Climate change and cultural heritage protection in Africa: an appraisal of legal frameworks in Ethiopia and South Africa

The current and projected impacts of climate change are adversely affecting the physical integrity of cultural heritage sites and landscapes (Simpson et al., 2022; Brooks et al., 2020). Consequently, climate adaptation measures are widely recognised as vital for the protection of cultural monuments, heritage sites and landscapes (Simpson et al., 2022). The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has underscored the importance of integrating climate change considerations in the protection and preservation of cultural heritage and emphasised the persistent lack of coordination and recognition of cultural heritage adaptation within global and national climate change policymaking (Brooks et al., 2020). The African continent boasts of rich cultural heritage entailing diverse archaeological sites, historical monuments and intangible traditions, some of which hold outstanding universal value (OUV) (Chami et al., 2022). Africa’s cultural landscape is adorned with a wealth of diverse expressions ranging from the historical pyramids of Egypt to Rock-Hewn Churches in Ethiopia; cultural heritage is intricately woven into the tapestry of African societies (UNESCO, 2016). These diverse cultural heritage play a crucial role in shaping identities, promoting social cohesion and instilling a deep sense of belonging. More broadly, cultural heritage plays a crucial role in sustainable development by providing a foundation for tourism, education and cultural industries (Addaney, 2019; UNESCO, 2002).

Despite the significance of cultural heritage to Africa’s development, cultural monuments, heritage sites and landscapes are increasingly being threatened by the growing impacts of climate change (UNESCO, 2016). Climate change impacts such as rising sea levels, flooding, drought and intensified extreme weather events are undermining the integrity of cultural monuments and heritage sites (UNESCO, 2021; Gruber, 2011). Thus, Africa’s cultural heritage is disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to the continent’s unique geography and low level of development such as limited resources and infrastructure (Gbomagba et al., 2023; Chemeli et al., 2021; Brooks et al., 2020). For instance, along the East African coast, jewels of history such as the ancient Swahili city of Stone Town in Zanzibar and the coastal archaeological sites of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara in Tanzania are extremely threatened by sea level rises and coastal erosion (Chami et al., 2022). Reap (2020, p. 1) emphasises that “the law in its various forms – traditional law, constitutions, statutory law, treaties and administrative regulations – is a key tool for protecting cultural heritage”. International institutions such as the United Nations (UN), States and government agencies have developed various mechanisms to ensure that the legal safeguards for protection and preservation of cultural heritage are implemented and enforced as specified in the law.

In past two decades, there has been a growing body of scholarship on the specific threats posed by climate change to cultural heritage in Africa (Chami et al., 2022; Addaney, 2019; UNESCO, 2016; Fatorić and Biesbroek, 2020). These studies adopted variety of tools and methods including socio-legal inquiry, remote sensing and geographic information systems to explore the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage (Hu et al., 2015; Turner et al., 2015). For instance, Chami et al. (2022) examined the Swahili ruins and the associated conservation and management problems. It further analysed the position and role of heritage management institutions in the country towards enhancing effective conservation of the ruins. Similarly, Addaney (2019) explored the impacts of climate change on intangible cultural heritage in Namibia and the adequacy of cultural heritage laws in this regard. Chami et al. (2022) narrowly focused on communities’ perspectives and institutional frameworks for conservation of cultural heritage without climate considerations while Addaney (2019) focused on the legal protection of selected indigenous intangible cultural heritage against the impacts of climate change on Namibia. However, although UNESCO (2019) examined the increasing vulnerability of World Heritage sites to climate change impacts, the analysis lacked depth as it focused generally on the African countries. Furthermore, in terms of law and policy, several African countries have enacted legislation and signed relevant international conventions to protect cultural heritage. These legal instruments provide a framework for managing cultural monuments and heritage sites and in promoting sustainable heritage management (ICOMOS, 2015). Most of the legal interventions focus on strengthening institutional capacity and developing funding mechanisms for cultural heritage preservation (UNESCO, 2018). However, as highlighted by Brooks et al. (2020), there has been limited appraisal of the implications of climate change for the legal protection of cultural heritage in Africa. Existing studies are largely focused on the scientific aspects (Chami et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2019) with a short shrift given to the close link between emerging climate science and the legal frameworks for cultural heritage protection.

