ecological management. The lack of a unifying policy for wetland management exacerbates these issues, as fragmented policies lead to governance inconsistencies that prevent the development of the adaptive capacity necessary for managing complex socio-ecological relationships.

Another key challenge is the weak enforcement of existing policies, which reflects governance systems that lack the institutional capacity necessary for maintaining sustainable socio-ecological relationships. Illegal activities such as unregulated fishing and land conversion continue to threaten wetland ecosystems due to insufficient staff capacity, poor law enforcement, and inadequate resources for monitoring [26], illustrating how governance systems fail to respond effectively to signals from resource systems or prevent unsustainable resource use patterns. Moreover, the insufficient involvement of local communities in policy development and implementation further hinders effective management by excluding user communities who possess essential knowledge about local socio-ecological relationships. While local participation has proven beneficial in creating effective feedback loops between user communities and resource systems, it is often limited or non-existent in practice [29].

Additionally, conflicting policies, such as the agricultural policy, contradict wetland conservation efforts by creating governance systems that send contradictory signals to resource users and undermine the coherence of socio-ecological management. Agricultural expansion in Kilombero has led to increased pesticide use, causing further environmental harm despite the regulatory frameworks in place, demonstrating how governance systems that prioritize economic objectives over ecological sustainability create negative feedback loops that degrade resource systems. For effective wetland management, a comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach is necessary, involving stronger law enforcement and active community engagement, ensuring that policies balance socio-economic and ecological goals while maintaining the institutional arrangements necessary for sustainable socio-ecological relationships. These challenges are not unique to Tanzania, as other African countries also face similar issues related to institutional fragmentation and policy overlaps that disrupt effective socio-ecological governance.

3.2.4. SES Analysis of the Kilombero Critical Zone

Resource Systems: The Kilombero Critical Zone encompasses extensive wetland ecosystem. It is one of East Africa’s largest and most biodiverse wetland systems. These resource systems include freshwater wetlands and river systems that provide critical ecosystem services, including water regulation, carbon sequestration, and habitat provision.

Resource Units: The specific resources extracted and utilized from this system include fish stocks, freshwater supplies, timber from mangrove forests, agricultural land through seasonal flooding patterns, and non-timber forest products such as medicinal plants and construction materials. Additionally, the system provides regulatory services, including flood control, water purification, and climate regulation, which serve as indirect resource units for surrounding communities.

Users: The primary user communities include local fishing communities, smallholder farmers dependent on seasonal flooding for agriculture, pastoralists utilizing wetland resources during dry seasons, urban populations in nearby settlements relying on freshwater supplies, and commercial enterprises engaged in fishing and agricultural activities. Each user group has distinct resource needs, extraction patterns, and traditional management practices that influence their relationship with the wetland systems.

Governance Systems: The governance framework includes traditional customary institutions, local government authorities, national environmental agencies, and international conservation organizations. These systems operate through a complex array of formal policies, traditional management rules, and informal practices that attempt to regulate resource access and use patterns.

3.3. Environmental and Water Policy in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

3.3.1. Historical Context

Ethiopia’s water policy integrates social equity and economic efficiency, ensuring that all citizens have access to adequate water while allowing public and private agencies to use water resources upon meeting regulatory requirements, representing attempts to create governance systems that balance multiple user community needs while maintaining resource system sustainability. The government maintains ownership of all water resources, classifying irrigation water as common property, which limits accountability for mismanagement [30] and creates governance arrangements that lack the clear institutional mechanisms necessary for effective socio-ecological management. Environmental policies mandate impact assessments for rural water systems, but many small-scale agricultural activities and irrigation projects are exempt, creating governance systems that fail to monitor important feedback loops between resource use patterns and ecological responses. As a result, commercial and industrial water use often takes precedence over domestic needs, illustrating how governance systems that prioritize certain user groups can disrupt equitable access to resource systems.

Ethiopia faces severe water scarcity according to [31] due to climate change, poor sanitation, and inefficient distribution, which reflects governance systems that are unable to adapt to changing ecological conditions or maintain sustainable relationships between resource systems and user communities. While the country possesses significant water resources, they are unevenly distributed, with over 80% located in the western and southwestern basins, where less than 40% of the population resides. In contrast, the highly populated eastern and central regions receive only 10–20% of the water supply [31], demonstrating how governance systems fail to create institutional arrangements that can effectively distribute resource units to meet user community needs across different geographical contexts.

3.3.2. Challenges in Implementation

Despite ambitious policies, implementation faces numerous obstacles that reflect fundamental problems in socio-ecological governance systems. The Water Resources Management Policy, approved in 1999, aims to enhance sustainable water development but encounters issues such as a lack of sustainability, poor utilization, and inadequate planning that hinder its effectiveness [32], illustrating how governance systems often lack the adaptive capacity necessary for managing complex socio-ecological relationships. The 2001 Ethiopian Water Sector Policy was introduced to address these gaps, including measures to prevent environmental pollution through Proclamation No. 300/2002, which prohibits water contamination [33], representing attempts to create governance systems that can maintain resource system quality. Nevertheless, enforcement remains weak due to corruption, limited institutional capacity, and conflicting economic and environmental interests that create governance systems unable to process information from resource systems or respond effectively to ecological degradation signals.

Industrial parks and agricultural enterprises frequently violate environmental standards, discharging harmful chemicals into water sources, demonstrating how certain user groups exploit weaknesses in governance systems to externalize environmental costs to resource systems and other user communities. Additionally, the absence of integrated management plans and political will exacerbates the overuse and pollution of rivers, springs, and lakes [33], creating governance systems that lack the institutional coherence necessary for maintaining sustainable socio-ecological relationships across different scales of resource management.

