Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-3 (section)

==== 3.7.5.3 Limpopo River Basin ====

<div id="section-3-7-5-3-limpopo-river-basin-block-1"></div>

Covering an area of 412,938 km <sup>2</sup> , the Limpopo River basin spans parts of Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, eventually entering into the Mozambique Channel. It has been selected as a case study as it provides a clear illustration of the combined effect of desertification and climate change, and why IWM may be a crucial component of reducing exposure to climate change. It is predominantly a semi-arid area with an average annual rainfall of 400 mm (Mosase and Ahiablame 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1765|1765]]</sup> ). Rainfall is both highly seasonal and variable, with the prominent impact of the El Niño/ La Niña phenomena and the Southern Oscillation leading to severe droughts (Jury 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1766|1766]]</sup> ). It is also exposed to tropical cyclones that sweep in from the Mozambique Channel often leading to extensive casualties and the destruction of infrastructure (Christie and Hanlon 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r1767|1767]]</sup> ). Furthermore, there is good agreement across climate models that the region is going to become warmer and drier, with a change in the frequency of floods and droughts (Engelbrecht et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1768|1768]]</sup> ; Zhu and Ringler 2012). Seasonality is predicted to increase, which in turn may increase the frequency of flood events in an area that is already susceptible to flooding (Spaliviero et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1769|1769]]</sup> ).

A clear need exists to both address exposure to flood events as well as predicted decreases in water availability, which are already acute. Without the additional impact of climate change, the basin is rapidly reaching a point where all available water has been allocated to users (Kahinda et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1770|1770]]</sup> ; Zhu and Ringler 2012). The urgency of the situation was identified several decades ago (FAO 2004), with the countries of the basin recognising that responses are required at several levels, both in terms of system governance and the need to address land degradation.

Recent reviews of the governance and implementation of IWM within the basin recognise that an integrated approach is needed and that a robust institutional, legal, political, operational, technical and support environment is crucial (Alba et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1771|1771]]</sup> ; Gbetibouo et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1773|1773]]</sup> ; Machethe et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r1774|1774]]</sup> ; Spaliviero et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1775|1775]]</sup> ; van der Zaag and Savenije 1999 <sup>[[#fn:r1776|1776]]</sup> ). Within the scope of emerging lessons, two principal ones emerge. The first is capacity and resource constraints at most levels. Limited capacity within Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM) and national water management authorities constrains the implementation of IWM planning processes (Kahinda et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1777|1777]]</sup> ; Spaliviero et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1778|1778]]</sup> ). Whereas strategy development is often relatively well-funded and resourced through donor funding, long-term implementation is often limited due to competing priorities. The second is adequate representation of all parties in the process in order to address existing inequalities and ensure full integration of water management. For example, within Mozambique, significant strides have been made towards the decentralisation of river basin governance and IWM. Despite good progress, Alba et al. (2016) found that the newly implemented system may enforce existing inequalities as not all stakeholders, particularly smallholder farmers, are adequately represented in emerging water management structures and are often inhibited by financial and institutional constraints. Recognising economic and socio-political inequalities, and explicitly considering them to ensure the representation of all participants, can increase the chances of successful IWM implementation.

<span id="knowledge-gaps-and-key-uncertainties"></span>