This study therefore examines the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage sites and landscapes in Africa and to assess the role and effectiveness of heritage laws in protecting cultural heritage in the context of climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa. Using a socio-legal inquiry approach underpinned by critical approaches to law, the study explores the adequacy of existing heritage laws and the utility of emerging climate science and law. It further analyses the connection between emerging climate science and the legal frameworks for cultural heritage protection, an area that existing studies have largely given a short shrift to. Thus, it uses an interdisciplinary approach to analyses the existing cultural heritage laws in relation to the cascading impacts of climate change as well as relationships between these and broader society. To offer depth, legal texts, theoretical and empirical literature drawn from the humanities and social sciences were analysed. The research approach involves a step-by-step appraisal of heritage laws and other legal texts to identify themes and concepts based on the study’s objectives (Sarantakos, 2013). To provide context and depth, the study uses Ethiopia (Eastern Africa, 11 sites) and South Africa (Southern Africa, 10 sites), making them top two countries with the most recognised world heritage sites in Africa, as case studies (see  Appendix). Both countries possess a vast array of cultural and natural heritage resources and have adopted diverse legal instruments for protecting them. Before analysing national laws, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972 World Heritage Convention) and the African Union Model Law on the Protection of Cultural Property and Heritage were examined and later used as a benchmark to appraise the adequacy of national legislation on cultural heritage in the selected countries. Thus, the analysis of international and regional laws provides a crucial foundation for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the legal frameworks available for protecting African cultural heritage, particularly in the face of the emerging threat of climate change, and for appraising how national laws in Ethiopia and South Africa measure up against these broader protection standards and implementation challenges. The analysis was complemented by expressly selected academic literature on climate change impacts and the protection of cultural heritage. Ultimately, the paper intends to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges posed by climate change to cultural heritage in Africa and to identify the role of legal frameworks in addressing these challenges, using Ethiopia and South Africa as case studies. Following this introduction, Section 2 reviews the protective norms of international and regional laws for cultural heritage in the context of climate change. Using Ethiopia and South Africa, Section 3 explores adequacy of existing national legal frameworks on cultural heritage in protecting cultural heritage sites, monuments and landscapes against the physical impacts of climate change. Section 4 concludes the study.

The emerging science and innovative tools for protecting cultural heritage against the impacts and potential threats of climate change make it imperative for developing and implementing tailor-made legal and policy frameworks. Since the late 20th century, domestic laws on cultural heritage have been greatly impacted by international and regional laws (Reap, 2020). Contemporary heritage protection would be hard to envision without the many international heritage conventions that have increased in number during the 20th Century (Starrenburg, 2024). While these mechanisms are guided by public international law, their effectiveness on a national level depends on the actions taken by individual states. The international and regional legal framework governing cultural heritage in Africa comprises of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), ^[1] ratified by 47 African nations, which outlines principles for safeguarding cultural sites of exceptional universal value. In addition, the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its 1999 Second Protocol, constitute key international frameworks designed to recognise, safeguard and conserve cultural and natural heritage with OUV.

The 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage are also significant legal instruments for the protection of cultural heritage with substantive and procedural norms that may be creatively adopted to protect cultural heritage sites, monuments and landscapes against the cascading impacts of climate change. The World Heritage Convention has had the greatest impact in shaping national laws and practices for preserving cultural heritage (Reap, 2020). While the Convention establishes a process for identifying natural and cultural heritage sites with exceptional universal value for inclusion in the World Heritage List, it also urges States parties to acknowledge their duty to oversee the “identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations” of all their natural and cultural heritage. More broadly, these frameworks operate on different scales and have no direct relevance to climate change.

On the other hand, international law instruments such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, though not explicitly addressing cultural heritage, establish the groundwork for a unified and coordinated response to protecting cultural heritage monument, sites and landscapes against the impacts of cultural heritage. Although the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement recognise the connection between climate change and cultural heritage; these legal instruments do not establish specific legal obligations for States to adapt to the ongoing and projected impacts of climate change on cultural heritage. On the other hand, conventions related to cultural heritage or heritage in general also lack explicit connections to climate change and protection provisions (Kim, 2017). This creates a lacuna in international law and underscores the necessity for further development to effectively protect cultural heritage from climate change threats at the national level. Furthermore, while the international law on cultural heritage set broad principles, their applicability to Africa’s diverse cultural contexts and vulnerabilities of cultural heritage sites and landscapes requires nuanced consideration. For instance, Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention define cultural heritage as:

Furthermore, Article 2 considers natural heritage as:

The broad conceptualisation and definition of cultural heritage and natural heritage set standards for the recognition of relevant sites at the national level that are in need of protection against various threats such as climate change. The Convention in Article 4 obligates each State Party to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State. It further commit States to everything it can to achieve this, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and cooperation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain (Article 4).