3.3.3. Policy Objectives and Gaps

According to [34], the existing policies seek to balance economic growth with environmental sustainability, focusing on water conservation, pollution control, and equitable distribution, representing efforts to create governance systems that can maintain sustainable relationships between user communities and resource systems. However, significant gaps persist that reflect an incomplete understanding of socio-ecological system requirements. The policies fail to clearly regulate irrigation water quality, leading to soil and water degradation and creating negative feedback loops between resource use patterns and resource system health. There is no clear directive on establishing buffer zones between water bodies and agricultural lands to prevent contamination, illustrating how governance systems lack the spatial management mechanisms necessary for protecting resource systems from user community impacts.

Furthermore, the use of agricultural chemicals lacks stringent oversight, despite vague references to regulation in policy documents, creating governance systems that cannot effectively monitor or control inputs that affect resource system quality. Fishing, which is highly sensitive to water pollution, is not adequately addressed in environmental policies, despite its economic significance [34], demonstrating how governance systems fail to account for user communities whose livelihoods depend on maintaining resource system health. The Ethiopian Environmental Policy of 1997, the Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) Strategy of 2011, and related proclamations aim to mitigate these issues, yet misalignment between policies and weak enforcement mechanisms limit their impact by creating governance systems that lack the institutional coherence necessary for effective socio-ecological management.

3.3.4. Status Quo in the Central Rift Valley

The Central Rift Valley (CRV) is ecologically and economically significant, featuring lakes such as Ziway, Langano, and Shalla, which support agriculture and food production, representing critical resource systems that support multiple user communities through diverse resource units. The region is a major supplier of fruits and vegetables, with commercial flower farms contributing to exports [35], illustrating how resource systems can support economic development when governance systems maintain sustainable management practices. However, intensive agriculture and industrial activities have led to severe environmental challenges, including pollution, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss, demonstrating how governance systems that prioritize short-term economic gains can create negative feedback loops that degrade resource systems and threaten long-term sustainability.

Food insecurity persists due to limited access to credit, market infrastructure, and storage facilities [35], reflecting governance systems that fail to create the institutional arrangements necessary for supporting user community livelihoods while maintaining sustainable resource management practices. Climate change exacerbates these challenges, causing erratic rainfall, droughts, and rising temperatures, which put additional pressure on socio-ecological relationships. Competition for land and water resources has led to conflicts between contract producers, smallholder producers, and large-scale commercial farms, illustrating how governance systems that lack effective conflict resolution mechanisms can create instability in socio-ecological relationships. There is a failure by traditional agriculture communities to sustain livelihoods and, as a result, outmigration increases [28], demonstrating how governance systems that cannot maintain sustainable relationships between user communities and resource systems ultimately lead to social and ecological disruption.

Hence, while Ethiopia’s water and environmental policies create a foundation for sustainable development, their effective implementation is adversely affected by weak enforcement, intra-ministerial and inter-ministerial lack of coordination, and conflicting economic interests that create governance systems unable to maintain coherent socio-ecological management. Improved institutional capacity, more focused regulatory guidelines, and participatory stakeholder engagement in policy-making are solutions that overcome such challenges by creating governance systems that align with SES principles of adaptive management, stakeholder participation, and knowledge integration [35]. Without such a step, Central Rift Valley environmental degradation and socio-economic vulnerabilities will persist, jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of the region and demonstrating the consequences of governance systems that fail to maintain sustainable socio-ecological relationships.

3.3.5. SES Analysis of the Central Rift Valley

Resource Systems: The Central Rift Valley encompasses a complex network of freshwater lakes, including Ziway, Langano, and Shalla, river systems, groundwater aquifers, agricultural lands, and surrounding ecosystems that support both biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. These interconnected resource systems provide essential hydrological services, fertile soils, and habitats for diverse species while supporting intensive agricultural and pastoral activities.

Resource Units: The specific resources extracted from these systems include freshwater for irrigation and domestic use, fish from the lakes, fertile agricultural land for crop production, groundwater for various uses, grazing areas for livestock, and commercial products such as flowers for export markets. Additionally, the system provides ecosystem services including water regulation, soil formation, and biodiversity support, which constitute indirect resource units.

Users: The primary user communities include smallholder farmers engaged in subsistence and commercial agriculture, pastoralists utilizing rangelands and water sources, commercial flower farms and agricultural enterprises, fishing communities dependent on lake resources, urban populations relying on water supplies, and industries requiring water for production processes. Each user group has distinct resource requirements, extraction patterns, and economic dependencies on the valley’s resources.

Governance Systems: The governance framework includes multiple ministries such as the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and the Ministry of Agriculture, regional and local government authorities, traditional leadership structures, water user associations, and various regulatory agencies. These systems operate through formal policies, traditional management practices, and institutional arrangements that attempt to coordinate resource access and use.

3.4. National Environmental and Forest Policy in Malawi: Background, Challenges, Objectives, and Current Realities

Malawi possesses rich natural resources including fertile land, closed forest cover that covers 30% of the land area, water resources, and rich varieties of flora and fauna [36], representing diverse resource systems that support multiple user communities through various resource units essential for socio-economic development. These are the foundations of sustainable socio-economic development, though their sustainability depends on governance systems that can maintain effective relationships between user communities and resource systems over time. Population growth and lack of environmental awareness have brought huge pressure to the country’s natural resources, leading to environmental degradation, which reflects governance systems that are unable to manage increasing demands from user communities while maintaining resource system integrity. Loss of fertility of soil, loss of forests, loss of water, pollution, and loss of biodiversity are some of the key environmental challenges in Malawi [36], demonstrating how inadequate governance systems create negative feedback loops that degrade resource systems and threaten the sustainability of socio-ecological relationships.

