Strengthening the National Protected Areas System of Swaziland

BASELINE COMPILATION REPORT

Kingdom of Swaziland

United Nations Development Programme

Global Environment Facility

Strengthening the National Protected Areas System of Swaziland

Table of Contents

Acronyms ...... 10 Executive Summary ...... 12 Background ...... 20 Introduction ...... 20 1 Protected Area Assessment and Situational Analysis ...... 21 1.1 Biophysical Context ...... 21 1.2 Existing Protected Areas ...... 24 1.2.1 National Protected Areas ...... 24

1.2.2 Gazetted Areas ...... 26

1.2.3 Informal Protected Areas ...... 27

1.2.4 Community Eco-tourism Areas ...... 29

1.2.5 Trans-Frontier Conservation Areas ...... 30

1.2.6 Protection-Worthy Areas ...... 31

1.3 Gap Analysis ...... 33 1.3.1 Biodiversity Representation Gaps ...... 33

Ecosystem Representation Gaps ...... 33 Species Representation Gaps ...... 39 1.4 Selection of New Protected Areas ...... 45 1.4.1 Potential New PAs ...... 46

Prioritisation of Potential New PAs ...... 47 Proposed Priority New PAs ...... 50 Other Proposed PAs ...... 55 1.4.2 Corridors and Landscapes...... 57

1.4.3 Prioritisation of Areas for Gazetting ...... 58

1.4.4 Strengthening of Conservation Management ...... 59

1.5 Land-use Analysis ...... 61 1.5.1 Priority Target Areas ...... 61

Land-use within the Lubombo Conservancy Cluster ...... 62 Land-use within the Malolotja Cluster...... 65 Land-use within the Mkhaya Cluster ...... 68

Land-use within the Ngwempisi Cluster ...... 70 1.6 Climate Change Analysis ...... 73 1.6.1 Mean Annual Temperature ...... 73

1.6.2 Mean Annual Rainfall ...... 75

1.6.3 Minimum Temperature of the Coldest Month ...... 77

1.6.4 Implications for Biodiversity and livelihoods ...... 79

2 Review of protected area systems governance in Swaziland ...... 80 2.1 Introduction ...... 80 2.2 Policy and Legislative Context ...... 82 2.2.1 International Conventions and Agreements On Biodiversity ...... 83

United Nations Conventions and Initiatives ...... 83 Other International and Regional Agreements ...... 84 2.3 National Policy Framework Related To Biodiversity...... 85 2.3.1 National Planning and Development...... 85

2.3.2 Environment and Natural Resource Management ...... 86

2.4 National Legislative Framework Related To Biodiversity ...... 88 2.4.1 Current Status of Biodiversity Legislative Framework ...... 88

2.4.2 Institutional and Management Acts ...... 89

2.4.3 Flora and Fauna Conservation Acts ...... 95

2.5 State of Biodiversity Legislation ...... 96 2.6 Institutional and Governance Context ...... 100 2.6.1 Government Protected Areas ...... 100

2.6.2 SNL Community Conservation Areas (CCAs) ...... 104

Shewula Community Conservation Area ...... 104 2.6.3 Private Sector Protected Areas ...... 106

Background ...... 106 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities ...... 108 Research, Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 109 Community benefits from Private PAs ...... 109 Incentivising Private Land owners in PA management ...... 110

2.6.4 Shared Governance ...... 111

2.7 Expected outcomes, indicators, threats and mitigation measures ...... 112 2.8 Conclusion ...... 115 3 Review of CBNRM in SADC to enhance CBNRM in Swaziland ...... 116 3.1 Introduction ...... 116 3.1.1 CBNRM General Guiding and Operational Principles ...... 119

3.1.2 Community-Based Natural Resource Management in SADC ...... 120

3.2 Development of Conservancies ...... 122 3.3 Development of trans-frontier conservation areas ...... 122 3.4 CBNRM in Zimbabwe: The CAMPFIRE story ...... 123 3.4.1 Institutional Development ...... 124

3.4.2 Key stakeholders in CAMPFIRE ...... 125

3.4.3 CAMPFIRE revenue generation ...... 126

3.4.4 Key lessons learnt from the CAMPFIRE experience ...... 126

3.5 CBNRM in Botswana ...... 127 3.5.1 Key lessons learnt from CBNRM in Botswana ...... 128

3.6 CBNRM in Namibia ...... 129 3.6.1 Key lessons learnt from CBNRM in Namibia ...... 130

3.7 Key lessons learnt from CBNRM in SADC ...... 130 3.8 Recommendations for CBNRM enhancement in Swaziland ...... 130 3.8.1 Strengthening stakeholders groups ...... 132

3.9 Private conservation areas could be encouraged to participate in CBNRM where appropriate; Conclusion ...... 133 4 Financial Sustainability of Protected Area System in Swaziland ...... 134 4.1 Introduction ...... 134 4.1.1 Background ...... 134

4.1.2 What do we mean by Sustainable Finance ...... 134

4.2 Current Protected Area Framework ...... 137 4.2.1 Categories of Protected Areas in Swaziland ...... 137

4.2.2 Current Protected Area Financing Approach ...... 138

4.3 Strengthening the National Protected Area System ...... 141 4.3.1 Economic Rationale for Investing in Protected Area System ...... 141

Tourism as an Engine of Growth ...... 143 Conservation as a Key Tourism Factor ...... 143 Strategic Linkages ...... 145

Recommended Action Items ...... 148 4.3.2 The Protected Area System ...... 149

Key Success Factors for Financial Sustainability ...... 149 4.3.3 Financial Planning Process for the Protected Area System ...... 150

The Financial Scorecard ...... 150 Assessing Financial Needs ...... 154 4.3.4 Different Types of Management Programs ...... 155

The Basic and Ideal Management Scenarios ...... 157 General Standards for Protected Area Management ...... 158 4.3.5 Results of the Financial Needs Assessment...... 165

4.4 Current Funding for Protected Areas in Swaziland ...... 165 4.4.1 Key Problems and Opportunities...... 166

4.4.2 Requirements for Financial Sustainability ...... 166

Equitable Distribution of Funds in a Mixed Ownership Protected Area System ...... 166 4.4.3 Financial Requirements for Implementation ...... 168

4.4.4 Preliminary Assessment of Landscape Based Financing Sources ...... 169

4.5 Government Sources of Finance ...... 170 4.6 Market Sources of Finance ...... 172 4.7 The Strategic Action Plan for Financial Sustainability ...... 176 5 Rural income generation activities in the communities surrounding protected areas in Swaziland ...... 183 5.1 Introduction ...... 183 5.1.1 Background ...... 183

5.1.2 Sustainable Livelihoods ...... 183

5.1.2 Livelihoods Context in Swaziland ...... 184

5.2 Biodiversity Conservation in Swaziland ...... 185 5.2.1 Threats to Biodiversity Conservation and Related Issues ...... 186

5.2.2 Biodiversity Conservation through Community Participation ...... 187

Community Development ...... 188 Natural Resource Management ...... 189 5.2.3 Lessons Learned from CBNRM Programs in the Region...... 190

Economic benefits ...... 190 Institutions ...... 191 Sustainability ...... 191 Skills and capacity ...... 191 Environmental impact ...... 192 Livelihood security and diversity ...... 192 5.3 The Review Sites ...... 192 5.3.1 Bulembu ...... 192

5.3.2 Malolotja Nature Reserve ...... 193

5.3.3 The Lubombo Conservancy ...... 194

5.4 Socio-Economic Conditions ...... 195 5.4.1 Economic Gain from the Use of Natural Forests and Woodlands ...... 196

5.5 Government Stakeholders in Income Generation Activities ...... 198 5.6 Recommendations for Potential Livelihood Interventions ...... 199 5.6.1 Improving the Productivity of Current Farming Systems ...... 201

5.6.2 Promotion of Appropriate Technologies ...... 201

5.6.3 Commercial Use of Invasive Alien Species ...... 205

Selected utilisation options for IAS in Swaziland ...... 206 Key Program Components for Commercial Use of Invasive Alien Species ...... 206 5.6.4 Tourism Related Enterprises ...... 207

The Need to Develop Suitable Ecotourism Products for a Range of Market Segments ...... 208 Requirements for the Effective Development of Ecotourism ...... 209 5.7 Strengthening and Promoting Development Initiatives ...... 210 5.7.1 Risk Management ...... 213

References ...... 215 Appendix 1: PWA Importance and Threat Assessment ...... 220

Appendix 2: The IUCN Protected Area Matrix ...... 222

Appendix 3: Governance Principles for Protected Areas ...... 222

Appendix 4: Acts and Bills relevant to Biodiversity Management ...... 224

Appendix 5: General Guiding and Operational Principles for CBNRM ...... 229

Appendix 6: Key Protected Areas Financing Related Problems and Solutions ...... 233

Appendix 7: Financial Scorecard – Part II – Assessing Elements of the Financing System ...... 239

Appendix 8: Financial Scorecard for the Protected Area System ...... 253

Appendix 9: Immediate Investment Projections ...... 262

Appendix 10: Selection Criteria for Income Generation Activities ...... 266

Appendix 11: Key Program Requirements for Commercial Use of Invasive Alien Species ...... 267

Appendix 12: Success stories in Access and Benefit Sharing of Resources in Swaziland by BGP ...... 268

Appendix 13: Non Timber Forest Products as a Market Sector ...... 269

List of Figures

Figure 1: Mean Annual Rainfall of Swaziland ...... 22 Figure 2: Major Natural Biomes of Swaziland ...... 22 Figure 3: Swaziland’s National Protected Areas ...... 26 Figure 4: Swaziland’s PAs Indicating Formal and Informal PAs...... 28 Figure 5: Swaziland’s Community Ecotourism Areas ...... 30 Figure 6: Swaziland’s Protection-worthy Areas Indicating Their Overall Importance ...... 32 Figure 7: Biomes and PAs of Swaziland ...... 34 Figure 8: Vegetation Types represented in Swaziland’s National and Informal PAs ...... 37 Figure 9: Vegetation Types represented in Swaziland’s National PAs ...... 38 Figure 10: Vegetation Types represented in Swaziland’s Gazetted PAs ...... 39 Figure 11: Potential New PAs in Swaziland ...... 47 Figure 12: Proposed New PAs for Swaziland...... 50 Figure 13: Clusters of Existing and Proposed PAs in Swaziland Showing Proposed Corridors ...... 58 Figure 14: Land Cover in the Lubombo Conservancy Region ...... 62 Figure 15: Land Use and PA Connectivity Opportunities in Lubombo Region ...... 64 Figure 16: Land Cover in Malolotja Region ...... 66 Figure 17: Land Use and Connectivity Opportunities in Malolotja Region ...... 68 Figure 18: Land Cover in Mkhaya Region ...... 69

Figure 19: Land Use and Connectivity Opportunities in the Mkhaya Region ...... 70 Figure 20: Land Cover of Ngwempisi Gorge Region ...... 71 Figure 21: Land Use and Connectivity Opportunities in the Ngwempisi Region ...... 72 Figure 22: Projected Annual Mean Temperature for Swaziland (2020)...... 74 Figure 23: Projected Annual Mean Temperature for Swaziland (2050)...... 74 Figure 24: Projected Annual Mean Temperature for Swaziland (2080)...... 75 Figure 25: Projected Annual Mean Rainfall for Swaziland (2020) ...... 75 Figure 26: Projected Annual Mean Rainfall for Swaziland (2050) ...... 76 Figure 27: Projected Annual Mean Rainfall for Swaziland (2080) ...... 76 Figure 28: Projected Minimum Temperature for Swaziland’s Coldest Month (2020) ...... 77 Figure 29: Projected Minimum Temperature for Swaziland’s Coldest Month (2050) ...... 78 Figure 30: Projected Minimum Temperature for Swaziland’s Coldest Month (2080) ...... 78 Figure 31: A model for stakeholder participation in protected area governance ...... 103 Figure 32: Distributions of Protected Areas in Swaziland...... 138 Figure 33: Government of Swaziland Expenditure on Conservation Between 2009 and 2013 (in 000’s Lilangeni) ...... 140 Figure 34: Protected Area Financing in Swaziland as a Percentage of the Government Budget ...... 140 Figure 35: Sustainable Tourism Goals ...... 144 Figure 36: Critical Success Factor for Maximising Swaziland’s Tourism Potential ...... 145 Figure 37: A Spatial Framework for Tourism in Swaziland...... 146 Figure 38: Preliminary Spatial Identification of Potential Tourism Priority Areas ...... 147 Figure 39: Financial Scorecard – Overall Results per Component ...... 152 Figure 40: Management Programs for Basic and Ideal Scenarios ...... 158 Figure 41: Linkage among livelihood elements and implementation methods ...... 200 Figure 42: Component 1: Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Frameworks ...... 254 Figure 43: Component II – Business Planning and Tools for Cost-Effective Management . 256 Figure 44: Component III – Tools for Revenue Generation by the National Protected Area System ...... 258 Figure 45: Component II – Business Planning and Tools for Cost-Effective Management by Managing Entity ...... 260 Figure 46: Component III – Tools for Revenue Generation by Managing Entity ...... 261 Figure 47: SNTC Expenditure Break-down by Program Area (2012/2013 Budget)...... 262