More importantly, to ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and preservation of the cultural and natural heritage situated in their territories, Article 5 of the Convention provide that:

This provision emphasises the importance of national laws and regulatory frameworks in acknowledging, safeguarding and conserving cultural heritage, historical landmarks and landscapes. In addition, the Convention established the World Heritage Committee, which is an intergovernmental committee under the UNESCO’s oversight, aimed at safeguarding the exceptional universal value of cultural and natural heritage (Article 8). To guarantee State parties’ adherence, the Convention requires each State party to present a list of properties from their cultural and natural heritage located within their borders for potential inclusion in the list described in Article 8 (paragraph 2). This inventory should contain information about where the property is located and why it is universally important. Based on the reports provided by countries in line with Article 11, the Committee will create, regularly update, and release a list called the “World Heritage List”. This list will include cultural and natural properties meeting the criteria outlined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, and deemed to have exceptional universal value. A new list will be given out at least once every two years. Nevertheless, getting a property listed in the World Heritage List needs approval from the relevant State, even if the property is in a disputed territory claimed by multiple States, their rights are not affected [Article 11(3)]. The effective domestication and implementation of international cultural heritage laws is undermined by resource limitations and technical capacities as well as conventional development challenges such as poverty, underdevelopment and inadequate technology (UNESCO, 2016; Gruber, 2011). Also, a key criterion such as “outstanding universal value” may exclude relevant sites and landscapes in need of protection against traditional emerging threats due to peculiarities of the African cultural context and geography (Gruber, 2011; Addaney, 2019).

The African continent is a host to rich cultural legacy with extraordinary diversity of traditions and historical narratives. Tangible remnants of the past such as majestic monuments and archaeological treasures including intangible elements comprising of traditional practices and languages (UNESCO, 2003). However, as climate change accelerates, the resilience of Africa’s cultural heritage faces unprecedented challenges. Highly vulnerable to the extreme climate events such as rising sea levels, extreme weather, droughts and floods, cultural heritage in Africa are increasingly being damaged or lost through disruption of traditions and potential erosion of cultural identity (IPCC, 2019; Chemeli et al., 2021; Richards and Fatorić, 2021; Brooks et al., 2020). In particular, tangible cultural heritage sites such as archaeological sites and historical monuments and buildings are particularly vulnerable to the physical impacts of climate change (Brooks et al., 2020). For instance, rising sea levels are threatening coastal heritage sites while extreme weather events such as storms and floods are causing damage to structures and erosion of artifacts (Vousdoukas et al., 2020).

The impact of climate change such as sea-level rise and storm surges threaten delicate ecosystems including coastal forests, mangroves, lagoons, river deltas and harbours (Goussard and Ducrocq, 2014). For instance, the Stone Town of Zanzibar in Tanzania is a UNESCO World Heritage Site known for its unique blend of Arab, Persian and African architectural styles which are facing increasing threats from rising sea levels and coastal erosion (Chemeli et al., 2021). Also, wetland and lagoon landscapes in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and South Africa are threatened by the changing climate (Croitoru et al., 2019; Appeaning Addo, 2013). The impacts of climate change further challenge the cultural narratives that have resonated for generations and are deeply woven into the fabric of communities surrounding cultural and natural heritage sites and landscapes across Ethiopia and South Africa. For instance, World Heritage Sites in Ethiopia such as the Rock-Hewn Churches in Lalibela, the 11 medieval monolithic cave churches of the 13th-century known as the New Jerusalem (UNESCO, 2016) are confronting climate-induced threats jeopardising their structural integrity. Changes in precipitation patterns contribute to soil erosion and degradation in the surrounding landscape, impacting the stability of the stone structures (Merkyte and Albek, 2022; Rugwiji, 2019). Intensified rainfall and flooding threaten the very foundation of these historic mud-brick structures, jeopardising both the physical remnants and the intangible heritage woven into Ethiopia’s rich cultural heritage tapestry. In South Africa, both the Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape and the iconic iSimangaliso Wetland Park are increasingly being impacted by the physical impacts of climate change and a warming planet (Day et al., 2020; Lliteras, 2024).

The growing attention to cultural property in climate change discussions requires thorough analysis of regional and pan-continental legal frameworks for safeguarding vulnerable cultural heritage monuments, sites and landscapes. For instance, States Parties to the UNFCCC are mandated by Article 4(1)(1)(b) to develop and implement regional plans for addressing climate change through mitigation and adaptation measures. Furthermore, Article 11(4) of the Paris Agreement reinforces Articles 4(1)(1)(b) and 6 of the UNFCCC by emphasising the effectiveness of a regional measures in helping developing countries to implement the agreement. Although, these two multilateral treaties do not directly provide for the protection of cultural and natural heritage and are not the focus of this study, the emphasise on the value of regional approaches to the adverse effects of climate change including on cultural heritage sites, monuments and landscapes provide strong motivation for reviewing regional cultural heritage law and policy in the context of climate change. At the regional level, framework laws provide guidelines, through norms and principles, to inform domestic policymaking and planning. However, there is no specific legal regime on cultural heritage and climate change at the AU level. The relevant regional mechanisms include the Charter for African Cultural Renaissance which was adopted in 1976, the African Union Model Law on the Protection of Cultural Property and Heritage (drafted in 2018) which is still not in force; as well as the 2022 African Union Climate Change and Resilient Development Strategy and Action Plan (2022–2032), the 2020 Draft Africa Climate Change Strategy 2020–2030 and the Africa Adaptation Programme. These AU policy frameworks are all noteworthy in enhancing the protection of cultural heritage against the general impacts of climate change on the continent. Despite acknowledging the interconnectedness of cultural heritage and climate change to some extent, these documents often lack concrete provisions and specific legal obligations for member states to safeguard their cultural treasures. Furthermore, the implementation of these frameworks appears inconsistent across member states, raising concerns about the practical impact of these initiatives. The failure to enact the African Union Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property and Heritage has created a legal vacuum which hinders African states’ ability to effectively safeguard their cultural heritage in the context of climate change.