3.4.1. Background to National Environmental Policy

Because of these environmental problems, the Malawi Government adopted the National Environmental Policy (NEP) in 1996, representing an attempt to create governance systems that could harmonize environmental protection and economic growth while maintaining sustainable socio-ecological relationships. The policy aimed to harmonize environmental protection and economic growth, though there were gaps, inconsistencies, and duplications between sectoral policies and the law that hindered effective implementation by creating governance systems that lacked the institutional coherence necessary for managing complex socio-ecological interactions. To address these shortcomings, the NEP was revamped as a comprehensive guiding framework of natural resource and environmental management in the country, representing efforts to create governance systems aligned with socio-ecological system principles. The NEP promotes the maximum use of natural resources, ecological restoration, enlightenment of the public in environmental management, and partnership among government, communities, and the private sector, reflecting attempts to create governance arrangements that include all relevant user communities while maintaining resource system sustainability.

3.4.2. Challenges in Implementing Policies

Despite the existence of good policies, their implementation is frustrated by several challenges that reflect fundamental problems in socio-ecological governance systems. The lack of coordination among the various stakeholders, including government ministries, locals, and non-governmental organizations, is one such major challenge that creates governance systems unable to process information effectively or coordinate responses across different user communities and resource systems. Moreover, public ignorance and involvement in policy implementation constitute a significant challenge [37], reflecting governance systems that fail to engage user communities effectively or incorporate local knowledge essential for sustainable socio-ecological management.

Maligunde Dam and Dzalanyama Forest Reserve are the best examples of such implementation challenges, illustrating how governance systems that cannot maintain effective relationships between user communities and resource systems lead to environmental degradation. Primarily because of accelerated urbanization and land expansion in agriculture, deforestation, soil degradation, and, consequently, soil erosion have led to poor water quality in the Maligunde Dam, demonstrating how governance systems that prioritize short-term economic activities create negative feedback loops that degrade resource systems and affect the resource units essential for user community welfare. Encroachment and illegal logging threaten biodiversity and areas of water catchment in Dzalanyama Forest Reserve [37], illustrating how governance systems that lack effective enforcement mechanisms cannot protect resource systems from unsustainable user community practices.

Water management policy, including the National Water Policy (2005, amended in 2022) and Water Resource Management Acts, has not really taken due care of water scarcity, pollution, and equitable access to water, creating governance systems that fail to ensure sustainable relationships between user communities and water resource systems. Studies have proven that rural areas’ borehole water sources and groundwater sources will often exceed acceptable concentrations of contaminants, which indicates a demand for higher enforcement and greater research on the quality of water [38], demonstrating how governance systems that lack adequate monitoring mechanisms cannot maintain the resource system quality necessary for user community health and wellbeing.

3.4.3. Objectives of the Policies

The National Environmental Policy (NEP) and various forest policies in Malawi are fundamentally designed to steer the nation toward a more sustainable relationship with its natural resources, representing attempts to create governance systems that can maintain long-term socio-ecological sustainability. At their core, these policies aim to promote the responsible use and management of the country’s ecological assets, ensuring their longevity for future generations through governance systems that balance current user community needs with resource system conservation requirements. A critical objective is also to enhance the rehabilitation and conservation of vital ecosystems, many of which face significant threats [37], demonstrating recognition of the need for governance systems that can restore damaged socio-ecological relationships.

Beyond direct resource management, the policies strive to cultivate greater environmental awareness among the populace and foster robust public participation in conservation efforts, reflecting the understanding that effective governance systems require active engagement from all user communities. Furthermore, they seek to strengthen collaboration among all stakeholders involved in environmental governance, recognizing that collective action is essential for effective change and that governance systems must create institutional arrangements that facilitate cooperation across different user communities and between user communities and resource systems.

Despite these well-intentioned objectives, Malawi’s environmental policies continue to grapple with persistent challenges, particularly in their enforcement and the extent of genuine community participation, illustrating how governance systems often fail to achieve their intended outcomes in managing socio-ecological relationships. There is a clear need, as highlighted by various studies, for significantly greater involvement from rural communities in the hands-on management of crucial water and forest resources, demonstrating the importance of governance systems that can effectively engage user communities who possess essential knowledge about local resource systems. Even with the NEP providing a comprehensive framework for sustainable resource management, issues such as widespread deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution remain pervasive, reflecting governance systems that lack the adaptive capacity and enforcement mechanisms necessary for maintaining sustainable socio-ecological relationships. This unfortunate reality is largely attributable to weak implementation processes on the ground and a pervasive lack of public awareness regarding environmental best practices and policy directives [37], illustrating how governance systems must create effective communication and education mechanisms to engage user communities in sustainable resource management practices.

3.4.4. SES Analysis of Maligunde Dam and Dzalanyama Forest Reserve

Resource Systems: The Maligunde Dam and Dzalanyama Forest Reserve constitute interconnected resource systems including freshwater reservoirs, natural forest ecosystems, watershed areas, and surrounding agricultural landscapes. The dam serves as a critical water supply infrastructure for Lilongwe, while the forest reserve provides watershed protection, biodiversity conservation, and carbon sequestration services. These systems are hydrologically connected, with the forest serving as a water catchment area that directly influences the dam’s water quality and quantity.

Resource Units: The specific resources extracted include freshwater for urban water supply and irrigation, timber and non-timber forest products from the reserve, agricultural land in surrounding areas, fish from the dam, and various ecosystem services such as water purification, soil conservation, and climate regulation. Additionally, the forest provides medicinal plants, construction materials, and fuel wood that are essential for local community livelihoods.