List of Tables

Table 1: Vegetation Types of Swaziland ...... 23 Table 2: Numbers of various groups of species according to biome ...... 23 Table 3: Size and Status of Swaziland’s National PAs...... 27 Table 4: Informal PAs in Swaziland ...... 28 Table 5: Status and Area of Community Ecotourism Areas ...... 30 Table 6: Biomes of Swaziland and their coverage within and outside PAs ...... 33 Table 7: Vegetation Types of Swaziland and their coverage within and outside PAs ...... 36 Table 8: Representation of Globally Threatened Vertebrate Species in Swaziland’s PAs ...... 40 Table 9: Representation of Nationally Threatened Vertebrate Species in Swaziland’s PAs ... 41 Table 10: Representation of Internationally Threatened Species of Plants in PAs ...... 43 Table 11: Representation of Endemic Species of Plants in PAs ...... 45 Table 12: Prioritisation Scoring of Potential PAs in Swaziland ...... 48 Table 13: Comparison of the two main Acts governing PAs in Swaziland...... 101 Table 14: Expected outcomes, indicators, threats and mitigation measures...... 112 Table 15: Characteristics of Current Protected Area System ...... 135 Table 16: Proportion of Leisure Tourism and Repeat Rates, Selected Key Markets 2012 ... 142 Table 17: Programmatic Management Activities as Developed During the Workshop ...... 156 Table 18: Categories of Standards for Protected Area Management ...... 159 Table 19: Standards for Protected Area Management for the Basic and Ideal Scenarios ..... 159 Table 20: Feasible Financial Mechanisms ...... 168 Table 21: Strategic Action Plan ...... 178

Acronyms

AA Appropriate Authority BGP Big Game Parks BOCOBONET Botswana Community Based Organisation Network CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management CBO Community Based Organisation CCA Community Conservation Area CECT Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust CEPF Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund CITES Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CSO Civil Society Organisation DWNP Department of Wildlife and National Parks EA Ecosystem Approach EESS Environmental Education Strategy for Swaziland ELP Eco Lubombo Programme FNA Financial Needs Assessment GEF Global Environment Facility IAS Invasive Alien Species IGA Income Generation Activity IMP Integrated Management Plan IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature KRA Key Result Area LC Lubombo Conservancy LME Lubombo Mountain Ecosystem LTFCA Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area MEPD Ministry of Economic Planning and Development MoA Ministry of Agriculture MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives MTEA Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NTFP Non Timber Forest Product PA Protected Area PAS Protected Area System PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PoW Programme of Work REDD Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SADC Southern Africa Development Community SCNR Shewula Community Nature Reserve SNTC Swaziland National Trust Commission SEA Swaziland Environment Authority SL/NRM Sustainable Livelihood/Natural Resources Management Program SNL Swazi National Land SNTC Swaziland National Trust Commission STA Swaziland Tourism Authority

SZL Swaziland Lilangeni TBPA Transboundary Protected Area TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WMA Wildlife Management Area

Glossary

Community Where reference is made in this document to community with regards CBNRM, community means the people resident on Swazi Nation Land under the jurisdiction of a chief unless otherwise specified.

Conservancy Conservancy refers to an association or other legal entity representing a number of distinct land units under conservation management with differing ownership that have agreed to co-operate.

Executive Summary

Background

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers Protected Areas (PAs) to be essential for biodiversity conservation. They are the cornerstones of virtually all national and international conservation strategies. They are areas set aside to maintain functioning natural ecosystems, to act as refuges for species and to maintain ecological processes that cannot survive in most intensely managed landscapes and seascapes. Protected areas act as benchmarks against which we understand human interactions with the natural world. Today they are often the only hope we have of stopping many threatened or endangered species from becoming extinct.

GEF has released a Project Preparation Grant (PPG) to the UNDP Swaziland Country Office, that will be used to capture relevant information and carry out stakeholder consultations and assessments that will inform the preparation of the Full Sized Project entitled, “Strengthening the National Protected Areas System of Swaziland”; that will be submitted to the GEF in mid-2014. The project aims to strengthen the management effectiveness of existing PAs in addressing threats, while expanding the Protected Area (PA) estate to incorporate protection worthy areas that would have progressively degraded as the pressures mount.

Swaziland lies between latitudes 25° and 28° south and 31° and 32° east in the south eastern part of Africa. The country is a landlocked country covering an area of 17,364 km2, with South Africa in the north, west and south, and Mozambique in the east. Although Swaziland is small in size, it has great variation in landscape, geology, climate, ecosystems and species. The western part of the country includes the mountains of the Drakensberg plateau (reaching over 1800 metres above sea level), and the eastern part adjoins the coastal plains of Mozambique (down to 20 metres above sea level). Forming the eastern border of Swaziland is the Lubombo range of hills. Swaziland’s mean annual rainfall ranges from as low as 200mm per year in the south east to as much as 1500mm per year in the Northwest.

Major Findings

Protected Area Assessment and Situational Analysis

The PA analysis involves collating and analysing data to clarify what existing PAs there are and determine the priority new PAs to be established via the project. This includes a review of previous PA assessments and Protection Worthy Area Reports, and analysis of new information including biodiversity and socio-economic assets and as well as threats to biodiversity loss and ecosystem processes. It includes establishment of criteria to select new PAs to be covered under this project, and the selection and mapping of these new PAs (and their buffer zones) in order to meet the goals of the project. This also includes an assessment of land uses within the target areas including brief identification of the opportunities and challenges for effective implementation of the project. It also includes an analysis of climate

12 change scenarios and likely impacts on the target PAs and the communities and biodiversity therein and its implications on project interventions and their sustainability.

Based on the assessment of existing PAs, it is clear that the existing network of PAs while relatively well placed are insufficient to adequately represent the biodiversity of the country and also, insufficient portions of the PAs are legally gazetted. The Project Identification Form (PIF) for this project indicates that the existing “gazetted protected areas” cover 4.45% of the country (773 km2) but the analysis shows that in fact the area of gazetted PAs is only 2.9% of the country (500 km2). Also, in addition to the six National PAs, the PIF identifies another 9 areas currently being managed and treated as PAs but which are “not yet gazetted” covering a further 237 km2 (1.4% of the country). The analysis shows that these Informal PAs actually number 14 and cover 470 km2 (2.7% of the country) and as such it appears their importance has been overlooked somewhat. Recommendations from the study include: additional PAs to represent and conserve an adequate proportion of the countries biodiversity; and gazetting those PAs which have not yet been gazetted or implementing some other means of securing the protected status of these areas for the long-term.

In planning a system of reserves to protect biodiversity, two objectives are paramount. The first is to represent, or sample, as much variation in biodiversity as possible. The second is to sustain the biodiversity by maintaining natural processes and viable populations and by excluding threats. To meet these objectives, conservation planning must deal not only with the location of reserves in relation to patterns of biodiversity, but also with reserve design (size, connectivity, alignment of boundaries etc.) and management. In the face of competing land-uses, particularly in Swaziland, conservation planning must use limited resources to achieve defendable conservation goals, and it must be accountable in allowing decisions to be critically reviewed whilst at the same time being pragmatic and practical. Based on this, two principles should guide the selection of new areas to be added to the network. New areas will be chosen to: i) be of a sufficient size to represent as much of the variation in biodiversity as possible, ii) to have the highest likelihood of being sustainable.

Potential new PAs were identified by selecting the top priority 9 areas identified in the PWA survey1 namely: Mdzimba, Ngwempisi (Ntungulu), Nyonyane, Ndlotane, Mahuku, Jilobi, Shewula, Manzimnyame and Makhonjwa. Two of these areas are also community ecotourism areas namely, Shewula and Ngwempisi (Ntungulu). The remaining three community eco-tourism areas, namely, Mambane (Usutu gorge), Sibebe and Mahamba were also included as potential PAs. In addition, one PWA was added based on the Gap analysis above, namely, Nsongweni which covers two of the currently non-protected vegetation types as well as other PWAs that were included based on their connectivity with existing PAs. This resulted in a total of 15 areas to be considered for prioritisation as potential new PAs. Twelve other areas were also added which are considered protection worthy and which are connected to existing PAs, namely, Malolotja west extension, Malolotja north extension, Malolotja east extension, Motjane vlei, Phophonyane conservancy, Mlilwane east extension, Panata PWA,

1 Roques 2002 13

Gebeni PWA (including Edwaleni hills), Mhlumeni, Muti-muti, Mkhaya west extension, Mkhaya east extension.

Review of protected area systems governance in Swaziland

This baseline study reviews how Swaziland, through governance processes, is implementing the CBD’s programme of work on protected areas to achieve the three objectives of biodiversity conservation, sustainable utilisation of biodiversity and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the sustainable use of biodiversity. Governance, now recognised as a critical aspect of effective conservation, is about the interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine direction, how power is exercised, and how the views of citizens or stakeholders are incorporated into decision-making.

Due to this critical nature, governance has become an important part of the CBD’s work programme on protected areas, resulting in substantial changes taking place with overall trends moving towards increased participation of more stakeholders, greater use of formal accountability mechanisms, and a wider range of participatory techniques. Many of these changes have resulted in legislative and policy changes to support the paradigm shift where protected areas are becoming more influenced by global forces.

Following review of relevant legislation, strategies, reports and other literature and gathering information through interviews with relevant government and non-government stakeholders the study recognises and appreciates Swaziland’s efforts and substantial progress in implementing the CBD programme of work. The recommendations of the study include:

 Put in place secure funding mechanisms and increase stakeholder participation which are the main governance requirements for Swaziland’s protected areas;  Build capacity among different stakeholders (government agencies, private sector, and local communities) to increase effectiveness in implementing the CBD provisions but taking into account local indigenous knowledge and conditions;  Undertake a robust capacity building programme to mobilise the stakeholders to efficiently and effectively carry out their roles and responsibilities in a transparent and accountable manner.  Carry out national campaigns to raise awareness and knowledge, including indigenous knowledge, about biodiversity conservation. This way people’s understanding of biodiversity issues will increase resulting in reduced poaching in a sustainable manner. The campaigns should take advantage of Swazi culture and traditions that are closely linked to biodiversity conservation. For example, the Reed Dance cannot be the same without reeds and to have reeds you need to conserve wetlands and in the process conserving all other forms of life.  Legitimise the participation of stakeholders in PA governance by creating consultation mechanisms for inclusion of different stakeholders in decision-making processes, within the context of each management authority.  Promote clear objectives for protected area management, including using the IUCN Protected Area Governance Matrix, and develop appropriate management plans for each 14

protected area, within the context of each management authority, based on the stated specific objectives.

The clarification roles and responsibilities between and among stakeholders (and following international best practice trends in protected area governance especially in CCAs), should enhance Swaziland’s chances of achieving the CBD objectives through greater stakeholder participation.

Review of CBNRM in SADC with a view to enhance CBNRM as a strategy to improve managing protected areas for socio-economic rural development in Swaziland

The study reviewed the best practices in Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region with a view to recommending how best to enhance this strategy/concept to Swaziland’s protected areas system governance under a GEF grant to ‘Strengthen the National Protected Areas System of Swaziland’. The grant seeks to assist Swaziland to increase Protected Area (PA) coverage by proclamation of new national, community and private PAs while strengthening the governance of these PAs through creating an enabling framework for effective management mechanisms and capacity building for all the stakeholders, under the context of the appropriate legislation i.e. SNTC and Game Act.

Generic CBNRM organisational principles and their key characteristics were applied to analyse the critical stakeholders, the policy and regulatory enabling frameworks, impact assessment of CBNRM in other countries from southern Africa, to assess some of the limitations and challenges.

For CBNRM to achieve its objectives, governance is critical to put in place a favourable environment where policy and legislation reflects the real needs of CBNRM. As a result, many governments have started building CBNRM into their policies and strategies.

However, many projects being implemented have been experiencing problems ranging from lack of delivery of benefits large and tangible enough to make significant impacts to people’s livelihoods to a lack of community cohesion and stable local governance, to loss of biodiversity. Many observed trends whether positive or negative in the CBNRM movement are influenced by complex combinations of highly specific factors, unique to particular place and time, by external factors beyond the control of local stakeholders and also by history.

The outcome is that generalisations, predictions and prescriptions are inappropriate when dealing with collaborative management but through adaptive management and learning-by- doing it is possible to react and improve, although it is a slow and expensive process. As stated above and due to different backgrounds or history, these international best practices in CBNRM apply differently to different sites. Many lessons in this respect are taken from the CAMPFIRE experience in Zimbabwe and others from Namibia and Botswana which have received a fair share in literature. There are other examples where CBNRM has been applied successfully but there is a need to disseminate information on these to provide more lessons for the CBNRM movement in general. 15

The study provided recommendations on how best to apply the concept to Swaziland’s protected areas management to meet the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity to include conservation and socio-economic objectives. Swaziland is endowed with rich biodiversity, cultural and traditional practices and aesthetic values which provide it with a strong foundation for enhancing the CBNRM strategy to improve the management of natural resources. As experience from other countries of the region has shown, to enhance CBNRM development on Swaziland National Land, Swaziland needs to consider and implement some (if not all) of the following strategies:

 Provide an enabling environment by developing a National Policy on Community-Based Natural Resource Management for the effective implementation of CBNRM. The policy should promote the forging of linkages between communities and other stakeholders; avoid contradictions between different government departments, accessible to all role players and aligned to international agreements that promote rural development and the sustainable use of natural resources. The roles of the different stakeholders involved in facilitating CBNRM needs to be clearly reflected in the CBNRM policy;  Negotiate and implement a binding CBNRM covenant/agreement involving all stakeholders;  Establish a representative, accountable and legal CBNRM platform with representatives from all stakeholders to implement the covenant/agreement;  Develop strong and effective umbrella organisations for the stakeholder groups; and  Strengthen the individual groups of stakeholders through capacity building and by clarifying and optimising their roles.