At the sub-regional level, regional blocs such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), East African Community (EAC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) have taken significant steps in formulating frameworks that recognise the diverse vulnerabilities of their respective regions to climate change threats. These policies dominantly promote regional cooperation, disaster risk reduction and knowledge sharing on different aspects of climate change discourse, its impacts and corresponding mitigation and adaptation measures. Notably, however, these frameworks lack explicit connections between climate change and cultural heritage protection. In addition, the existing policies lack robust legal provisions in the context of climate change impacts, relying on voluntary implementation and often facing resource constraints at national and local levels. The challenge of harmonising policies across member states further contributes to inconsistencies in approaches and priorities within these regional bodies. Moreover, a shared challenge across all regional bodies is the constrained implementation and enforcement of current policies, coupled with insufficient engagement with local communities in initiatives related to cultural heritage protection and climate change adaptation planning (Addaney, 2019). There is also inadequate harmonisation in national laws and policies addressing cultural heritage and climate change, leading to inconsistencies. The translation of cultural heritage treaties to the domestic level shows a wide range of diversity. Francioni (2013) observes that the implementation of these agreements involves a continuous combination and blending of various legal systems, including private and public, domestic and international, national and regional as well as soft and hard law. These diverse legal systems co-exist, interact and occasionally clash. The normative and contextual gaps in the existing global and regional legal frameworks for protecting cultural heritage sites and landscapes require legal and institutional reforms at these levels to enhance the effectiveness of these laws in offering the needed protection in the context of climate change.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, traditional norms and practices have been enforced for many years to safeguard sacred sites, landscapes, archaeological sites and traditional crafts (Reap, 2020). The majority of formal heritage laws were established after 1960, following the independence of most African countries, and are influenced by the legislation of colonial powers and UNESCO agreements. Both Ethiopia and South Africa are States parties to World Heritage Convention, the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement and other relevant international heritage laws and have commitments to protect cultural and natural heritage against traditional and emerging threats such as climate change. For instance, Ethiopia signed and ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1977. It further signed and ratified the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage which has helped maintain a balanced approach towards the two forms of cultural heritage (Nair, 2016). Similarly, Ethiopia has been a party to the UNFCCC since 1994 and the Paris Agreement since 2017, demonstrating the country’s commitment to global efforts in addressing climate change (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2024). The Government of the Republic of South Africa signed and ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1997 as well as ratified the UNFCCC in 1997 and Paris Agreement in 2016 (Republic of South Africa, 2023). However, South Africa is yet to ratify the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2009 to safeguard and promote South Africa’s intangible cultural heritage.

There are various legislative designs and approaches at the national and sub-national levels for protecting cultural heritage from various risks and threats in Africa. Huang (2021) observes that every country including those in Africa have implemented at least one law or policy to address climate change, albeit with considerable variations in terms of type, scope and ambition. Thus, national heritage law in Ethiopia and South Africa in the era of climate change should offer framework-level guidance detailing the broader normative standards and principle for further development of the specifics or accountability measures by municipal or national governments. On this premise, the heritage laws in Ethiopia and South Africa are critically appraised to determine their adequacy in protecting cultural heritage within their jurisdiction against the impacts of climate change. In doing this, the relevant legislation and enactments in the selected countries are profiled and analysed focusing on their utility in protecting cultural heritage against the known impacts of climate change (Gruber, 2017).

In Ethiopia, climate change weakens the resilience of cultural heritage by damaging physical sites, depleting essential resources, disrupting socio-cultural practices and altering traditional ways of life that are intrinsically linked to the landscape (Johnson and Germano, 2020; Harkin et al., 2020). The sustainability of UNESCO World Heritage sites such the Konso Cultural Landscape is therefore seriously threatened (Assen et al., 2024; Assen et al., 2024). These impacts are primarily driven by variations in temperature and rainfall, including extreme events. For instance, increased rainfall and flooding have led to the destruction of terraces which are a defining feature of the Konso Cultural Landscape. The availability of hardwoods and grasses needed for the construction and maintenance of communal meeting areas called “moras” and their thatched roofs (“paftas”) is decreasing due to climate change and deforestation, posing a challenge to the sustainability of these traditional structures (Assen et al., 2024). The continuous decline in farmland productivity attributed to inconsistent rainfall and recurrent drought is affecting the livelihood and traditional ceremonies of the Konso people which are important for the transfer of traditional resource-management knowledge to the next generation (Assen et al., 2024; Harkin et al., 2020). Food insecurity, exacerbated by climate change, has led to the abandonment of important ritual ceremonies, such as the annual “thanks for harvest giving” ceremony (Tuta) and the power-transition ceremony (Kara) which are crucial for cultural preservation and knowledge dissemination (Assen et al., 2024; Gashure and Wana, 2023). The need for income due to reduced land productivity has led to the commodification of stones from farmlands for sale, which undermines the traditional terracing system and contributes to the deterioration of the cultural landscape (Gashure and Wana, 2023). Thus, there is need to implement national and local-scale climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies to safeguard cultural assets and bolster the resilience of the local communities.