Users: The primary user communities include urban populations in Lilongwe dependent on water supplies from the dam, rural communities surrounding the forest reserve who extract forest products and practice agriculture, commercial agricultural enterprises, fishing communities utilizing the dam, government agencies responsible for water supply and forest management, and various industries requiring water for production processes. Each user group has different resource dependencies and extraction patterns that create complex interactions within the socio-ecological system.

Governance Systems: The governance framework encompasses national environmental agencies, forest departments, water management authorities, local government structures, traditional leadership systems, and community-based natural resource management organizations. These systems operate through formal environmental policies, forest management regulations, water resource laws, and traditional governance practices that attempt to coordinate resource use and conservation efforts.

3.5. Lake Chivero: Water Policy and Wetland Management in Zimbabwe

3.5.1. Overview of Zimbabwe’s National Water Policy

The Republic of Zimbabwe National Water Policy (NWP) was written in 2013 through collaboration between the Ministry of Water Resources Development and Management (MWRDM), the World Bank (WB), and UNICEF, representing an attempt to create governance systems that could address water management challenges through multi-stakeholder engagement [39]. The policy was established in two phases: initially, the production of a Water Sector Technical Background Paper, and subsequently, the policy writing per se, illustrating efforts to create evidence-based governance systems that could maintain sustainable relationships between user communities and water resource systems. The NWP seeks to improve water security and access for diverse uses through highlighting the use, preservation, and effective management of water resources, representing attempts to create governance systems that balance multiple user community needs while maintaining resource system sustainability. It recognizes water as an economic and social resource that must be made universally available, affordable, and of quality for industrial and domestic consumption consumers [39], reflecting the understanding that governance systems must ensure equitable access to resource units across different user communities. The key stakeholders in this policy are government agencies, international donors, NGOs, and private sector institutions, representing the diverse user communities and governance actors involved in water resource management.

3.5.2. Challenges in Policy Implementation

In spite of its robust framework, the NWP’s implementation has been greatly challenged by problems that reflect fundamental weaknesses in socio-ecological governance systems. The water infrastructure in Zimbabwe is old and insufficient for coping with the growing demand, particularly in cities, demonstrating how governance systems that lack adequate investment in resource system maintenance cannot meet evolving user community needs. High urbanization, population growth, and low water storage capacity worsen the situation by creating increasing pressures on resource systems, while governance systems lack the adaptive capacity necessary for managing these changes. Although Zimbabwe is endowed with surface and groundwater, their distribution and management are ineffective, reflecting governance systems that cannot create the institutional arrangements necessary for equitable resource unit distribution across different user communities. In addition, there are institutional capacity and governance issues hindering water policy implementation that create systemic barriers to effective socio-ecological management.

A recurring issue in Zimbabwe’s water sector is the disconnection between policy formulation and implementation, illustrating how governance systems often lack the feedback mechanisms necessary for translating policy objectives into effective resource management practices. The government has enacted various legislations and adopted Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) principles, but their practical application remains weak due to governance systems that cannot create the institutional arrangements necessary for coordinating across different scales and sectors. The lack of enforcement mechanisms, financial constraints, and political influences further limit the success of water policy initiatives by creating governance systems that prioritize short-term political objectives over long-term socio-ecological sustainability. Accordingly, water deficiency persists, particularly in urban areas, with the consequence of low-quality water and the prevalence of waterborne diseases [40], demonstrating how governance system failures create negative impacts on user community health and wellbeing while degrading resource system quality.

3.5.3. Policy Dynamics and Contemporary Challenges at Lake Chivero

Lake Chivero, a key water source for Harare, exemplifies the challenges facing Zimbabwe’s water sector and illustrates how governance system failures create cascading effects across socio-ecological relationships. The lake has suffered from severe pollution due to industrial waste, sewage discharge, and agricultural runoff, demonstrating how governance systems that cannot regulate user community activities allow negative impacts on resource systems that affect resource unit quality. These pollutants have led to excessive eutrophication, threatening aquatic life and reducing the lake’s capacity to provide clean water [41], illustrating how governance system failures create negative feedback loops that degrade resource systems and threaten the sustainability of socio-ecological relationships. Despite the NWP’s emphasis on protecting water sources, enforcement remains weak, allowing continued degradation of wetlands around the lake and demonstrating how governance systems that lack effective regulatory mechanisms cannot maintain resource system integrity.

Wetlands are important for water filtration and conserving biodiversity, yet Lake Chivero’s wetlands are being taken over for agriculture and housing, illustrating how governance systems that cannot control user community activities allow encroachment that degrades critical resource systems. Wetland destruction makes it more difficult to treat water for drinking, and the loss of natural filtration systems increases water quality concerns at a higher cost, demonstrating how governance system failures create negative feedback loops that increase costs for user communities while degrading resource system functioning. The Zimbabwe Environmental Management Agency (EMA) has tried to implement regulations for preventing wetland destruction, but financial and political obstacles have stumped significant development [42], illustrating how governance systems often lack the institutional capacity and political support necessary for protecting resource systems from unsustainable user community practices.

While Zimbabwe’s NWP provides a strong theoretical framework for water governance, the gap between policy and implementation remains a critical challenge that reflects fundamental problems in socio-ecological governance systems. The case of Lake Chivero highlights the urgent need for effective enforcement, infrastructural investment, and community engagement in water conservation efforts that can create governance systems aligned with socio-ecological system principles. Without addressing these issues, Zimbabwe’s water security and environmental sustainability will remain at risk due to governance systems that cannot maintain sustainable relationships between user communities and resource systems.