Financial Sustainability of Protected Area System in Swaziland

Swaziland’s protected areas (PAs) cover approximately 4% of the country and form the core strategy in ensuring a sound natural resource base, as well as, meeting the country’s conservation obligations under the Convention of Biological Diversity. In addition, the protected area system (PAS) contributes significant value to the national economy, primarily in that it underpins a large portion of the national tourism industry, the fastest growing economic sector.

In order to strengthen the PA system to achieve the conservation goals and unleash the systems’ economic potential, there is need to enhance the effectiveness of the PAS as a whole, including develop a more regional approach to protected area management and other conservation activities, strengthen partnerships with other land managers, in particular in the areas adjacent to protected areas, and strengthen the integration of tourism and wildlife management.

Despite the substantial economic potential, the protected areas in Swaziland are severely underfunded and the government budget allocation to SNTC is the main source of funding, supplemented by entry fees. In the fiscal year 2012/13, the budget shortfall is estimated at 27%, while community conservation areas are not funded at all. The PAS is still considered inadequate to meet national conservation goals, and further investment is required to expand

16 and improve it. The latter has been articulated as a vision for the effective development of the PAS, involving not only changes to the PAs included in the system and the surrounding areas, but also changes in the institutional structures and governance.

Sustainable financing requires not only securing adequate funds but also considering the quality, form, timing, targeting, use and sources of funding. It is important to build a diverse funding portfolio, going beyond conventional mechanisms and including multiple funding sources. Funds must also be managed and administered efficiently to achieve cost effectiveness of protected area management operations. In addition, it is necessary to have a mechanism to have an ongoing and continuously improving understanding of the financial requirements of the PAS, as well as to be able to harness new opportunities for funding.

The most promising mechanisms available to finance PA conservation are provided. Financing mechanisms were assessed using a rapid feasibility assessment, considering issues such as the legal and political feasibility, the complexity of implementing the mechanism, as well as, the potential financial return. Some of the listed mechanisms are either being presently implemented in Swaziland, but need to improve, or have been implemented by different PAS in the region and international funding sources are not included in this assessment.

Feasibility Legal Political Complexity Return Total Public Government subvention to SNTC and 3 2 2 3 10 Forestry Department Taxes on hotels and aviation 2 1 2 3 8 Tax breaks or subsidies for private 2 1 2 2 7 conservation effort/investment Charges or penalties related to natural 2 1 2 2 7 resource use Direct public investment for PA 3 1 1 3 8 infrastructure Self-Generated Sources Tourism fees (visitors, hotels, tour 3 3 1 3 10 operators) Carbon credits / REDD 2 3 3 2 10 Tourism service concessions 3 3 2 3 11 Watershed protection incentives 1 1 3 1 6 Publicity (contracts for access, etc.) 2 3 2 2 9 Bio-prospecting agreements 1 2 3 2 8 Tradable development rights 2 1 3 3 9 (biodiversity offsets and easements) Utilisation of invasive species 3 2 2 2 9

Feasibility Legal Political Complexity Return Total Private Dedicated fund-raising campaigns / 3 3 2 2 10 special events Note: 1=Low, 3=High

Rural income generation activities in the communities surrounding PAs in Swaziland

A significant proportion of Southern Africa falls under protected areas (PAs), and the number of rural communities directly or indirectly dependent on natural resources found in these PAs is particularly high. Many questions have been raised on whether PAs have supported or undermined the rural poor’s livelihood security. The relationship is complex, hinging on factors like the national legal and policy frameworks, level of participation of local people in the management of PAs, fairness in decision making, equitable benefit sharing, greater benefits generation, recognition and respect for land, resource and other human rights, as well as the rule of law. Governance of natural resources is increasingly being recognised as a pre- condition for successful conservation, and many communities are keen to participate in the management of PAs.

There is an important link between the livelihoods of rural people, especially the forest dependent poor, and natural resources. In Swaziland, more than 70% of the population derives their livelihood through the natural resources, such as forests, water, lands and animals. Community-based biodiversity conservation can be a vehicle for change in community development. This UNDP/GEF Project “Strengthening the National Protected Areas System in Swaziland” has a strategic objective that focuses on income generation activities (IGAs). The intent is to increase the IGAs in productive landscapes around PAs in order to lessen the reliance on natural resources, while at the same time supporting the need for additional income opportunities in those communities as an essential part of increasing protection for Swaziland’s biodiversity. This report, however, is not a value chain and market assessment of the economic viability or potential of IGAs and existing IGA programs, nor is it a comprehensive assessment of IGA feasibility for selected locations. Addressing these appropriately would require much more time and details than available at this preparatory project phase. This report focuses on developing an approach for successful implementation of IGAs that will promote biodiversity conservation. Though the report identifies potential IGAs that could be developed or encouraged as part of the linkage between biodiversity conservation and rural livelihood improvement opportunities, the focus is on ensuring the existence of a system that is able to deliver on various IGAs.

18 strengthening initiatives. While it is acknowledged that interventions in these areas are important, this report stresses the need to address the inequitable distribution of development benefits through supporting existing production and marketing systems, wherever possible, as a single intervention cannot raise the living standards of communities. An additional lens for review of these interventions is the need to increase protection of biodiversity.

Background

The purpose of this Baseline compilation report is to detail the results of the assigned tasks provided to the team of four consultants in delivering what is known as the PPG process: preparing the project for submission to the GEF. It will provide detailed information on the results of the baseline assessments conducted by the consultants. The team consists of:

1 x International Consultant in the role of Team Leader (Paul Harrison)

1 x National Consultant as Deputy Team Leader and NRM Specialist (Kim Roques)

1 x National Consultant as Policy Specialist (Morris Zororai Mtsambiwa)

1 x National Consultant as Markets Specialist (Ephrat Yovel)

1 x Consultant Research Support (Poppy Khoza)

1 x Consultant Support as Administration and Logistics (Patience Vilane)

This compilation report provides the pertinent information on the baseline assessments conducted by the consultants and further information can be obtained in the individual consultants’ reports.

The consultant team has been contracted by UNDP to carry out the PPG process for the following UNDP-GEF project under development: Strengthening the National Protected Areas System of Swaziland.

Introduction

GEF has released a Project Preparation Grant (PPG) to the UNDP Swaziland Country Office, that will be used to capture relevant information and carry out stakeholder consultations and assessments that will inform the preparation of the Full Sized Project entitled, “Strengthening the National Protected Areas System of Swaziland”; that will be submitted to the GEF in early mid-2014. The project aims to strengthen the management effectiveness of existing PAs in addressing threats, while expanding the Protected Area (PA) estate to incorporate protection worthy areas that would have progressively degraded as the pressures mount.

1 Protected Area Assessment and Situational Analysis

The PA analysis involves collating and analysing data to clarify what existing PAs there are and determine the priority new PAs to be established via the project. This includes a review of previous PA assessments and Protection Worthy Area Reports incorporating work done during the preparation of the Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Development Project, and analysis of new information including biodiversity and socio-economic assets and as well as threats to biodiversity loss and ecosystem processes. It includes establishment of criteria to select new PAs to be covered under this project, and the selection and mapping of these new PAs (and their buffer zones) in order to meet the goals of the project.

This report also includes an assessment of land uses within the target areas including brief identification of the opportunities and challenges for effective implementation of the project. It also includes an analysis of climate change scenarios and likely impacts on the target PAs and the communities and biodiversity therein and its implications on project interventions and their sustainability.

1.1 Biophysical Context

Swaziland has four broad biophysical regions (Highveld, Middleveld, Lowveld, and Lubombo), based on topography, climate and vegetation. Swaziland, despite its small size, supports a diverse assemblage of ecosystems and habitats which are home to a wide range of organisms. It has four major biomes: grassland, savannah, forest and aquatic. Each of the terrestrial biomes can be further divided into various vegetation types. Four forest types can be distinguished: Northern Mistbelt, Scarp, Lowveld Riverine and Ironwood Dry. Three grassland types can be distinguished: Barberton Montane, Ithala Quartzite, KaNgwane Montane. The savannah vegetation can be divided into three broad types (Lowveld, Sourveld and Bushveld) and nine fine types: Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld, Zululand Lowveld, Delagoa Lowveld, Granite Lowveld, Lebombo Summit Sourveld, Northern Zululand Sourveld, Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld, Southern Lebombo Bushveld, Swaziland Sour Bushveld. The aquatic biome can be broadly divided into rivers, streams and marshes. In addition to the above natural ecosystems there are a number of man-made ecosystems and habitats including various dams, canals, forests, grasslands and savannahs.

Figure 1: Mean Annual Rainfall of Swaziland

Figure 2: Major Natural Biomes of Swaziland

Table 1: Vegetation Types of Swaziland Vegetation Type Biome Total ha % Ironwood Dry Forest Forest 1,284.8 0.1 Lowveld Riverine Forest Forest 4,402.6 0.3 Northern Mistbelt Forest Forest 1,042.6 0.1 Scarp Forest Forest 20,334.7 1.2 Barberton Montane Grassland Grassland 20,573.3 1.2 Ithala Quartzite Sourveld Grassland 48,704.3 2.8 KaNgwane Montane Grassland Grassland 352,388.1 20.3 Delagoa Lowveld Savannah 193,524.9 11.1 Granite Lowveld Savannah 401,816.1 23.1 Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld Savannah 425.2 0.0 Lebombo Summit Sourveld Savannah 749.1 0.0 Northern Zululand Sourveld Savannah 40,201.4 2.3 Southern Lebombo Bushveld Savannah 123,897.1 7.1 Swaziland Sour Bushveld Savannah 307,939.6 17.7 Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld Savannah 71,534.9 4.1 Zululand Lowveld Savannah 147,077.5 8.5 Total 1,735,896.3

Although the information base on Swaziland’s biodiversity is still limited, survey work has shown that a significant portion of southern Africa’s plant and animal species occur here and it is a biodiversity hotspot. The eastern region of Swaziland, for example, forms part of the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity “hotspot” (one of the World’s hotspots of floral, as well as faunal, species richness and endemism), while the western region falls within two areas of global significance, the Drakensberg Escarpment Endemic Bird Area and the Barberton Centre of Plant Endemism.

Table 2: Numbers of various groups of species according to biome2 Taxon Grassland Savannah Forest Aquatic Total Fish 0 0 0 51 (100%) 51 Amphibians 9 (21%) 10 (24%) 1 (2%) 37 (88%) 42 Reptiles 51 (46%) 76 (69%) 12 (11%) 7 (6%) 110 Birds 138 (28%) 290 (58%) 91 (18%) 97 (19%) 500 Mammals 49 (39%) 95 (75%) 13 (10%) 1(1%) 127 Total 247 (30%) 471 (57%) 117 (14%) 192 (23%) 821 Values in brackets represent the percentage of the total indigenous fauna

2 Monadjem, A., Boycott, R., Parker, V. & Culverwell, J. (2003) Threatened Vertebrates of Swaziland. Swaziland Red Data Book: Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals. Swaziland Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Communications, Swaziland. 23

The importance of Swaziland’s natural heritage has long been recognised by Swazis who have integrated it into daily use for various purposes including: traditional medicine, food, building material, traditional attire etc. Rapid modernisation is reducing this connection to nature and wildlife and although traditional systems of conserving biodiversity exist they have not been documented and are currently being eroded.

1.2 Existing Protected Areas

The IUCN defines a Protected Area as "A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008). This is the definition we will use for this report.

1.2.1 National Protected Areas

National PA is defined as a PA which is managed as an integral unit and has a significant portion of its area gazetted as a PA under Swazi legislation. These National PAs are for all intents and purposes treated as fully gazetted (e.g. the Project Identification Form (PIF) identifies these as gazetted PAs) nevertheless gazetting those non-gazetted portions of the National PAs deemed important is a formality which should ideally be completed.

Swaziland’s existing National PA estate is comprised of relatively small areas covering only 3.9% of the country. Although the existing PAs are relatively well positioned to cover the variation in biodiversity, there are a number of growing threats to these reserves and the remaining natural areas within the landscapes of the country. There is therefore a need to expand the PA estate, while strengthening the management of existing PAs. This will in turn require the participation of a broad range of stakeholders, including government departments, private companies and landholders, local communities and the tourism industry, to establish new PAs on the appropriate lands. A landscape approach is needed, to strategically manage and conserve the biodiversity of these PAs within the context of the broader environment to reduce threats to biodiversity loss, maintain ecosystem services and improve connectivity as is for example operationalised by the Lubombo Conservancy.

Swaziland’s first existing National PA, Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary, was proclaimed under the Game Act of 1953 followed by Hlane Game Reserve in 1967. In 1972, the Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) was formed specifically to conserve areas and features representative of Swaziland’s natural and cultural heritage. In addition, custodianship of wildlife falls under the King’s Office which placed the management of the Game Act and CITES under the responsibility of the BigGame Parks. This provides the major responsible parties for the management of PAs in Swaziland as BGP and SNTC. As part of the establishment of SNTC, an initial assessment of protection worthy areas in Swaziland was carried out in 1972. The report was a first step towards developing a plan for creating “a pattern of [National] parks representative of all of the four main regions of Swaziland and

24 covering as many as possible of the various ecosystems of each of them”3. The assessment involved approximately 4 months of aerial and field based investigation and identified 6 protection-worthy areas including Mlilwane and Hlane. Following this report, one of the proposed areas was proclaimed, Malolotja Nature Reserve, in 1977.