The introduction of laws safeguarding cultural heritage in Ethiopia emerged three decades ago (Nair, 2016). Despite archaeological studies in Ethiopia dating back to the mid-1800s, it was not until 1966 that formal heritage laws and scientific restoration programs were established. The Ethiopian government issued the Antiquities Proclamation in 1966 to safeguard historical artifacts and structures. The proclamation defined antiquity as anything created before 1850E.C. Also, in July 1977, Ethiopia signed and ratified the 1972 World Heritage Convention, leading to the Simien Mountains National Park and Lalibela being added to the World Heritage List in 1978. It was over 20 years before Ethiopia passed any significant cultural heritage laws following this proclamation. The 1995 Constitution of Ethiopia in Article 41(9) provides that “the State has the responsibility to protect and preserve historical and cultural legacies, and to contribute to the promotion of the arts and sports”. Furthermore, Article 91(2) provides that the government and all Ethiopian citizens shall have the duty to protect the country’s natural endowment, historical sites and objects. Therefore, the constitution acknowledged the involvement of the general public in safeguarding heritage. Also, under the national policy principles and objectives of the Constitution, Article 91(2) provides that “Government and all Ethiopian citizens shall have the duty to protect the country’s natural endowment, historical sites and objects”.

In 2000, Proclamation 209 on Research and Conservation if Cultural Heritage was adopted as a follow up to the constitutional provision to consolidate cultural heritage protection. Similarly, the new legislation explicitly states that “the protection and preservation of cultural heritage has been made the responsibility of each citizen, the society and the state”. The Proclamation further established the Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (the Authority) with the mandate:

In terms of its powers and obligations, the Objective 6 provides among others that the Authority shall have the following powers and duties:

Further to Proclamation 209, a Proclamation to provide for the Classification of Cultural Heritage into National and Regional Cultural Heritage (Proclamation No. 839/2014) was adopted in 2014 to augment the operations and activities of the Authority. It sets out standards for the classification of cultural heritages into national and region cultural heritages. In particular, it provides that cultural heritage that satisfies one or more of the following criteria shall be classified as national cultura1 heritage:

This provision is compliant with international agreements and best practices on cultural heritage protection. Regulation, including listing, constraints, rules, etc. is commonly used when managing cultural heritage, particularly tangible heritage (Klamer et al., 2013). Also, archaeological impact assessment is carried out in accordance with the regulations set by Proclamation 299/2002 on Environmental Impact Assessment which specifically focuses on the effects of projects on cultural heritage. This provides an avenue for integrating the effects of government’s responses to climate change impacts as well as the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage into the assessment process.

The major weakness of the proclamations including Proclamation 229/1966 which provide for the protection and preservation of antiquities (Antiquities Proclamation) is that these instruments do not incorporate local participation in heritage management. Similar to most heritage laws of sub-Saharan Africa (Ndoro and Kiriama, 2008), the Ethiopian Constitution and heritage legislation emphasise the importance of community action in protecting and preserving its cultural heritage. The above legislation is an indication that over the past two decades there has been an increasing focus on the protection and safeguarding of Ethiopia’s cultural and natural heritage both tangible and intangible. However, despite the adoption of various legislation in recent decades for the protection of cultural heritage, historical sites and built heritage in Ethiopia have undergone significant physical alterations (Nair, 2016). Physical interventions to protect cultural heritage have ignored the authentic structure and integrity of the monuments. More broadly, neglect of cultural heritage and heritage legislation has been a result of past foreign invasions, ongoing civil conflicts and occasional famines due to climate change and other environmental challenges. Different elements such as religion, ethnicity and geography shape the importance attached to cultural heritage in Ethiopia, while aspects like taboos, superstitions and legends contribute to customary laws that safeguard cultural heritage (Nair, 2016: 100). As in Ethiopia, indigenous management systems rooted in customary laws have played a significant role in safeguarding cultural heritage in various regions of Africa (Mahachi and Kamuhangire, 2008).