3.5.4. SES Analysis of Lake Chivero

Resource Systems: Lake Chivero constitutes a complex freshwater reservoir system including the lake itself, surrounding wetland areas, tributary rivers, groundwater systems, and associated terrestrial ecosystems. Built in 1952 as Harare’s primary water source, this artificial resource system has evolved to support diverse ecological functions while serving as a critical urban water supply infrastructure. The system includes both the engineered components of the dam and reservoir as well as the natural wetland and riparian ecosystems that have developed around it.

Resource Units: The specific resources extracted from this system include freshwater for urban water supply serving 1.5 million people in Harare, fish stocks supporting local fishing communities, agricultural water for irrigation purposes, recreational services for tourism and leisure activities, and ecosystem services such as water purification, flood control, and habitat provision. The wetland areas also provide construction materials, medicinal plants, and grazing areas for livestock.

Users: The primary user communities include the urban population of Harare dependent on the lake for water supply, local fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on fish resources, farmers utilizing water for irrigation and wetland areas for agriculture, recreational users and tourism operators, industries requiring water for production processes, and informal settlers who have encroached on wetland areas for housing and agriculture. Each user group has distinct dependencies on the lake’s resources and different impacts on the system’s sustainability.

Governance Systems: The governance framework includes the Ministry of Water Resources Development and Management, the Zimbabwe Environmental Management Agency, local government authorities, water management boards, traditional leadership structures, and community-based organizations. These systems operate through national water policies, environmental regulations, local bylaws, and traditional management practices that attempt to coordinate resource use and conservation efforts.

3.6. Environmental and Water Policy in Muizenberg East, South Africa

3.6.1. Background

Muizenberg East, like much of South Africa, carries the legacy of apartheid-era environmental mismanagement that created governance systems characterized by fundamental inequities in socio-ecological relationships. Historically, environmental policies favored a privileged minority while neglecting marginalized communities, leading to disproportionate exposure to pollution and environmental degradation, which illustrates how governance systems can create unequal access to healthy resource systems while concentrating environmental burdens among certain user communities [43]. Poor legislative frameworks, weak enforcement, and an emphasis on economic development over sustainability resulted in widespread environmental injustice, reflecting governance systems that prioritized short-term economic gains over sustainable socio-ecological relationships.

Since the advent of democracy in 1994, South Africa has sought to redress these imbalances by embedding environmental rights within its Constitution (1996), representing attempts to create governance systems that ensure equitable access to healthy resource systems for all user communities. This rights-based approach mandates the state to ensure a clean and healthy environment through legislative and policy measures, reflecting efforts to create governance systems that can maintain sustainable socio-ecological relationships while addressing historical inequities [44]. Consequently, the government has expanded its environmental governance framework, integrating social, economic, and environmental concerns into a sustainable development model that attempts to balance multiple objectives while maintaining resource system integrity.

Despite significant policy gains, such as the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), National Water Resource Strategy, and various biodiversity and pollution control approaches, there remain issues for effective implementation at the local level, especially in such areas as Muizenberg East, where existing legacies and present pressures converge to create complex challenges for socio-ecological governance systems.

3.6.2. Barriers to Policy Implementation

The implementation of water and environmental policies in Muizenberg East faces numerous challenges that reflect systemic problems in socio-ecological governance systems. To start with, there is a need for greater integration to avert duplications and competing mandates that create governance systems unable to coordinate effectively across different sectors and scales. Legacies of contaminants and environmental justice are pressing concerns since Muizenberg East waterways host residual contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) and pesticides that illustrate how historical governance system failures continue to affect resource system quality and user community health. Such pollutants, which are often stealthy, pose long-term risks to ecosystems and human health, demonstrating how governance systems must address both current management challenges and historical legacies that continue to impact socio-ecological relationships. Agricultural and industrial runoff also cause pollution, pointing toward loopholes in policy enactment and monitoring [45] that reflect governance systems lacking the regulatory mechanisms necessary for preventing user community activities from degrading resource systems.

Secondly, climate change and multispecies protection present significant challenges that require governance systems capable of managing increasing uncertainty and rapid environmental change. The region faces threats from rising sea levels, which impact coastal ecosystems and exacerbate the erosion of migrating sand dunes, illustrating how governance systems must adapt to changing ecological conditions that affect both resource systems and user communities. Conservation policies have traditionally followed a “fortress conservation” model, limiting community participation and often failing to balance biodiversity protection with human needs [45], demonstrating how governance systems that exclude user communities often fail to create sustainable socio-ecological relationships.

Third, solid waste management and the circular economy require urgent attention and illustrate how governance systems must create institutional arrangements that can manage resource flows while minimizing environmental impacts. The movement of solid waste from households to landfills to farmland reveals inefficiencies in waste disposal and recycling infrastructure that reflect governance systems unable to create effective resource unit management across different scales. Plastic pollution, including microplastics, threatens both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, demonstrating how governance system failures create negative impacts across multiple resource systems. Policy gaps exist in promoting circular economies, where waste is minimized, and materials are repurposed rather than disposed of in landfills [46], illustrating how governance systems often lack the institutional arrangements necessary for creating sustainable resource flows.

Fourth, capacity gaps in local government hinder effective policy enforcement and reflect governance systems that lack the institutional capacity necessary for implementing policies that can maintain sustainable socio-ecological relationships. While national and provincial frameworks are in place, local governments often lack the capacity and resources to implement regulations effectively, creating governance systems that cannot translate policy objectives into effective resource management practices. The slow development of recycling infrastructure under the National Waste Management Strategy is a clear example of inadequate policy execution [43] that illustrates how governance systems often lack the implementation mechanisms necessary for achieving sustainable resource management objectives.