A second survey of national protection worthy areas was commissioned by SNTC in 19784. The survey identified 31 protection-worthy areas, including Mlilwane, Hlane and Malolotja, which would have resulted in protection of 9.47% of the Kingdom. Of this, 58% was proposed as National Parks, 13% as Nature Reserves, 24% as National Landscapes and 5% as National Wetlands. Only two of the 31 areas proposed were proclaimed, Mbabane Nature Reserve in 1978 and Mlawula Nature Reserve, in 1980. A sixth reserve, Mkhaya Game Reserve, was proclaimed in 1985 although it was not identified in either of the surveys. In 1994 Mantenga Nature Reserve, adjacent to Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary, was proclaimed under the SNTC act. In reference to the definition of a PA given above, Mbabane Nature Reserve is not considered by this report to be a PA even though it was legally gazetted under the SNTC act, it has apparently since been deproclaimed and certainly is not currently managed for the protection of biodiversity and there is no active enforcement of biodiversity legislation.

Following Swaziland’s ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994, it developed a national Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) which highlighted an urgent need for increased protection of representative examples of biodiversity. Despite a few concerted national efforts to prioritise areas for protection since, no further PAs have been proclaimed and in the past two decades few of these National PAs have increased significantly in size.

The six National PAs which fit our definition include Malolotja, Mlawula and Mantenga managed by the Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) and Mlilwane, Hlane and Mkhaya managed by Big Game Parks (BGP). Mlilwane and Mantenga adjoin each other as do Hlane and Mlawula. By far the largest of these areas is the Hlane-Mlawula complex comprising 37,888 ha followed by Malolotja (16,292 ha) and Mkhaya (10,050 ha) and lastly the Mlilwane-Mantenga complex (5,300 ha). Together these areas comprise 69,530 ha i.e. 3.9% of the country.

Available information on the National PAs was gathered during the baseline analysis through interviews and sourcing of available data from various sources. The most up-to-date available map of these areas was developed in 2002, this was used as a baseline and significant additions to Mlilwane and Mkhaya were mapped here to update the boundaries of these areas.

3 Grimwood, I. (1973) The Establishment of National Parks: Report to the Government of Swaziland. FAO, Rome. 4 Reilly, T.E. (1979) A Survey of Protection Worthy Areas of Swaziland. Swaziland National Trust Commission, Lobamba, Swaziland. 25

Figure 3: Swaziland’s National Protected Areas5

1.2.2 Gazetted Areas

Information was gathered from the SNTC and BGP to determine which areas had been gazetted as PAs under the SNTC act or Game act. According to the Forestry Section no areas have yet been gazetted as PAs under the Flora Protection act, although there has been declaration of a botanical garden. Based on this information gazetted PAs were mapped using cadastral boundaries and historical maps and this was overlaid on the map of National PAs. Significant portions of Swaziland’s National PAs are not gazetted and one of the purposes of this project is to rectify this. Therefore for the purposes of this report the gazetted portions of Swaziland’s National PAs are considered as a separate category of PA in the analysis. In total only 76% of the National PA area is gazetted. In most cases this is merely a formality which has not been fulfilled yet, however, it has implications for the long-term integrity of these PAs and in some cases (e.g. the recently re-opened iron ore mine in Malolotja) the gazetting of these areas may be intentionally avoided by the government in order to keep options open for future resource extraction.

5 Roques K.G. (2002) A Rapid Field Assessment of Protection Worthy Areas of Swaziland. Swaziland Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Communications, Swaziland Government, Mbabane. 26

Table 3: Size and Status of Swaziland’s National PAs NAME Management Perimeter Total Area Gazetted Area (km) (Ha) (Ha) Hlane Royal National Park BGP 91.4 21,735.8 13,525.8 Mkhaya Game Reserve BGP 50.2 10,050.2 5,815.5 Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary BGP 58.6 4,582.8 3,862.0 Malalotja National Park SNTC 75.6 16,292.4 11,255.0 Mlawula Nature Reserve SNTC 83.6 16,152.3 14,943.4 Mantenga Nature Reserve SNTC 11.9 716.7 716.7 Total 69,530.3 50,118.4

1.2.3 Informal Protected Areas

There are a number of Informal PAs in Swaziland which qualify as PAs under the definition provided above in that they are conserved through “other effective means” but which are not gazetted under the SNTC, Game or Flora Protection acts. There are a wide range of informal PAs in Swaziland and for the purposes of this assessment; only those with wildlife management as a predominant land-use and practice active enforcement of biodiversity legislation qualified as informal PAs. Additional criteria include: fencing or other infrastructure to contain wildlife & control resource access; active habitat and/or invasive species management; eco-tourism operations; and investment in native species re- establishment.

In addition to these areas not being formally dedicated as PAs for the long-term, their management standards vary significantly. Some are managed to high nature conservation standards comparable with National PAs, many are managed as game ranches often in combination with cattle, and some are not afforded levels of protection as high as would be expected within a National PA. Information on informal PAs is limited despite the significant increase in the number of informal PAs in the last decade, this result in inaccuracies in determining the area covered. Each of the informal PAs studied except IYSIS, Mbuluzi, Phophonyane and Sibetsamoya had to be mapped from scratch or remapped. This is also a function of significant changes to the boundaries of Informal PAs in the southern sugar belt owing to increased irrigation capacity and associated expansion of sugar cane agriculture. While these changes in boundaries indicate variance from the “long-term conservation” of some of these areas, it is encouraging that in most cases where Informal PA land has been converted to sugar cane agriculture, a similar new area has been added such that the total Informal PA area does not decline although this is not a certainty going forward and adoption of this as a policy would be prudent.

The largest of these Informal PAs is IYSIS at just over 20,000 ha, with the Big Bend/Mhlosinga Conservancy, Royal Jozini Big 6, and Mbuluzi ranging from just under 9,000 ha to just over 2,300 ha respectively. The other Informal PAs are all under 1,500 ha in size with the smallest, Phophonyane being 140 ha. The oldest of these informal PAs is

Mbuluzi established in 1980, followed by Phophonyane established in 1986 while the youngest, Dombeya, is still undergoing establishment in August 2013.

Table 4: Informal PAs in Swaziland NAME Management Perimeter (km) Area (ha) IYSIS Private company 71.5 20,016 Royal Jozini Big 6 Private company 50.3 12,662 Big Bend Conservancy Private company 48.4 8,991 Mhlosinga Private company 28.1 2,777 Mbuluzi Private company 32.3 2,357 Libhetse Private company 23.3 1,576 Emantini Private company 18.1 1,381 Nisela Private company 14.4 1,147 Panata Private company 9.1 491 Dombeya Private company 8.0 349 Nkonyeni Private company 8.2 327 Rosecraft Private company 8.8 246 Sibetsamoya Private company 6.6 209 Phophonyane Private individual 7.3 140 Total 46,977

Figure 4: Swaziland’s PAs Indicating Formal and Informal PAs

There are a number of areas in Swaziland which do not qualify as either National PAs or Informal PAs but which are worthy of consideration here as potential new PAs. These include Protection Worthy Areas as identified in previous surveys, Community Eco-tourism Areas and potential linkage and buffer areas.

1.2.4 Community Eco-tourism Areas

Community Eco-tourism Areas are areas that have been identified as Protection Worthy6 which are Swazi Nation Land (i.e. land held in trust for the Swazi Nation by the king which is under communal access controlled by chiefs) and where there has been a significant investment in creating eco-tourism operations based on strategic planning.

The Community Eco-tourism Areas are all relatively rugged landscapes not very suitable for agricultural production or settlement and as such contain habitats that are relatively intact; however, none of these areas experience persistent active enforcement of biodiversity laws and as such cannot be considered PAs. Nevertheless, the investment in developing ecotourism operations has largely been made by donors (the European Union being responsible for most) following the protection worth area survey with the hope that in the future these areas may develop into PAs.

The largest of these Community Eco-tourism Areas is Ngwempisi Gorge at just under 11,500 ha and the smallest is Mahamba at just over 2,100 ha. Only Shewula and Ngwempisi Gorge are connected to PAs and these are the only two community eco-tourism areas which fall within the top priority Protection Worthy Areas (see next section). It should be noted though that there are current efforts underway under the Lubombo Conservancy to establish an additional community conservation area in Mhlumeni. Shewula is the only community ecotourism area connected to a National PA. Ngwempisi Gorge has had the greatest single investment in tourism facilities including three separate hiking lodges connected via a network of hiking trails while Mambane has the smallest investment in tourism facilities which includes a coffee shop that is yet to become operational. The Shewula Mountain Camp is the most successful community tourism operation. With the exception of Shewula all of the other tourism investments are unsustainable in that they do not generate enough revenue to pay the staff and maintain the facilities, let alone contribute towards other activities such as conservation. Even in the case of Shewula which has been operating for almost 14 years there is no excess revenue to dedicate towards conservation activities. Based on the experience of the Shewula Community Eco-tourism project and observing its development over the past 14 years, consistent support and guidance of Mbuluzi Game Reserve and Mlawula Nature Reserve staff (and other supporters) especially during the first few years of its establishment, as well as strong support of the chief were critical to the project’s success.

6 Roques 2002 29

Figure 5: Swaziland’s Community Ecotourism Areas

Table 5: Status and Area of Community Ecotourism Areas NAME Area (ha) Perimeter Connected to Connected to (km) Informal PA? National PA? Ngwempisi Gorge 11,487 63.6 Yes No Mambane 9,291 58.2 No No Shewula 3,215 38.3 Yes Yes Sibebe 2,856 25.5 No No Mahamba 2,104 21.6 No No Total 28,954

1.2.5 Trans-Frontier Conservation Areas

A number of the above National and Informal PAs and Community Eco-tourism areas are bordered by the National boundary and have corresponding PAs across the border in neighbouring South Africa or Mozambique. These form Trans-Frontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) and the importance of these for conservation and trans-national collaboration has been increasingly recognised and supported. There have been international agreements signed by the respective countries to facilitate co-operation for conservation and tourism development within these areas. There are four core TFCAs involving Swaziland: Malolotja-

Songimvelo; Lubombo Conservancy-Goba; Ndumu-Tembe-Futhi-Mambane; and Jozini- Pongola. There are a number of migratory species which need protecting and for such species multi-country collaboration is needed in the development of conservation management plans. Swaziland has recently ratified the Convention on Migratory Species and as such areas serving as important refuges and corridors for migratory species deserve attention, and this is also important on the context of the TFCAs.

1.2.6 Protection-Worthy Areas

A rapid field based assessment of Swaziland’s Protection Worthy Areas (PWAs) was carried out during 2001 whereby 44 areas worthy of considering as Protection Worthy were visited and assessed. These areas were identified based on 1) areas previously identified as protection worthy789; and 2) areas with virtually no human settlement considered to have potentially high biodiversity value by local biodiversity experts. Using these criteria, 44 potential PWAs were identified.

Each of the 44 areas was visited at least once and these areas were then mapped and through a rapid assessment method developed by WWF (Ervin 2000), for rapidly assessing protected areas and their management effectiveness these areas were scored in terms of their assets (both biodiversity and socio-economic) and threats. The assets for Biodiversity Importance (Bio Import) involved scoring both Biodiversity Representation and the likelihood of biodiversity persistence. The assets for Socio-Economic Importance included scoring Tourism potential, Resource use potential and Cultural and archeological importance. Bringing these together, areas were scored according to their overall importance. The following threats were considered: alien animals, alien plants, resource utilisation, poaching, settlement, land conversion, isolation, pollution and erosion. Each threat was assessed according to the imminence, range, impact and permanence of the threat and this information was used to score the overall degree of threat to each area.

The PWA report identified nine areas of high overall priority based on high overall importance and high overall degree of threat. These are, in descending order of priority: Mdzimba, Ngwempisi (Ntungulu), Nyonyane, Ndlotane, Mahuku, Jilobi, Shewula, Manzimnyame and Makhonjwa.

A large number of gaps in the information available were identified including very limited information on threatened and endemic species which hampered the ability to properly assess the biodiversity assets. There was also limited information on the socio-economic potential of the areas. Therefore, as a follow up, a detailed survey of the high priority PWAs was carried out involving relatively brief field based surveys to gather relevant information on the

7 Deall, G.B, Dobson, L., Masson, P.H., Mlangeni, N.J., Murdoch, G., Roques, K.G. & Shirley, H.O.A. (2000) Assessment of the protection value of remaining indigenous forests and woodlands in Swaziland. Forestry Policy and Legislation Project, Ministry of Agriculture/DANCED, Mbabane, Swaziland. 8 Grimwood 1973 9 Reilly 1979 31 biodiversity, social and tourism value of the areas and to recommend priorities for their conservation management, tourism development and legal proclamation.