Another gap is the absence of any mention of climate change and its effects on cultural heritage, despite the fact that the country’s modern heritage laws were put into place after the adoption of the UNFCCC in 1992. Modifying heritage laws to improve the safeguarding of cultural heritage from the effects of climate change involves increasing public education on heritage regulations and ensuring adequate community involvement in national and regional initiatives to preserve cultural heritage. The complex effects of climate change on cultural heritage in Ethiopia necessitate the establishment of a comprehensive heritage management system by the government. This system will facilitate strong partnerships and cooperation among various stakeholders to address a wide range of issues for the preservation and management of cultural heritage. In addition to the national cultural heritage legislation, Ethiopia has also ratified several UNESCO conventions since 1977. According to Article 9(4) of the Constitution, “all international agreements signed and ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the law of the land”. Therefore, Ethiopia currently has a broad legal framework to safeguard its cultural heritage. However, the Authority which mandated to protect and preserve cultural heritage should effectively incorporate the relevant protective norms and principles in international cultural heritage agreements to enhance the effectiveness of the Ethiopian national cultural heritage frameworks to make them climate friendly.

Climate change poses significant threats to South African heritage sites through various climatic stressors and their cascading impacts (Chikodzi et al., 2022). These threats affect a wide range of heritage, including unique ecosystems, prehistoric ruins, rock art, historical buildings and archaeological landscapes. For instance, the Mapungubwe and Thulamela Mapungubwe and Thulamela heritage sites in the Limpopo valley face similar climate-related threats. The biggest threat facing the two ancient sites (Mapungubwe and Thulamela) is high temperatures which is resulting into the breaking up of artefacts, especially metallic ones as they are made of materials which are sensitive to intense temperatures (Chikodzi et al., 2022). Also, the Table Mountain National Park, rising temperatures are the biggest threat to heritage plant life, potentially leading to the failure of sensitive species to adapt and reducing their distribution, possibly leading to extinction. For natural heritage sites such as the Table Mountain, which is part of the Cape Floral Kingdom, climate change threatens biodiversity conservation as the warming temperatures and declining rainfall is driving the disappearance of sensitive plant species that cannot adapt (Chikodzi et al., 2022). These threats are exacerbated by existing challenges in heritage management in the Global South, including low prioritisation, neglect, over tourism, vandalism, agricultural and urban expansion, mining and illicit trade (Cunliffe, 2017; Nhamo, 2018).

South Africa has adopted and implementing various laws to protect and manage cultural heritage. The constitutional framework of South Africa shows the importance of preserving and safeguarding heritage resources (Kotze and Van Rensberg, 2003). Even though the 1996 South African Constitution does not expressly safeguard cultural heritage, the country has signed and ratified the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage on 10 June 1997, making it a part of South African international law. Moreover, the country has passed important laws to protect and preserve cultural and natural heritage. The World Heritage Convention Act 49 of 1999 domesticated the World Heritage Convention. The main focus of the World Heritage Convention Act is to create a legal framework for the preservation and protection of world heritage Sites, emphasising the importance of local cultural heritage on a global scale ^[2]. The ratification of the World Heritage Convention significantly influenced preparation and adoption of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25) of 1999 (Heritage Act) which established an integrated and interactive system for the management of the national heritage resources as an instrument to protect cultural heritage. Being the first international attempt to emphasise the need to protect cultural heritage resources, the provisions thereof raised not only universal, but also local awareness of the necessity to conserve the past legacy for future generations.

The main focus of the World Heritage Convention Act is on identifying, managing and nominating world heritage sites in South Africa. Yet, it serves as a supplement to the Heritage Act by aiming to implement the principles of the Constitution and safeguard cultural and natural heritage, specifically World Heritage Sites (Article 3). Section 4(2) explains sustainable development by emphasising how cultural and natural heritage can help foster reconciliation, understanding, respect and the creation of a unified South African identity. This means that cultural heritage management must consider ensuring that using this heritage is not aimed at undermining a culture founded on equality and freedom, or for political advantage (Article 3). This principle aligns with the goals and underlying principles of the Heritage Act and the Constitution. Therefore, preserving the cultural heritage of South Africa is a politically sensitive issue under the country’s constitution (Glazewski, 2005) as it aims to promote a feeling of national pride, unity and identity. This means that cultural heritage management must recognise that using heritage should not be aimed at jeopardising a culture centred on equality and freedom, or for political advantage. The World Heritage Convention Act further establishes Authorities and grants additional powers to existing organs of state for safeguarding the integrity of World Heritage Sites. Specifically, Section 3 on the objectives of the Act provides for:

This legislation, however, applies to heritage sites and monuments that are recognised by the UNESCO under the World Heritage Convention.