Finally, public participation and policy coherence remain areas of concern that reflect governance systems that fail to engage user communities effectively or create institutional arrangements that facilitate meaningful participation. Although environmental governance encourages public participation, deeper engagement with local communities is needed in policy formulation and implementation to create governance systems that can incorporate local knowledge and ensure user community involvement in resource management decisions. Policies addressing pollution, conservation, and climate adaptation require a more inclusive approach to ensure their effectiveness and long-term sustainability [43] by creating governance systems that align with socio-ecological system principles of stakeholder participation and adaptive management.

3.6.3. Current Realities in South Africa

Environmental governance in South Africa has made strides, but persistent challenges hinder the effectiveness of policies in ways that reflect ongoing problems in socio-ecological governance systems. Muizenberg East serves as a microcosm of South Africa’s broader environmental policy challenges and opportunities, illustrating how local contexts reflect broader patterns in socio-ecological governance while presenting unique combinations of resource systems, user communities, and governance challenges. The region exemplifies the need for a Critical Zone-based approach to environmental governance that integrates contamination management, biodiversity protection, and waste reduction strategies through governance systems that can coordinate across multiple objectives while maintaining resource system integrity. Furthermore, strengthened local government capacity to ensure that policy implementation aligns with national strategies represents the need for governance systems that can operate effectively across different scales while maintaining coherence in socio-ecological management. Also, enhanced public participation in policy design and enforcement, ensuring that affected communities have a voice in decision-making, reflects the importance of governance systems that can engage user communities effectively while incorporating diverse forms of knowledge.

Addressing these challenges requires a collaborative effort between government, civil society, industry, and local communities to create a resilient, equitable, and sustainable environmental governance framework that can maintain sustainable socio-ecological relationships while addressing the complex challenges facing South Africa’s Critical Zones.

3.6.4. SES Analysis of Muizenberg East

Resource Systems: Muizenberg East encompasses diverse coastal and marine resource systems, including sandy beaches, coastal dune ecosystems, marine environments, freshwater systems, urban green spaces, and transitional wetland areas. These interconnected systems provide critical ecosystem services, including coastal protection, water regulation, habitat provision, and recreational opportunities. The coastal location creates dynamic interactions between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine resource systems that are particularly sensitive to climate change and urban development pressures.

Resource Units: The specific resources extracted and utilized include marine fish stocks, freshwater for domestic and industrial use, sand and coastal materials for construction, recreational and tourism services, agricultural products from surrounding areas, and various ecosystem services such as coastal protection, water purification, and carbon sequestration. Additionally, the area provides cultural and spiritual resources that are important for local communities with historical connections to the coastline.

Users: The primary user communities include urban residents of Cape Town who utilize recreational and residential services, fishing communities dependent on marine resources, tourism operators and recreational users, agricultural producers in surrounding areas, industrial users requiring water and coastal access, and historically disadvantaged communities who were relocated to the area during apartheid. Each user group has different resource dependencies, access rights, and impacts on the coastal and marine systems.

Governance Systems: The governance framework includes national environmental agencies, provincial government structures, local municipal authorities, community-based organizations, traditional leadership systems where applicable, and various regulatory bodies responsible for coastal management, water resources, and environmental protection. These systems operate through national environmental legislation, provincial regulations, municipal bylaws, and community-based management practices.

4. Discussion: Environmental Governance in Africa’s Critical Zones

Environmental governance in Africa’s Critical Zones is underpinned by a multi-dimensioned mix of opportunity and challenge that can be best understood through the socio-ecological systems (SES) framework, which reveals how human and ecological components interact through dynamic feedback loops to shape environmental outcomes. Drawing on five distinct case studies, Muizenberg East in South Africa, the Central Rift Valley in Ethiopia, Kilombero Valley in Tanzania, Lake Chivero in Zimbabwe, and Dzalanyama Forest Reserve in Malawi, the study deals with key questions of governance, implementation structures, the role of community-based approaches, and the need for a comprehensive framework. These case studies map out the uneven levels of policy implementation, institutional capacity, and civic engagement that still shape environmental outcomes across the continent, while the SES framework provides essential analytical tools for understanding why certain governance arrangements succeed while others fail to maintain sustainable socio-ecological relationships.

The application of the SES framework reveals that environmental governance challenges in Critical Zones emerge not from isolated policy failures but from systemic breakdowns in the relationships between governance systems, resource systems, resource units, and user communities. These socio-ecological interactions create complex feedback loops that determine whether institutional arrangements can maintain both social stability and ecological integrity over time.

4.1. Governance Challenges Across the Case Studies

Even with the wide-ranging environmental policies in most African countries, execution on the ground is limited by what the SES framework identifies as institutional misalignment between governance systems and the socio-ecological contexts they attempt to manage. The key challenge is weak enforcement of environmental law, typically triggered by bureaucratic lag, limited resources, corruption, and institutional fragmentation that disrupts the feedback mechanisms essential for adaptive socio-ecological governance. In Muizenberg East, for example, South Africa’s environmental policy framework is well-designed on paper but poorly executed at the local level, representing a classic SES failure where governance systems cannot effectively process information from resource systems or respond to signals from user communities. The continuous contamination of water resources by industrial chemicals and the lack of proper waste management practices demonstrate a gap between national legislation and enforcing power at the local level, illustrating how governance systems that ignore socio-ecological interdependencies generate system-wide instabilities.