N Son deza

Mak hon jwa

Pho pho nya ne

Bulem b u #Y Piggs Peak

Man an ga

IYSI S Mag ug a Nkh alash an e Malo lo tja

Nyo nyan e She wu la

Mbu luzi

Mjoli Simunye Ha wa ne #Y Mlaw ula Mliba Sibeb e Hlan e

Mbabane #Y Mhlu me ni Pan ata Mah uku

Mdzim ba Mlilw a ne Man te nga Man zimya me Manzini Siteki #Y #Y Luh lokoh lo Mat sap ha vlei He le h ele Malkerns Mut i mu ti #Y Tu lwa ne

Mkh aya Jilo bi Libe tse Mankayane #Y Geb eni Big B end C on se

Nt ung ulu Dw ale ni hills Sincen i

Nd zelen i Mhlo singa Usu tu gorg e Big Bend #Y

Mah lan gat sha

Nd lo ta ne

Mkh ond vo KEY Ng udze ni Nise la Surface w ater Rivers Mah am ba Y# Towns Roads Nhlangano Swaziland border #Y Sho nala nga Ove rall im portance Nso ng eni

69 - 100 54 - 68 29 - 53 0 - 28 Pon gola N ation al Pa rks 10 0 10 20 Kilometers Lavumisa #Y

Swaziland’s Protection OVE WorthyRALL IMP AreasORTA NCE(source Roques 2002) Showing Areas According to Overall Importance (Biological & Socio-economic)

Figure 6: Swaziland’s Protection-worthy Areas Indicating Their Overall Importance

1.3 Gap Analysis

This gap analysis is an assessment of gaps in the existing protected area network. A key question from the outset is how we treat Gazetted PAs versus National PAs versus Informal PAs in this analysis. Here i carry out the analysis first considering only Gazetted PAs then again considering National PAs and then again considering all PAs (Gazetted, National and Informal).

1.3.1 Biodiversity Representation Gaps

Ecosystem Representation Gaps

For the purposes of this analysis two levels of ecosystem categorisation are used. First, categorisation into biomes, namely: forest, savannah, grassland and aquatic; and second, categorisation into vegetation types. For each an analysis of representation within PAs is carried out.

Biomes

The map of Biomes of Swaziland was derived from the Swaziland Vegetation Map10 overlaid with the major rivers of Swaziland as obtained from the SNTC GIS unit. Only naturally occurring ecosystems are mapped here, hence, dams and other water bodies were not mapped, nor were exotic forest plantations and other man made ecosystems.

The aquatic biome represents the smallest biome only covering 0.2% of the country, followed by forests only covering 1.6%, followed by grasslands covering 24.3% with savannahs being the most widespread biome covering 74.1% of the country. For the terrestrial biomes, representation within PAs was calculated according to the area of a particular biome found within a PA versus the area of that biome outside of PAs. For the aquatic biome only in cases where both banks of a river occurred within a PA was it considered within the PA, where the river formed the boundary of a PA the aquatic biome was not considered protected.

Table 6: Biomes of Swaziland and their coverage within and outside PAs

Biome Total ha % All PAs % National % Gazetted % ha PA ha PA ha Aquatic 3,156.6 0.2 91.2 2.9 68.6 2.2 20 0.6 Forests 27,064.8 1.6 3,275.4 12.1 2,364.3 8.7 1,256.3 4.6 Grassland 421,665.7 24.3 14,810.7 3.5 14,756.8 3.5 11,048.8 2.6 Savannah 1,287,165.8 74.1 98,779.4 7.7 48,790.3 3.8 37,695.6 2.9 Total 1,735,896.3 116,865.4 6.7 65,911.3 3.8 50,000.6 2.9

10 Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 33

Figure 7: Biomes and PAs of Swaziland Based on the analysis, there is relatively poor representation of the aquatic biome in PAs (2.9% for all PAs, 2.2% for National PAs and 0.6% for Gazetted PAs). Rivers which form the boundary of PAs were not considered as protected. However, in practice there is still a fairly high degree of protection afforded to such areas therefore this apparent poor representation is likely to be an underestimate of the reality on the ground. Natural wetlands are particularly important in terms of both biodiversity and ecosystem services and Swaziland has recently ratified the Ramsar Convention and the African-Eurasian Waterfowl Agreement so filling the gaps in adequate protection of wetlands is particularly important.

There is relatively good representation of the forest biome in PAs (12.1% for all PAs, 8.7% for National PAs and 4.6% for Gazetted PAs), however the map of natural forests is done at a fairly broad scale and therefore a large number of the smaller forest patches have not been included and furthermore in the production of the map there was a tendency to bias the mapping of forests in PAs (L. Loffler pers. Comm.). Therefore this apparent good representation is likely to be an overestimate of the reality on the ground.

There is relatively poor representation of the grassland biome in PAs (3.5% for all PAs, 3.5% for National PAs and 2.6% for Gazetted PAs). This is also a biome under a high degree of threat which therefore is in need of increased protection. There is relatively good representation of the savannah biome in the analysis of all PAs (7.4%) but poor representation in National PAs (3.8%) and Gazetted PAs (2.9%).

Vegetation Types

Unlike with the biomes which are very distinct and the definitions of which are widely agreed, there is no consistent agreement about the various vegetation types that occur nor where exactly the boundaries between them are. This is largely because the distinctions between the various vegetation types are not well marked. Nevertheless they represent important groupings or associations of species, biogeographic areas and climatic conditions forming different habitat types. For this analysis the most widely accepted map of Swaziland’s vegetation types is used which is both the most recent vegetation map for the country and also forms part of the regional map of the Vegetation Types of Southern Africa11. This map defines four forest types: Ironwood Dry Forest, Lowveld Riverine Forest, Northern Mistbelt Forest and Scarp Forest; three grassland types: Barberton Montane Grassland, Itala Quartzite Sourveld, KaNgwane Montane Grassland; and nine savannah types: Delagoa Lowveld, Granite Lowveld, Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld, Lebombo Summit Sourveld, Northern Zululand Sourveld, Southern Lebombo Bushveld, Swaziland Sour Bushveld, Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld, Zululand Lowveld.

These vegetation types were assessed in terms of their biodiversity importance (propensity to harbour threatened and endemic species) and also in terms of their vulnerability (limited extent and propensity to become transformed). Those which have high numbers of threatened and endemic species and are limited in extent with a high risk of transformation are considered highest priority. Two of the forest types are considered high priority: Ironwood Dry Forest and Scarp Forest; all three grassland types are considered high priority: Barberton Montane Grassland, Itala Quartzite Sourveld, KaNgwane Montane Grassland; and three savannah types are considered high priority: Lebombo Summit Sourveld, Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld and Zululand lowveld. The Ithala Quartzite Sourveld is not currently protected within any PAs and only small portions of the very limited Ironwood Dry Forest and Lebombo Summit Sourveld are found within PAs, so these vegetation types should be the priority for considering representation within new PAs.

11 Mucina and Rutherford 2006 35

Table 7: Vegetation Types of Swaziland and their coverage within and outside PAs Vegetation Type Biome Total ha % All PAs ha % National PA % Gazetted PA % ha ha Ironwood Dry Forest Forest 1,284.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lowveld Riverine Forest Forest 4,402.6 0.3 2,343.2 53.2 1,432.1 32.5 932.0 21.2 Northern Mistbelt Forest Forest 1,042.6 0.1 439.1 42.1 439.1 42.1 254.5 24.4 Scarp Forest Forest 20,334.7 1.2 493.0 2.4 493.0 2.4 69.8 0.3 Barberton Montane Grassland Grassland 20,573.3 1.2 1,860.2 9.0 1,860.2 9.0 0.0 Ithala Quartzite Sourveld Grassland 48,704.3 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 KaNgwane Montane Grassland 352,388.1 20.3 12,950.5 3.7 12,896.6 3.7 11,048.8 3.1 Grassland Delagoa Lowveld Savannah 193,524.9 11.1 18,069.5 9.3 11,852.0 6.1 5,435.6 2.8 Granite Lowveld Savannah 401,816.1 23.1 22,116.3 5.5 669.3 0.2 681.0 0.2 Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld Savannah 425.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lebombo Summit Sourveld Savannah 749.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northern Zululand Sourveld Savannah 40,201.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Southern Lebombo Bushveld Savannah 123,897.1 7.1 14,477.5 11.7 13,256.7 10.7 11,978.1 9.7 Swaziland Sour Bushveld Savannah 307,939.6 17.7 7,110.4 2.3 5,913.9 1.9 4,460.6 1.4 Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Savannah 71,534.9 4.1 18,226.9 25.5 17,098.4 23.9 15,140.3 21.2 Lowveld Zululand Lowveld Savannah 147,077.5 8.5 20,492.7 13.9 0.0 0.0 Total 1,735,896.3 116,865.4 6.7 65,911.3 3.8 50,000.6 2.9

Figure 8: Vegetation Types represented in Swaziland’s National and Informal PAs In the analysis of vegetation type representation within all PAs (Informal, National and Gazetted) four vegetation types are not represented at all, namely, the grassland type Ithala Quartzite Sourveld and the savannah types Northern Zululand Sourveld, Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld and Lebombo Summit Sourveld. The latter two types occur in negligible amounts within the country (covering less than 0.05%) while the Ithala Quartzite Sourveld and Northern Zululand Sourveld are not represented and should therefore be the priority for inclusion in new PAs. The analysis indicates that Ironwood Dry Forest is not represented within PAs, however, this is not accurate since there are Ironwood Dry Forests within Mlawula Nature Reserve and this result is a function of not all Ironwood Dry Forests being mapped.

When considering vegetation type representation within only National PAs, in addition to the above vegetation types not being represented, the Zululand Lowveld was also not represented. In addition, representation of the Granite Lowveld dropped from 5.1% representation within all PAs to 0.2% in National PAs.

Figure 9: Vegetation Types represented in Swaziland’s National PAs When considering vegetation type representation within only Gazetted PAs, in addition to the above five vegetation types not being represented, the Barberton Montane Grassland is also not represented. In addition, Delagoa lowveld drops from 6.1% representation within National PAs to 2.8% in Gazetted areas, and scarp forest drops from 2.4% within National PAs to 0.3% in Gazetted areas.

From the above analysis it is clear that the priority vegetation types to be included in new PAs are Ithala Quartzite Sourveld, Northern Zululand Sourveld, Lebombo Summit Sourveld, Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld.

Figure 10: Vegetation Types represented in Swaziland’s Gazetted PAs

Species Representation Gaps

There is limited reliable and comparable information available on the distribution of species in Swaziland. Some information is available at the eighth degree grid square, but this is not particularly useful in determining whether or not a particular farm or patch of forest (usually a tiny fraction of that eighth degree square) should be conserved or not. Some threatened species of plants for example are known from only one or two records many years ago and there is no reliable information as to their current status or distribution. There are also significant biases in the sampling efforts afforded to different areas hence such biases are likely to heavily influence choices of areas should such information be the basis for selecting new PAs. Only vertebrates and trees have been relatively evenly surveyed and even with these groups there are many gaps. Nevertheless when it comes to globally and nationally threatened and endemic species it is important to try to consider to what extent these species are conserved within the system of PAs and which new PAs are likely to fill any gaps in the conservation of these species. Given the paucity of information for other groups of species for this analysis we first consider threatened and endemic vertebrates. Only Vulnerable or higher categories are included i.e. not Near Threatened and Data deficient species.

There are 19 species on the IUCN (2013) Globally Threatened Species list which are native to Swaziland. The current distribution of these species was considered based on up to date records in relation to the PA network. Of the 19 globally threatened vertebrate species, 6 are locally extinct in Swaziland and 11 are found within Gazetted PAs. One other would be

39 conserved within the potential new PAs leaving only one globally threatened species (Gys coprotheres) out of the likely future PA network.

Table 8: Representation of Globally Threatened Vertebrate Species in Swaziland’s PAs12 Species English name Status In National In Informal In Name PA? PA? Potential new PA? Acinonyx Cheetah Vulnerable (1) jubatus Balearica Grey Crowned Endangered (1) regulorum Crane Bucorvus Ground Hornbill Vulnerable Yes leadbeateri Bugeranus Wattled Crane Vulnerable (1) carunculatus Chetia brevis Orange-fringed Endangered Yes River Bream Chiloglanis Incomati Endangered Yes bifurcus Suckermouth Diceros Black Critically Yes bicornis Rhinoceros Endangered Geronticus Southern Bald Vulnerable Yes calvus Ibis Gyps African White- Endangered Yes africanus backed Vulture Gys Cape Vulture Vulnerable Yes coprotheres Hippopotamu Hippopotamus Vulnerable Yes s amphibius Hirundo Blue Swallow Vulnerable Yes atrocaerulea Loxodonta African Elephant Vulnerable Yes africana Lycaon pictus African Wild Endangered (1) Dog Necrosyrtes Hooded Vulture Endangered (1) Yes monachus Panthera leo Lion Vulnerable (2) Yes Sagittarius Secretary Bird Vulnerable Yes serpentarius Torgos Lappet-faced Vulnerable (3) Yes

12 Based on IUCN 2013 Listings

40 tracheliotos Vulture Trigonoceps White-headed Vulnerable (3) Yes occipitalis Vulture Total 11 0 1 (1) Species is extinct in Swaziland as a breeding species and hence not recorded from any locality in the country (2) Species only exists in Swaziland in a semi-captive situation (3) Species was breeding in gazetted area(s) up until mid-2000s. Its current status is not certain and they may be extinct as a breeding species in Swaziland

In a similar manner Nationally Threatened Species were considered. There are 38 species on the Monadjem et al (2003) Nationally Threatened Vertebrates Species for Swaziland (only vulnerable or higher categories are listed i.e. not near threatened or data deficient species). The current distribution of these species was considered based on up to date records in relation to the PA network. Of the 39 nationally threatened vertebrate species 6 are regionally extinct and 27 are found within Gazetted PAs. Two others are conserved within Informal PAs and another two would be conserved within the potential new PAs leaving only two nationally threatened species (Barbus brevipinnis and Amphilius natalensis) out of the likely future PA network.