On the other hand, the Heritage Act establishes the national system for the management of heritage resources across the country. Section 3(1) outlines the purposes to include all the heritage resources of South Africa which are of cultural significance or other special value for the present community and that future generations must be considered part of the national estate and fall within the sphere of operations of heritage resources authorities. Section 3(2) defines the national estate to include:

Under the general principles for heritage resources management, Section 5(1) All authorities, bodies and persons performing functions and exercising powers in terms of this Act for the management of heritage resources must recognise the following principles:

The Heritage Act recognises the vital role of the public in the protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage. Section 3(4) reinforces that heritage resources form an important part of the history and beliefs of communities and must be managed in a way that acknowledges the right of affected communities to be consulted and to participate in their management. Although the Heritage Act provides for community involvement, no clear indication is given as to the extent of participation and obligations of communities, non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations in the process of cultural heritage conservation (Kotze and Van Rensberg, 2003). In an innovative approach, the Act in Section 3(6) provides “that policy, administrative practice and legislation must promote the integration of heritage resources conservation in urban and rural planning and social and economic development”. Furthermore, it guarantees that the identification, assessment and management of the heritage resources of South Africa must—

The above provisions demonstrate the significant reforms in how South Africa approaches the protection and preservation of cultural heritage in the context of the cascading impacts of climate change by opening pathways for mainstreaming climate considerations in the management of heritage resources. A recent study by Chikodzi et al. (2022) specifically found that the vulnerability of heritage sites to climate change was high at all three studied sites: Kruger (Thulamela), Mapungubwe and Table Mountain National Parks. The main climatic stressors identified were warming temperatures, drought, flooding and intense rainfall which threatened already highly vulnerable heritage sites due to limited adaptive capacity Chikodzi et al., 2022.

The South African Heritage Resources Act (SAHRA) further plays a critical role in protecting cultural heritage sites against the impacts of climate change through its broad mandate for heritage resources management in South Africa (South Africa National Heritage Resources Act 1999). The SAHRA sets the framework for how heritage resources, including those threatened by climate change, should be identified, recorded and managed nationally. In particular, the Act establishes the SAHRA to coordinate the management activities of all state agencies and other bodies involved in heritage protection. This coordination would be essential for a unified national approach to addressing climate change impacts on heritage sites, potentially involving collaboration with national parks authorities such as the South African National Parks (SANParks) (Chikodzi et al., 2022). As climate change poses a “new decay phenomena” (Bertolin, 2019; Sesana et al., 2021) and accelerates the degradation of heritage assets (Sesana et al., 2021; Chikodzi et al., 2022), the SAHRA’s role in identifying and managing nationally significant sites would include assessing and addressing climate-related threats to these sites. Furthermore, the need for actions such as developing conservation strategies, improving funding for documentation, developing anticipatory action, implementing risk assessments and designing adaptation measures aligns with SAHRA’s broad responsibilities for heritage protection (Chikodzi et al., 2022). While the SAHRA does not provide for climate change-specific actions, the agency’s overarching mandate for the management and protection of South Africa’s national heritage strongly implies a central role in safeguarding cultural heritage sites from the growing threats posed by climate change.

Complementing with relevant provisions in the constitution, South Africa boasts of a strong framework for protecting and conserving cultural and natural heritage by incorporating internationally recognised cultural heritage protection principles and practices which guarantee the protection and accessibility of local cultural heritage. However, Ndlovu (2011) challenges the efficiency of the Heritage laws. He argues that solely relying on cultural heritage laws does not guarantee the safeguarding and maintenance of heritage. He connects the lack of success in enforcing cultural heritage laws to difficulties in carrying them out caused by insufficient staff, inadequate funding and limited community backing, among other obstacles (Ndlovu, 2011). In South Africa, the effectiveness of cultural heritage protection lies in gaining the support of the public rather than implementing stricter laws.

The landscape of national laws and policies governing cultural heritage in Africa is multifaceted. While some African nations have implemented legal frameworks to protect cultural heritage (Ndoro and Pwiti, 2005), their efficacy remains a subject of debate. The Heritage Act of South Africa, with its unique provisions (e.g. Section 45) addressing the preservation of heritage sites amid environmental challenges stands out as a rare example of a heritage protection framework as the prevailing trend in many African countries tends to be the opposite (Ndoro and Pwiti, 2005). In addition, current frameworks, while offering some protection for the tangible manifestations of African cultural heritage, fail to fully capture its essence by neglecting the intangible aspects that hold deep significance and meaning for communities (Crampette, 2021). The lack of uniformity across countries in defining and categorising cultural heritage poses a challenge as the breadth of heritage, from archaeological sites to living traditions, demands a more nuanced legal vocabulary that accommodates this diversity in the context of climate change.