Similarly, in Ethiopia’s Central Rift Valley, the expansion of agricultural settlements and urbanization have subjected land and water resources to massive pressure that governance systems have been unable to manage effectively. The SES framework reveals how these pressures represent disruptions to traditional socio-ecological relationships, where local user communities maintained sustainable resource management through customary institutions. Without firm institutional control that accounts for these existing socio-ecological arrangements, these trends have not been easy to undo, resulting in natural resource degradation and conflict over their use. These are examples that illustrate the fact that environmental policies alone will not do; there exist firm, well-endowed institutions that must act and implement them while maintaining alignment with the complex socio-ecological relationships that characterize Critical Zones.

Another frequent problem throughout the case studies is coordination failure between government levels, which the SES framework identifies as institutional fragmentation that prevents effective governance of socio-ecological systems. Overlapping mandates in the Rufiji Delta in Tanzania have caused tensions where conservation objectives tend to be emphasized in formal plans, but they are disempowered by economic uses like fishing and agriculture that enjoy greater backing. The situation is confusing and degrades policy implementation by creating governance systems that send contradictory signals to resource users and undermine the stability of socio-ecological relationships. A more decentralized, coordinated strategy with clearly defined roles may defuse such tensions and improve governance outcomes by creating institutional arrangements that can process complex information flows between social and ecological system components.

4.2. Power Relations and Implementation Mechanisms

The distribution of power and influence among actors further influences effective environmental governance in ways that the SES framework helps illuminate through its attention to how different user groups access and control resource systems. The implementation of policies in the majority of cases is too often based more on economic and political interests than environmental imperatives, creating governance systems that fail to maintain equitable socio-ecological relationships. For example, in Lake Chivero, Zimbabwe, industrial and agricultural pollution has been perpetuated because of the power of influential stakeholders who can externalize environmental costs to both resource systems and marginalized user communities. Because of this, local people who rely on the lake for water and food security are mostly excluded from decision-making, representing a fundamental breakdown in the participatory governance mechanisms that the SES framework identifies as essential for sustainable resource management.

In Malawi’s Dzalanyama Forest Reserve, power struggles over land ownership and natural resources have made it difficult to enforce conservation measures, illustrating how asymmetric power relationships within governance systems can undermine socio-ecological sustainability. Local communities often face challenges in asserting their rights, while influential actors engage in unsustainable activities with little accountability, creating governance arrangements that prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term socio-ecological integrity. These examples show that without addressing power imbalances and ensuring inclusive governance that aligns with SES principles of stakeholder participation, policies are unlikely to deliver meaningful results.

New research suggests that tools such as stakeholder influence mapping can help policymakers uncover who holds power and how decisions are made [47], providing mechanisms for creating governance systems that better align with SES principles of adaptive management and inclusive participation. Such an approach can be used to inform more inclusive policy design, especially when combined with co-management policies that explicitly involve local people in implementation and create institutional arrangements that can process diverse forms of knowledge and accommodate multiple stakeholder interests. For example, in Tanzania, community forestry programs that allow people living in local communities to conserve and use natural resources sustainably have recorded promising results in environmental enhancement [48], demonstrating how governance systems aligned with SES principles can achieve superior environmental outcomes.

4.3. Local Community Involvement in Adaptive Environmental Governance

Local community involvement has emerged as a critical factor for the effectiveness of environmental governance that aligns closely with the SES framework’s emphasis on the importance of user community participation in resource management. Across all five case studies, those led by or involving local communities have achieved promising outcomes, especially under low state capacity, illustrating how governance arrangements that account for existing socio-ecological relationships can maintain system stability even when formal institutions are weak. In Kilombero Valley, landscape restoration initiated by the local community not only stopped deforestation but also reinforced local adaptation to climate change, demonstrating how community-based governance can create effective feedback loops between management actions and environmental responses. These findings indicate that community-led interventions can maximize policy influence and sustainability by building on existing socio-ecological knowledge and institutional arrangements.

In Muizenberg East, where local government is in a state of weakness, local waste management practices have helped alleviate city environmental problems, showing how informal governance systems can maintain socio-ecological functions when formal systems fail. Such bottom-up arrangements create functional alternatives when formal systems are absent or non-operational, illustrating the SES framework’s prediction that institutional diversity and adaptive governance mechanisms can emerge from local socio-ecological contexts.

In the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, farmers’ customary water-sharing practices have played a crucial role in attaining sustainable water resource management, representing sophisticated socio-ecological governance arrangements that integrate local ecological knowledge with traditional social institutions. Official policies, nonetheless, normally give such practices a blind eye, which results in inefficiency and conflict by disrupting existing socio-ecological relationships and creating institutional arrangements that lack the adaptive capacity necessary for effective SES management. The integration of Indigenous and local knowledge into national environmental planning has the potential to increase legitimacy, foster local ownership, and result in more sustainable outcomes [49] by creating governance systems that align with SES principles of knowledge integration and adaptive management.

4.4. Toward an Integrated and Adaptive Governance Framework

For addressing the aforementioned issues, there is a need for a more participatory, adaptive, and integrated environmental governance framework that explicitly incorporates SES principles of institutional diversity, adaptive management, and stakeholder participation. The framework should bring together scientific research and local and Indigenous knowledge, encourage co-management practices, and prioritize participatory decision-making processes that can create effective feedback loops between social institutions and ecological processes. Building institutional resilience would also require better coordination among government departments and more collaboration between the public sector, communities, and non-governmental organizations, creating governance arrangements that can process complex information flows while maintaining the adaptive capacity essential for socio-ecological sustainability.

Coherence in policy is another key area for reform that the SES framework identifies as essential for maintaining system integrity. Environmental goals ordinarily conflict with economic growth policies, leading to uncoordinated interventions that disrupt socio-ecological relationships and create governance systems that send contradictory signals to resource users. Policy coordination across sectors can promote alignment and avoid unwanted trade-offs by creating institutional arrangements that explicitly account for socio-ecological interdependencies. For example, integrating water management, agriculture planning, and conservation into a single master governance plan may render environmental, economic, and social targets complementary [50] while maintaining the system coherence that the SES framework identifies as essential for sustainable resource management.