Table 9: Representation of Nationally Threatened Vertebrate Species in Swaziland’s PAs13 Species Name English Name Status In In In Gazetted Informal Potential PA? PA? new PA? Barbus cf. neefi Side-spot Barb Critically Yes? Endangered Barbus Shortfin Barb Endangered brevipinnis Barbus Rosefin Barb Vulnerable Yes crocodilensis Amphilius Natal Mountain Vulnerable natalensis Catfish Pyxicephalus African Bullfrog Regionally adspersus Extinct Python natalensis Natal Python Vulnerable Yes Crocodylus Nile Crocodile Vulnerable Yes niloticus Anthropoides Blue Crane Regionally paradisea Extinct Ardeotis kori Kori Bustard Regionally

13 Based on Monadjem et al 2003

Species Name English Name Status In In In Gazetted Informal Potential PA? PA? new PA? Extinct Scotopelia peli Pel’s Fishing Regionally Owl Extinct Buphagus Yellow-billed Regionally africanus Oxpecker Extinct Ephippiorhynchu Saddle-billed Endangered Yes s senegalensis Stork (2) Aquila rapax Tawny Eagle Endangered Yes (2) Hieraaetus African Hawk- Endangered Yes (Aquila) Eagle (2) spilogaster Terathopius Bateleur Endangered Yes ecaudatus Turnix Black-rumped Endangered Yes hottentotta Buttonquail (1) Sarothrura affinis Striped Flufftail Endangered Yes (1) Neotis denhami Denham’s Endangered Yes Bustard Tyto capensis African Grass Endangered Yes Owl (1) Gorsachius White-backed Vulnerable Yes leuconotus Night-heron Ciconia nigra Black Stork Vulnerable Yes (2) Leptoptilos Marabou Stork Vulnerable Yes crummeniferus Polemaetus Martial Eagle Vulnerable Yes bellicosus Stephanoaetus African Vulnerable Yes coronatus Crowned Eagle Circus ranivorus African Marsh Vulnerable Yes Harrier Podica African Finfoot Vulnerable Yes senegalensis Eupodotis cafra White-bellied Vulnerable Yes? Bustard Glaucidium African Barred Vulnerable Yes capense Owlet

Species Name English Name Status In In In Gazetted Informal Potential PA? PA? new PA? Smithornis African Vulnerable Yes capensis Broadbill Lioptilus Bush Blackcap Vulnerable Yes nigricapillus Zoothera gurneyi Orange Thrush Vulnerable Yes Sigmoceros Lichtenstein’s Regionally lichtensteinii Hartebeest Extinct Cercopithecus Samango Endangered Yes mitis Monkey Manis Temminck’s Endangered Yes temminckii Pangolin Dasymys Water Rat Vulnerable Yes incomtus Mellivora Honey badger Vulnerable Yes capensis Crocuta crocuta Spotted Hyaena Vulnerable Yes Neotragus Suni Vulnerable Yes moschatus Ourebia ourebi Oribi Vulnerable Yes Total 39 27 2 2 (1) Species has not been sighted or recorded in Swaziland since the early 1990s and hence current status is unknown (2) Species has been recently sighted but it is not clear whether it is breeding in Swaziland

Despite the limitations in data available for plants an analysis was carried out based on herbarium records for plants as part of this report. Of the 40 species of threatened plants recorded for Swaziland 29 occur within National PAs, a further 3 occur in Informal PAs and the balance except for one species (Ficus sansibarica Warb. ssp. Sansibarica) are found in potential new PAs. The determination of whether the plant occurs in a National PA, Informal PA, Potential new PA or not was an estimation based on the information noted on the herbarium specimen record, the detail of which varies.

Table 10: Representation of Internationally Threatened Species of Plants in PAs Species Name Status PA score Adenium swazicum Stapf Endangered 3 Aloe albida (Stapf) Reynolds Endangered 3 Aloe chortolirioides A.Berger var. chortolirioides Endangered 3 Aloe ecklonis Salm-Dyck Vulnerable 3

Species Name Status PA score Aloe kniphofioides Baker Vulnerable 3 Aloe minima Baker Vulnerable 3 Brachystelma coddii R.A.Dyer Endangered 3 Cheirostylis gymnochiloides (Ridl.) Rchb.f. Critically Endangered 3 Cyrtanthus nutans R.A.Dyer Endangered 3 Dianthus mooiensis F.N.Williams ssp. kirkii (Burtt Davy) S.S.Hooper Vulnerable 3 Disa intermedia H.P.Linder Endangered 3 Encephalartos lebomboensis I.Verd. Endangered 3 Erica swaziensis E.G.H.Oliv. Endangered 3 Ficus polita Vahl ssp. Polita Vulnerable 3 Gladiolus brachyphyllus F.Bolus Vulnerable 3 Kniphofia umbrina Codd Critically Endangered 3 Lannea antiscorbutica (Hiern) Engl. Endangered 3 Melanospermum italae Hilliard Endangered 3 Protea parvula Beard Vulnerable 3 Prunus africana (Hook.f.) Kalkman Endangered 3 Streptocarpus wilmsii Engl. Vulnerable 3 Syncolostemon comptonii Codd Critically Endangered 3 Syncolostemon stalmansii (A.J.Paton & K.Balkwill) D.F.Otieno Vulnerable 3 Asclepias eminens (Harv.) Schltr. Vulnerable 3 Aster pseudobakeranus W.Lippert Vulnerable 3 Crassula vaginata Eckl. & Zeyh. ssp. minuta Toelken Critically Endangered 3 Eulophia chlorantha Schltr. Endangered 3 Melanospermum swazicum Hilliard Endangered 3 Streptocarpus davyi S.Moore Vulnerable 3 Adenium multiflorum Klotzsch Endangered 2 Ceropegia cimiciodora Oberm. Endangered 2 Duvernoia aconitiflora A.Meeuse Endangered 2 Aloe dewetii Reynolds Endangered 1 Celtis mildbraedii Engl. Critically Endangered 1 Dierama elatum N.E.Br. Extinct 1 Gardenia thunbergia L.f. Critically Endangered 1 Heywoodia lucens Sim Endangered 1 Oxyanthus pyriformis (Hochst.) Skeels ssp. pyriformis Endangered 1 Siphonochilus aethiopicus (Schweinf.) B.L.Burtt Endangered 1 Ficus sansibarica Warb. ssp. sansibarica Critically Endangered 0

Only Vulnerable or higher categories are listed i.e. not Near Threatened or Data deficient species. PA score = 3 if found in a National PA, = 2 if found in an Informal PA, = 1 if found in a potential new PA, = 0 if not in any of these areas.

When performing the analysis of endemic species of plants even better representation within National PAs is found. Of Swaziland’s 11 endemic plant species, 9 are found within National PAs and the other two although not found in Informal PAs are found within potential new PAs. It should be noted that there a number of near endemic species of plant particularly from the Lubombo range and the Barberton mountainland range.

Table 11: Representation of Endemic Species of Plants in PAs Species Name Status PA Score Cineraria ngwenyensis sp. nov. Unknown 3 Crassula alba Forssk. var. pallida Toelken Data Deficient 3 Disa intermedia H.P.Linder Endangered 3 Eragrostis comptonii De Winter Near Threatened 3 Erica swaziensis E.G.H.Oliv. Endangered 3 Kniphofia umbrina Codd Critically Endangered 3 Aster pseudobakeranus W.Lippert Vulnerable 3 Eumorphia swaziensis Compton Near Threatened 3 Monopsis malvacea E.Wimm. Data Deficient 3 Ceropegia swaziorum D.V.Field Unknown 1 Dierama elatum N.E.Br. Extinct 1 PA score = 3 if found in a National PA, = 2 if found in an Informal PA, = 1 if found in a potential new PA, = 0 if not in any of these areas.

The above analysis highlights that while the existing National PA network does conserve a relatively good proportion of the threatened and endemic species of vertebrates and plants, there are a number of gaps which are consistent with the analysis for vegetation/habitat types. Furthermore, there is a significant dearth of information on the distribution and abundance of species, in particular threatened and endemic species and during the project implementation there should be attention given to both field surveys for the collection of important information pertaining to these species and species modelling to determine likely potential distributions which can better inform decision making about priority areas for conservation management investment.

1.4 Selection of New Protected Areas

Based on the above assessment of existing PAs, it is clear that the existing network of PAs while relatively well placed are insufficient to adequately represent the biodiversity of the country and also, insufficient portions of the PAs are legally gazetted. The Project Identification Form (PIF) for this project indicates that the existing “gazetted protected areas” cover 4.45% of the country (773 km2) but the above analysis shows that in fact the area of gazetted PAs is only 2.9% of the country (500 km2). Also, in addition to the six National PAs, the PIF identifies another 9 areas currently being managed and treated as PAs but which

45 are “not yet gazetted” covering a further 237 km2 (1.4% of the country). The above analysis shows that these Informal PAs actually number 14 and cover 470 km2 (2.7% of the country) and as such it appears their importance has been overlooked somewhat. Recommendations from the study include: additional PAs to represent & conserve an adequate proportion of the countries biodiversity; and gazetting those PAs which have not yet been gazetted or implementing some other means of securing the protected status of these areas for the long- term.

The first analysis of this section considers all PAs (Gazetted, National and Informal) to be protected and selects which new areas should be added to this network in order to represent and conserve an adequate proportion of the countries biodiversity. The second analysis considers gazetted areas and treats only gazetted areas as gazetted and prioritises areas for future gazetting.

1.4.1 Potential New PAs

Potential new PAs were identified by selecting the top priority 9 areas identified in the PWA survey14 namely: Mdzimba, Ngwempisi (Ntungulu), Nyonyane, Ndlotane, Mahuku, Jilobi, Shewula, Manzimnyame and Makhonjwa. Two of these areas are also community ecotourism areas namely, Shewula and Ngwempisi (Ntungulu). The remaining three community eco-tourism areas, namely, Mambane (Usutu gorge), Sibebe and Mahamba were also included as potential PAs. In addition, one PWA was added based on the Gap analysis above, namely, Nsongweni which covers two of the currently non-protected vegetation types as well as other PWAs that were included based on their connectivity with existing PAs. This resulted in a total of 15 areas to be considered for prioritisation as potential new PAs. Twelve other areas were also added which are considered protection worthy and which are connected to existing PAs, namely, Malolotja west extension, Malolotja north extension, Malolotja east extension, Motjane vlei, Phophonyane conservancy, Mlilwane east extension, Panata PWA,

14 Roques 2002

Gebeni PWA (including Edwaleni hills), Mhlumeni, Muti-muti, Mkhaya west extension, Mkhaya east extension.

Figure 11: Potential New PAs in Swaziland

Prioritisation of Potential New PAs

Prioritisation of new PAs should be based on the principles identified earlier, namely: a) biodiversity representation; b) size and connectivity; and c) likelihood of sustainability. Based on these principles the greatest priority for adding new areas to the PA estate should be adding areas adjoining existing PAs. This makes both practical sense and is consistent with conservation theory for increased conservation success. It is also the most cost efficient means of achieving conservation progress which given the current challenges that Swaziland’s PAs face in terms of their financing is pragmatic. This should be the focus of extending the PA estate where possible and especially where there are priority and under- represented ecosystems adjoining PAs. Expansion of National PAs should be the initial focus, followed by the expansion and linking up of informal PAs.

An attempt is made here at an objective scoring system to try and arrive at a basic prioritisation of areas based on defined criteria. A methodology developed by WWF (Ervin 2000), for rapidly assessing protected areas and their management effectiveness, which was modified for a protection worthy area survey (Roques 2002) was further modified here (see Appendix 1). A series of biological and socio-economic questions pertaining to the biodiversity of each area were answered based on the previous PWA survey, site visits and up

47 to date local knowledge. Answers to each question were scored as follows: “yes”=5; “maybe yes”=3; “maybe no”=1; “no”=0; and “unknown”=0. Then threats to each potential PA were scored. The following threats were considered: alien animals, alien plants, resource utilisation, poaching, settlement, land conversion, isolation, pollution and erosion. For each threat, a set of questions was answered pertaining to the imminence, range, impact and permanence of the threat (see Appendix 1). Answers to each question were scored as follows:

Imminence Range Impact Permanence

“very likely throughout very high permanent” =4;

“somewhat likely widespread high long term” =3;

“somewhat unlikely scattered moderate medium term” =2;

“highly unlikely localised low short term” =1;

Biological importance was calculated as the sum of the scores for the questions on biological importance (section 1). Socio-economic importance was calculated as the sum of the scores for the questions on socio-economic importance (section 2). Likelihood of success with conservation management was calculated as the sum of the scores for the questions on likelihood of success converted to a score out of 50. For each threat to each area, magnitude of threat of was calculated as the product of the score for range and impact, degree of threat was calculated as the product of the score for magnitude and permanence which was then converted to a score out of 50.