The national legislation on cultural heritage in both Ethiopian and South Africa contain progressive substantive and procedural norms with oversight institutions. However, gaps still remain especially in terms of their adequacy in protecting cultural and natural heritage against modern challenges such as climate change. For instance, Ndlovu (2015) argues that heritage legislation, management and education practices remain dominantly a state function at all levels with minimal participation of the public and mostly ignore customary laws and cultural practices. This prevailing practice demonstrates that existing heritage legislation have evolved without considering the context leading to exclusion of key landscapes and sacred sites such as rivers, mountains and forests from protection (Ndoro, 2015; Zewdu, 2024). Also, climate frameworks in both countries do not recognise and safeguard the cultural assets vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

The absence of provisions for climate-related threats, especially those impacting archaeological sites, creates a blind spot in cultural heritage protection, potentially jeopardising irreplaceable resources and failing to empower local communities who hold vital knowledge for adaptation. Though customary laws and indigenous knowledge systems hold promise in protecting cultural and natural heritage against the impacts of climate change, national climate policies sideline them which hinder their utility in this regard (Ndoro and Pwiti, 2005). The interplay between national and sub-national levels further adds layers of complexity. In both Ethiopia and South Africa, sub-national entities lack the legislative tools necessary to address climate impacts on cultural heritage adequately. This fragmentation raises questions about the coherence and uniformity needed for an effective response. In terms of enhancing climate change and cultural heritage protection in Africa, it is imperative to adapt existing legal frameworks to consider climate change considerations. Countries should consider revisiting and amending national laws to explicitly include provisions for climate-induced threats to cultural heritage. A vital approach involves aligning national laws with global conventions such as the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and the UNFCCC (Ndoro and Pwiti, 2005). This harmonisation will tailor legal frameworks effectively to confront the distinct challenges that climate change presents to cultural heritage. The South African Heritage Act acknowledges the impact of environmental challenges on heritage sites and, thus, Ethiopia could integrate similar clauses in future proclamations on cultural heritage. Taboroff and Couté (2021) emphasise the urgent need to explore and implement best practices including innovative technologies to safeguard cultural heritage from the impacts of climate change. By leveraging these innovative tools and strategies, African countries can bolster the resilience of their cultural heritage in the face of climate change. Furthermore, enhancing the capacity of local communities is pivotal for effective cultural heritage protection (Taboroff and Couté, 2021).

Africa’s cultural heritage is disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to its unique geography and underdevelopment. Climate change impacts such as rising sea levels, flooding, drought and extreme weather events are increasingly threatening the integrity of cultural monuments and heritage sites. Recognising the disproportionate vulnerability of Africa’s cultural heritage to climate change is crucial for prioritising and implementing effective protection strategies. Therefore, addressing the urgent priority of climate change has become paramount for preserving the rich cultural and natural heritage of Ethiopia and South Africa. However, the study firmly establishes the inadequacy of existing cultural heritage laws and policies in Ethiopia and South Africa for effectively protecting cultural heritage sites and landscapes against the escalating impacts of climate change. Despite the presence of national heritage legislation and adherence to international conventions, these frameworks lack the specific provisions and integrated approaches needed to address climate-induced threats such as sea-level rise, flooding, drought and extreme weather events. The analysis underscores the urgent necessity for reforming cultural heritage laws in both countries to incorporate climate change adaptation and resilience considerations. This includes explicitly addressing climate-related threats, strengthening adaptation measures, aligning with international and regional climate and heritage frameworks, enhancing community involvement and establishing comprehensive heritage management systems. Also, while traditional norms and indigenous knowledge systems have historically played a significant role in safeguarding cultural heritage in Africa, national climate policies often side-line them, hindering their potential in addressing climate change impacts on heritage. Existing heritage legislation has often evolved without considering the context, leading to the exclusion of key landscapes and sacred sites. Also, there are gaps in public participation in heritage management in both Ethiopia and South Africa.

Both Ethiopia and South Africa should revisit and amend their national heritage laws to explicitly include provisions addressing the threats posed by climate change to cultural heritage sites and landscapes. Currently, Ethiopian heritage laws lack any mention of climate change, and while the South African Heritage Act acknowledges environmental challenges, further integration of climate change impacts is necessary. The reformed laws should focus on incorporating climate change adaptation and resilience considerations into the protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage. This includes developing legal frameworks that support measures to mitigate the impacts of sea-level rise, flooding, drought, extreme weather events and other climate-related threats. Both countries should ensure their national laws are aligned with global conventions such as the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and the UNFCCC. For Ethiopia, the Authority should effectively incorporate relevant protective norms and principles from international cultural heritage agreements to enhance the national framework’s climate-friendliness. While the Ethiopian Constitution and heritage legislation emphasise community involvement and the South African Heritage Act recognises the vital role of the public, further clarity on the extent of participation and obligations is needed. Empowering local communities is pivotal for effective cultural heritage protection. Further studies could explore effective legal strategies and policy models for empowering and involving local communities in the protection of cultural heritage against climate change. Another study could explore how to effectively integrate and legally protect intangible cultural heritage in the face of climate change impacts.

Table A1