An adaptive governance approach also calls for policies to be adequate in flexibility so that they can respond to changing conditions, whether environmental, social, or political, maintaining the adaptive capacity that the SES framework identifies as crucial for managing complex socio-ecological systems. Particularly in the case of climate change, marked by risk and uncertainty, adaptive governance can contribute to policy responsiveness along with long-term effectiveness through collaborative learning, monitoring, and evaluation that creates feedback mechanisms between management actions and both social and ecological outcomes.

The five case studies discussed here provide valuable lessons into the current situation of environmental governance in Africa’s Critical Zones when analyzed through the SES framework lens. Policy frameworks exist for all of these countries, but poor enforcement, institutional fragmentation, and local marginalization typically undermine their effectiveness by creating governance systems that fail to account for socio-ecological interdependencies and lack the adaptive capacity necessary for managing complex human–environment interactions. Asymmetries of power also prevent their implementation, often prioritizing the interests of industrial and political elites over those of communities and creating governance arrangements that externalize environmental costs while concentrating benefits among powerful user groups.

However, examples of community-initiated projects and co-management schemes show that participatory systems of governance can work when they align with SES principles of stakeholder participation, knowledge integration, and adaptive management. In the years to come, an integrated system of governance that integrates scientific inquiry with Indigenous customs, builds resilient local communities, and promotes institutional cooperation will determine whether the entangled problems of environmental sustainability in Africa’s Critical Zones are controlled [51]. The SES framework provides both analytical tools for understanding these challenges and guidance for designing institutional arrangements that can support sustainable socio-ecological relationships across diverse African contexts.

5. Conclusions

Environmental governance across Africa’s Critical Zones reveals a fundamental paradox: while comprehensive policies exist, their effectiveness is undermined by enforcement failures, inequitable power relations, and insufficient community engagement. The five case studies demonstrate that sustainable environmental management requires integrated, participatory approaches grounded in local contexts and supported by robust institutional frameworks.

The transition from traditional top-down governance toward participatory New Public Policy models [52] remains fragmented across African states, inadequately addressing the complex socio-ecological realities of Critical Zones. Despite nominal adoption of progressive frameworks, institutional silos and policy misalignment persist, creating what [52] describes as “islands of success in seas of institutional failure.” This highlights the urgent need for deliberate scaling and contextual recalibration of governance innovations to achieve equitable sustainability.

Indigenous knowledge systems, when integrated with structured multi-stakeholder engagement, offer pathways to more robust adaptive governance. As demonstrated in [53]’s analysis of Indonesia’s REDD+ program, environmental initiatives achieve greater impact through collaborative frameworks that bridge traditional practices with institutional governance structures, creating platforms for meaningful participation across communities, policymakers, and civil society.

Effective environmental governance in Africa’s Critical Zones requires governance models that are simultaneously culturally grounded and institutionally inclusive, combining place-based Indigenous wisdom with formal multi-stakeholder processes to address implementation gaps and foster sustainable socio-ecological relationships.

Future research should explore how adaptive governance models can be applied to address site-specific challenges while fostering sustainable environmental management across Africa’s Critical Zones. The current literature underscores the need for closing policy–practice gaps through integrated governance models that incorporate stakeholder engagement, localized processes, and innovative technologies, including digital tools and Indigenous knowledge systems [51].

6. Contributions and Future Directions

The research makes several innovative contributions to the existing body of work on environmental governance across Africa’s Critical Zones while acknowledging important limitations that determine its scope and generalizability. The principal theoretical contribution of the study is providing the first systematic comparative analysis across five diverse Critical Zones in Eastern and Southern Africa. Unlike the single-ecosystem or single-country analyses in earlier works, this cross-regional study specifies common governance patterns as well as context-specific challenges that have been de-emphasized in the fragmented literature on African environmental management.

The research adds to policy dissonance knowledge in Critical Zones by illustrating how differentiated hierarchies of governance create regulatory loopholes, which are particularly visible in sensitive ecosystems where human–environment relationships are most intense. This theory development moves past general observation of the dilemmas facing policy implementation to provide specific insight into institutional fragmentation in delicate ecosystems. The study is also a stakeholder theory contribution since it empirically documents how power disparities appear differently across various African contexts, moving past the theoretical to providing practical feedback in the development of inclusive governance.

From a policy standpoint, the study provides policymakers with a precise, empirically-informed identification of implementation gap areas, above general recommendations, to specify precise intervention points at which governance reforms can exert maximum impact.

Several important limitations constrain the scope and generalizability of these findings. The regional focus on Eastern and Southern Africa, while rich in comparative insight, has restricted applicability to West and Central African contexts, where other colonial experiences and forms of governance could produce differing patterns. The cross-sectional character of the analysis identifies up-to-date governance issues but fails to take into consideration the temporal dynamics of the evolution of policies or the timing lag between policy design and implementation impact, which could be widely different across contexts.

Data collection limitations also affect the scope of analysis. English-language sources and official institutional channels can undercount perspectives of non-English-speaking communities and informal participants in governance, who are often key actors in environmental management.

Despite these limitations, this study provides a badly needed basis for understanding environmental governance problems in Africa’s Critical Zones and offers pragmatic advice for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers interested in more effective and equitable environmental management systems. The limitations indicated hold out promising lines for research exploration, including longitudinal analyses tracking governance reforms, application of the analytical framework to other African regional settings, and mixed-method designs combining qualitative observations with quantitative environmental metrics.