It is important to note that this scoring does not take into account all factors that are important but it is an attempt to arrive at an objective method for assessing areas. It is also important to note that it relates to the addition of new PAs only and does not cover existing PAs. The prioritisation of existing PAs for Gazetting is treated in a later section.

Table 12: Prioritisation Scoring of Potential PAs in Swaziland PWA Total PWA Total Ngwempisi 157 Ndlotane 131 Manzimyame 155 Mlilwane E 128 Mahuku 152 Panata 126 Shewula 146 Muti muti 126 Mdzimba 145 Nsongweni 126 Makhonjwa 141 Mambane 122 Nyonyane 140 Mhlumeni 110 Sibebe 138 Mkhaya west 105 Motjane Vlei 138 Nkhalashane 100 Jilobi 134 Malolotja NE 99 Mahamba 134 Malolotja E 97 Bulembu 134 Malolotja W 90 Gebeni & Dwaleni hills 133

The above scoring obviously misses some detail but does provide a useful guide when combined with the principles above and the gap analysis earlier in this document. A number of areas emerge as most important as potential new PAs Ngwempisi, Manzimnyame, Shewula and Makhonjwa stand out because of their biodiversity and socio-economic importance (see Appendix 2). Mahuku, Mdzimba, Nyonyane, Sibebe, Motjane vlei and Jilobi make up the other of the top ten areas once likelihood of success and threat scores are added (see table 12). Based on the principles defined above and the gap analysis it is felt that Nyonyane and Sibebe are secondary in priority to the other top ten areas. Motjane vlei is probably Swaziland’s largest natural marsh which has become drained but with rehabilitation could become an impressive highveld marsh again which is in line with Swaziland’s ratification of the Ramsar convention. These 8 areas (Manzimnyame, Mahuku, Shewula, Makhonjwa, Ngwempisi, Motjane, Jilobi & Mdzimba) are considered the top priority new PAs proposed under this project.

A few other areas stand out as important and secondary to the above; these are proposed as additional PAs. Bulembu is Swaziland’s highest mountain and given its biodiversity value and connectedness with Makhonjwa and Malolotja (via Songimvelo Game Reserve in South Africa) should be a second priority new PA. The Mkhaya west extension is an important extension with rocky ridge habitat that allows conservation of both banks of the Mzimphofu River which adds significantly to the variety of habitats in the PA and is therefore proposed as a community PA. Nkhalashane is an important extension of the Mbuluzi and Shewula PAs which adds significantly to the integrity of these PAs and allows for conservation of both banks of the Mbuluzi River and is therefore also proposed as a priority PA. The Mambane community eco-tourism area has high biodiversity value and represents an important connection in the Lubombo TFCA with Mozambique and South Africa. The Royal Jozini Big 6 area has high biodiversity value and represents an important connection in the Lubombo TFCA with South Africa. These areas (Bulembu, Mkhaya west, Nkhalashane, Mambane, and Jozini) form the next priority 5 additional PAs proposed under this project. The remaining areas are proposed as future PAs under this project.

Figure 12: Proposed New PAs for Swaziland

Proposed Priority New PAs

Manzimnyame Manzimnyame includes a number of steep gorges and surrounding plateau in the Lubombo hills on the eastern border of Swaziland and falls within the Maputalan-Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot. The proposed PA is 17,886ha and is bordered to the south west by Siteki town and settlement, to the north west by Mahhuku proposed PA, to the north by Mlawula Nature Reserve, to the east by extensive range land in Mozambique and to the south by extensive range land along the Lubombo plateau in Swaziland. The proposed PA conserves a significant portion of the savannah (Southern Lubombo Bushveld) and forest (Scarp Forest) biomes, with some limited aquatic biome although these vegetation types are already relatively well represented within PAs. The Manzimnyame area has been surveyed in detail as part of the PWA process15 so a fair amount of information is available to assist in the conservation of this area. The area is known to harbour a number of threatened species of plants including the endangered cycad Encephalartos aplanatus and the vulnerable Encephalartos senticosus, Haemanthus pauculifolius, Homalium dentatum, and Teclea gerrardii none of which occur within National PAs. The area also harbours a number of species endemic to the Lubombo range of hills and although many species found here are also found within Mlawula or Shewula, Manzimnyame has far more extensive Lubombo

15 Roques et al 2003

50 plateau and gorge features with associated open savannah and forest patches. This area has a particularly high richness of species. There has been veld degradation associated with overgrazing in this area and alien plant invasion as well as overharvesting of species represent significant challenges to biodiversity conservation in the area. The proposed PA has high aesthetic value with plenty of potential for eco-tourism activities. Siteki town represents a potential tourism gateway for Manzimnyame on the tourist route from Big Bend or Manzini via Siteki to Maputo. Existing eco-tourism operations in Siteki and Mlawula, although still gaining traction, could be linked with Manzimnyame and there is significant potential for hiking, mountain biking, birding and other nature outdoor activities which are currently under planning through the Ecolubombo Program. This PA would be suitable as a Nature Reserve or Protected Landscape.

Mahhuku Mahhuku includes extensive cattle ranches extending from the lowveld plains of eastern Swaziland eastwards onto the Lubombo plateau. Mahhuku falls within the Maputalan- Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot. The proposed PA is 9,039ha and is bordered to the south by dense rural communal settlement, to the northwest by Hlane National PA, to the northeast by Mlawula National PA, to the east by the Manzimnyame proposed PA. The proposed PA would conserve significant portions of the savannah (Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld, Southern Lubombo Bushveld) and forest (Lowveld Riverine Forest) biomes although these vegetation types are already relatively well represented within PAs. The Mahhuku area has not been surveyed in detail as part of the PWA process. The area has habitat suitable for a number of threatened species and although many of these species are also found in Hlane and Mlawula, the addition of this Mahhuku area would add significantly to the integrity of both of these PAs and would allow for Swaziland’s best chance at conserving wild populations of large predators (e.g. lion) and megaherbivores (e.g. elephant). The proposed PA has high aesthetic value with plenty of potential for wildlife orientated activities. It is noted, however, that there is extensive cattle ranching on the Mahhuku area and that any conservation activities on this area for the foreseeable future would need to be consistent with this cattle ranching (for example mixed game and cattle farming) and endorsed by his Majesty King Mswati III. Existing eco-tourism operations at Hlane and Mlawula represent potential anchors for tourism within the area and it is on the tourist route from Big Bend or Manzini to Maputo. The area has recently been subject to overgrazing and the likelihood of adjusting the existing commercial cattle ranching activities to being more consistent with wildlife conservation will depend on a number of factors. This PA would be suitable as a Managed Resource PA.

Ngwempisi Ngwempisi is an extensive river gorge with surrounding mountains in central Swaziland. The proposed PA is 11,487ha and is bordered to the south, west and north by rural communal settlement and small scale farms, and to the east by Emantini Game Reserve and eGebeni potential PA. While the proposed PA does not fall within any global centres of endemism it fills a number of important National gaps in biodiversity representation within the PA network and fills a geographic gap too. The proposed PA would conserve significant portions

51 of all four biomes including the vegetation types: Ithala Quartzite Sourveld (currently not protected), Kangwane Montane Grassland, Swaziland Sour Bushveld and Scarp Forest. The Ngwempisi area has not been surveyed in detail as part of the PWA process. The area has habitat suitable for a number of threatened species and represents an important altitudinal gradient with a high diversity of habitats and species. The Ngwempisi PA with it’s associated corridors would enable connection with a number of informal PAs in the area (Emantini Game Reserve, Nkonyeni Game Reserve, Rosecraft Nature Reserve). The proposed PA has high aesthetic value with plenty of potential for hiking, river rafting, bird watching, mountain biking, 4x4 adventures and other eco-tourism activities. Existing community eco-tourism operations within the proposed PA include the Khelekhele self catering hiking camp and Kopho hiking rock lodge with connecting trails and river rafting. A third community accommodation facility is in a state of disrepair and disuse. These facilities have good potential but require improved maintenance and marketing and more successful management. Other tourism operations at Nkonyeni and Rosecraft have potential for hiking, mountain biking and 4x4 links with Ngwempisi. The area has been subject to overgrazing and overharvesting of species and controlling settlement and these associated activities represents a significant challenge for the success of this proposed PA. This PA would be suitable as a protected landscape.

Shewula Shewula incorporates the northern slopes of the Mbuluzi river gorge stretching from the Mbuluzi river onto the Lubombo plateau in northeastern Swaziland. Shewula falls within the Maputalan-Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot. The proposed PA is 3,215ha and is bordered to the west by Mbuluzi Game Reserve, to the south by Mlawula National PA, to the north by the dense rural settlement of the Shewula community and to the east by extensive rangeland in Mozambique. The proposed PA conserves savannah, forest and aquatic biomes including the vegetation types: Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld, Southern Lubombo Bushveld, Ironwood Dry Forest (currently under protected) and Scarp Forest. The Shewula area has not been surveyed in detail as part of the PWA process but has had a number of field surveys so a fair amount of information is available to assist in the conservation of this area. The area is known to harbour a number of threatened species of plants associated with Ironwood Dry Forest and the area also harbours a number of species endemic to the Lubombo range of hills. Although many species found here are also found within Mlawula it does conserve the only major forest patches on south facing slopes in the Lubombo Conservancy and is an area with a particularly high richness of species. This proposed PA adds significantly to the integrity of Mlawula and Mbuluzi. There has been veld degradation associated with overgrazing in this area and alien plant invasion as well as overharvesting of species, representing significant challenges to biodiversity conservation in the area. The proposed PA has reasonable aesthetic value with plenty of potential for cultural tourism activities. The existing community tourism facility, Shewula Mountain Camp, is a tourism anchor for the proposed PA and ecotrails initiative and various cultural and nature based tourism activities are ongoing and can be further developed from this anchor. This PA would be suitable as a Managed Resource Reserve or Nature Reserve.

Jilobi Forest The Jilobi Forest area includes communal land in eastern Swaziland on the western plateau of the Lubombo range of hills. The area falls within the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot, totals 1,763ha and includes Scarp Forest vegetation with small amounts of Southern Lebombo Bushveld. This represents one of the largest patches of Lubombo forest in Swaziland, a vegetation type known to harbour a number of threatened species particularly of vascular plants. The community is currently harvesting forest resources at an unsustainable rate and challenges exist with protecting this area.

Mbuluzi Mbuluzi is an existing informal PA which includes the southern banks of the Mbuluzi river and a stretch of both banks of the Mlwaula river. Mbuluzi falls within the Maputalan- Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot. The proposed PA is 2,357ha and is bordered to the south by Hlane National PA, to the west by commercial sugar plantations, to the east by Mlawula National PA and to the north by Shewula proposed PA. The proposed PA would conserve significant portions of the savannah (Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld, Southern Lubombo Bushveld) biome and small patches of forest biome (Lowveld Riverine Forest) although these vegetation types are already relatively well represented within PAs. The Mbuluzi area hosts a number of threatened species and there has been reintroduction of some native species and although many of these species are also found in Hlane and Mlawula, the conservation of this area adds significantly to the integrity of both of these PAs and conserves significant stretches of lowveld river habitat. It helps contribute towards Swaziland’s best chance at conserving a large contiguous area in this biodiversity hotspot. The proposed PA has high aesthetic value with already significant private investment in eco-tourism facilities including 5 upmarket lodges open to the public plus a number of other upmarket private lodges. These facilities represent an important anchor for eco-tourism in the region and represent a major incentive for maintaining the area as a PA in perpetuity. Consultations during the PPG identified that Mbuluzi is not necessarily in favour of gazetting the area unless there are clear practical benefits from so doing. Mbuluzi also hosts All Out Africa’s Savanna Research Centre which is Swaziland’s only field research centre carrying out consistent ecological field research, monitoring and education which is filling important conservation knowledge gaps.

Makhonjwa Makhonjwa is a range of hills on the northwestern border of Swaziland and falls within both the Drakensberg centre of bird endemism and Barberton centre of plant endemism. The proposed PA is 8,159ha and is bordered to the west by Songimvelo Game Reserve in South Africa, to the south by commercial plantation forestry and to the east by dense rural communal settlement. The proposed PA conserves a significant portion of grassland, forest, savannah and aquatic biomes including the vegetation types: Barberton Montane Grassland, Swaziland Sour Bushveld, Scarp Forest, Northern Mistbeld Forest and a small portion of Kaalrug Mountain Bushveld (currently not protected). The Makhonjwa PWA has been

53 surveyed in detail as part of the PWA process16 so a fair amount of information is available to assist in the conservation of this area. The area is known to harbour a number of threatened species of plants including the ‘critically endangered’ Encephalartos heenanii, the ‘vulnerable’ E. paucidentatus , the ‘endangered’ Prunus Africana, the threatened Clivia caulescens and C. miniata var. miniata, Homalium dentatum, and Pentas micrantha subsp. wylie16 none of which are found in National PAs. The area also harbours a number of globally threatened fish, reptiles and amphibians including the Critically Endangered Mkhomati rock catlid (Chiloglanis bifurcus), the vulnerable Shortfin barb (Barbus brevipinnis) and Southern barred minnow (Opsaridium peringueyi). The area supports a high diversity of bird species including a number of threatened species of which three (Yellowstreaked Bulbul, Orange Ground Thrush and Brown Robin) have extremely limited distributions in Swaziland. Mammal diversity in the area has been reduced significantly by human pressures. There has been significant patch clearing of indigenous forests in this area for illegal Cannabis cropping and this, with associated alien plant invasion, represent significant challenges to biodiversity conservation in the area. The proposed PA has high aesthetic value with plenty of potential for eco-tourism activities. The existing tourism anchors of Bulembu and Phophonyane are close by offering opportunities for tourism linkages and there is significant potential for hiking, mountain biking, birding and other nature outdoor activities. The proposed Emvimbili tourism development is on communal land within the northern section of this proposed PA although this project has been stalled owing to a land dispute. The Makhonjwa area lies within reach of the main tourist route from the Jeppes Reef/Matsamu border to Piggs Peak. This area would be suitable as a Nature Reserve or Protected Landscape.

Motjane Motjane vlei lies in western Swaziland bordering the south east side of Malolotja and before it was drained for cattle/sheep grazing was the Kingdom’s largest marsh. It falls within both the Drakensberg centre of bird endemism and Barberton centre of plant endemism. The proposed PA is 397ha and is bordered to the west by Malolotja National Reserve, and to the south, east and north by rural settlement. The proposed PA would require restoration of the drained marsh in order to re-establish the wetland and fencing to restrict the access of livestock. Once restored the marsh would provide important habitat for a large number of species including plants, amphibians, fish, birds and other taxonomic groups which depend on sufficient highveld marsh habitat to survive. This may enable the re-establishment of some species which have gone locally extinct such as wattled (Bugeranus carunculatus) and crowned crane (Balearica regulorum). Overgrazing and resistance to restoration of the marsh by the surrounding community represent significant challenges to establishment of this PA. Ngwenya represents a major tourism anchor for the proposed PA and it is right on the major route for tourists from both the Oshoek/Ngwenya borer and Piggs Peak to Mbabane. The proposed PA is highly suitable for bird watching and has the potential as an add-on activity

16 Roques et al 2003

54 for the Ngwenya glass craft centre and for connecting with eco-tourism activities in Malolotja. This area would be suitable as a Nature Reserve.

Other Proposed PAs

The other proposed PAs after the above include the existing Informal PAs Phophonyane conservancy, Royal Jozini big 6 and Libhetse, the government cattle ranch Nkalashane, the private Muti-muti conservancy and the community areas Mambane, Jilobi forest and Mkhaya west.

Phophonyane Conservancy The Phophonyane Conservancy includes the Phophonyane and Sibhetsamoya Informal PAs and 2 connecting private farms in north western Swaziland. The area totals 504ha and falls on the edge of the Drakensberg centre of bird endemism and Barberton centre of plant endemism within the Swaziland Sour Bushveld vegetation type. The land-owners are willing to have their farms gazetted as PAs and this together with the existing conservation efforts in the area and clear ownership therefore represents an opportunity for ease of formal protection. Phophonyane and the Piggs Peak Orion Hotel are existing tourism hubs in the area.

Royal Jozini Big 6 The Royal Jozini Big 6 Informal PA includes Swazi Nation land surrounding the Swaziland portion of the Jozini dam which has been leased to an eco-tourism development consortium. The detailed development plan from inception was a large-scale eco-tourism development which includes a Big 5 Game Reserve, privately owned lodges and a hotel / casino / golf course component. The development which started in 2006 has to date invested considerably in this project, however recent unresolved political issues and an economic down turn have delayed the roll out of this development plan. Talks are well advanced for resolution and the relaunch of Royal Jozini Big 6. The PPG consultation process identified that it is possible that a portion of the existing Informal PA will be converted to sugar cane cropping leaving the balance for conservation and eco-tourism development at a smaller scale than originally planned. The existing Informal PA is 12,662ha. The land around the Jozini dam has already experienced significant private investment with approximately 12 private lodges already constructed of which three are open to use by the public. The proposed PA is 4,593ha which includes the land around the dam and existing lodges. This PA falls within the Zululand Loweveld vegetation and includes some Southern Lebombo Bushveld. This area forms an important part of the Trans-Frontier Conservation area with neighboring South Africa which has well established PAs, including South Africa’s first PA, Pongola.

Bulembu Bulembu is a mountain on the northwestern border of Swaziland is the Kingdom’s highest mountain. It falls within both the Drakensberg centre of bird endemism and Barberton centre of plant endemism. The proposed PA is 552ha and is bordered to the west by Songimvelo Game Reserve in South Africa, and to the south, east and north by commercial plantation forestry with the old mining town of Bulembu close by to the south. The proposed PA would

55 conserve a portion of both the grassland and forest biomes including the vegetation types: Barberton Montane Grassland and Northern Mistbeld Forest. The PWA has not been surveyed in detail but owing to it’s high altitude and the vegetation types within it is likely to contain a number of threatened species similar to Makhonjwa. Overgrazing and overharvesting of species by people from within the Bulembu village represent significant challenges to biodiversity conservation in the area. Bulembu village and lodge offer a tourism anchor for the proposed PA on the scenic route from Barberton in South Africa through the Bulembu border to Piggs Peak in Swaziland. The proposed PA is highly suitable for hiking and has the potential for hiking connections with Malolotja to the south and Makhonjwa to the north. This area would be suitable as a Protected Landscape.

Libhetse Libhetse farm is an Informal PA in central Swaziland on the northern banks of the Usutu river before it enters the Bulunga gorge. The area totals 1,576ha and falls within the Granite Lowveld vegetation type. There has been some reintroduction of native antelope species and the land-owner is willing to have the farm gazetted as a PA and this together with the clear ownership represents an opportunity for ease of formal protection. There are existing tourism activities in the area including white water rafting in the Bulunga gorge and the Nkonyeni tourism hub nearby.

Nkhalashane Nkhalashane is a government cattle ranch on the northern banks of the Mbuluzi river. The area borders Mbuluzi and Shewula proposed PAs to the east. It is 4,343ha in size and falls within the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot and includes the Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld and Southern Lubombo Bushveld vegetation types. Conserving this area would contribute significantly towards the integrity of the Mbuluzi and Shewula proposed PAs and would enable conservation of both banks of the Mbuluzi river for a significant section of the river. The proposed PA has high aesthetic value with potential for eco-tourism development and connecting with existing tourism anchors in Shewula and Mbuluzi.

Muti-muti Conservancy The Muti-muti Conservancy includes the Muti-muti and Mabuda private farms as well as the Muti-muti farm south of Manzimnyame in eastern Swaziland south of Siteki. The area falls within the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot and totals 2,079ha on the western plateau of the Lubombo range of hills and includes Southern Lebombo Bushveld and Scarp Forest vegetation types. The land-owners are willing to have their farms gazetted as PAs and this together with the clear ownership represents an opportunity for formal protection.

Mambane The Mambane area includes communal land in eastern Swaziland along the northern banks of the Usutu river gorge extending onto the Lubombo plateau. The area falls within the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany global biodiversity hotspot, totals 9,290ha and includes

Southern Lebombo Bushveld, Lebombo Summit Sourveld and Scarp Forest vegetation types. The community is apparently interested in having the area conserved and promoted for ecotourism development, although there challenges remain with making a success of this. The area is an important Swaziland component of the Ndumu-Thembe-Futhi-Mambane TFCA.

Mkhaya West The Mkhaya west area includes communal land in central Swaziland on the western border of the Mkhaya National PA. The area is 85ha and falls on the boundary of the Delagoa Lowveld and Granite Lowveld and includes some rocky outcrop habitat which would add to the diversity of the broader PA and would protect a section of both banks of the Mzimphofu River.

1.4.2 Corridors and Landscapes

From the map of priority proposed new PAs plus existing PAs there are four distinct clusters of PAs. Firstly the Lubombo Conservancy cluster in north eastern Swaziland (which can extend southwards along the Mozambique border to Mambane), secondly the Malolotja cluster in north western Swaziland, thirdly the Mkhaya cluster around Big Bend and fourthly the Ngwempisi cluster. A fifth cluster could be defined incorporating Mlilwane, Mantenga and Mdzimba.

There are a number of areas within these clusters which are proposed for a lower category form of conservation management in the form of either a corridor or Protected Landscape or Managed Resource Protected Area allowing for connectivity and maintenance of certain biodiversity and ecosystem processes. These include: the Malolotja extensions north, west and east; the Mlilwane east extension; the Gebeni PWA; the Mkhaya east extension and Big Bend connections; the Mhlumeni PWA, Mdzimba PWA and Lubombo corridor. There is an existing corridor linking the Big Bend Conservancy with the Mhlosinga Conservancy.

Figure 13: Clusters of Existing and Proposed PAs in Swaziland Showing Proposed Corridors Each of these areas is analysed further in the land-use analysis to determine likely opportunities and risks for maintaining these corridors and conservation friendly activities.

Broad landscapes can also be defined to further protect landscape integrity and aesthetic value and maintain ecosystem functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services. These include the Lubombo Landscape along the eastern boundary of Swaziland, the Malolotja- Makhonjwa Landscape along the western boundary of Swaziland, the Mlilwane-Mdzimba Landscape and the Ngwempisi Landscape in central Swaziland.

1.4.3 Prioritisation of Areas for Gazetting

All of the above analysis is based on the assumption that areas currently managed as PAs will continue to be so “for the long term”. In the case of National PAs this is provided for, but in the case of Informal PAs this may not necessarily be the case since there is no formal designation of these areas as PAs under any particular Act. When considering which areas to prioritise for gazetting, clearly the first priority is to Gazette those parts of the National PAs which have not yet been gazetted. The second priority is to gazette a) those informal PAs whose land-owners/authorities are willing to have their areas gazetted (these include the Phophonyane Conservancy, Libhetse, Muti-muti Conservancy) and b) the 8 priority proposed new PAs identified above. As part of the gazetting process it would be prudent to define acceptable conservation standards which should be maintained by the management authorities of such areas.

There is a concern that at high political levels there is resistance to gazetting areas owing to the perception that this will limit access to mineral resources which may be found in such areas. Developing pragmatic policies for enabling access to mineral resources in new gazetted areas and defining the conditions for such (e.g. that a similar replacement area is conserved as mitigation), and spreading high level awareness about this is likely to be a key determinant of success for progress with this aspect.

Based on the consultation process during the PPG there are some Informal PA land-owners who are willing to have their land gazetted and some have indicated such to the relevant authorities. In such cases gazetting these PAs should be a fairly straightforward process. There are other Informal PA landowners who have concerns about having one’s area gazetted and as such are resistant to it. An arrangement provided for in the current SNTC Act as a solution to this is to have a contract between the SNTC and the land-owner specifying clearly any special conditions under which it is gazetted and what restrictions or obligations under the act will be waived by the SNTC accordingly. This is an important element to clarify further if there is to be success with getting more private land-owners to be willing to gazette their areas.

A further aspect that emerged during the PPG consultations is that there are limited benefits to be gained by a private landowner from gazetting an area compared with the opportunity cost of lost future land-use alternatives. The key benefits at present to be gained by gazetting one’s area include a) the National recognition to be gained and the associated benefit (including prospects for eco-tourism marketing and securing of donor support for conservation activities); and b) the legal support to limit unwanted infrastructure and other development within the area. In cases where the future land-use alternatives are limited (e.g. on steep rugged terrain) then the opportunity costs are low. In cases where encroachment of settlement and other pressures exerted on private land are high then the benefits of gazettement may be high. The relation between costs and benefits vary for each situation and is generally a key determinant of the land-owners interest/willingness for gazettement. A clear outcome of the PPG consultation process is that concerted effort needs to be made by the government to confer benefits to independently managed gazetted areas in order for the incentives for so doing to outweigh the opportunity costs. Such benefits might include: increased marketing investment by the Swaziland Tourism Authority, support in the form of restocking of indigenous species, support for alien invasive species control, general financial assistance in the form of tax concessions etc. Further benefits for such areas may be promulgated during the project implementation.

The ideal situation would be for the government to prioritise areas for gazetting based on a biodiversity perspective whilst also taking cognisance of practical, political and socio- economic conditions being suitable.

1.4.4 Strengthening of Conservation Management

The preliminary PIF identifies the 6 National PAs as being the focus for investment in strengthening PA management. This is appropriate and certainly some of these areas are in

59 need of capacity strengthening. However, the informal PAs are in need of significant capacity strengthening as well and should also receive investment under this component. The project investments should be based on the biodiversity importance of the areas, the needs of the areas and the likely return on investment.

The SNTC PAs (Malolotja and Mlawula in particular) are in need of significant improvements in infrastructure, equipment, staff and operations. Major challenges facing conservation in these areas include alien plant control, poaching and mining. A brief review of the management of SNTC indicates a need for improved efficiency, accountability, performance incentives and decentralising decision making.

The BGP PAs could do with improvements in infrastructure, equipment and operations but to a lesser extent than the SNTC reserves. Major challenges facing conservation in these areas include alien plant control, mining and poaching. A brief review of the management of BGP indicates a need for improved collaboration, scientific research, community outreach, public support and efficiency.

Most of the Informal PAs could do with improvements in infrastructure, equipment and operations. Major challenges facing conservation in these areas include alien plant control and poaching. A brief review of the management of most of these areas indicates a wide range of needs for improvement with the most common being improved law-enforcement.

1.5 Land-use Analysis

1.5.1 Priority Target Areas

The Project Identification Form defines a focus on PAs (both existing and new ones to be established during this project). These PAs identified in the PA Assessment and Gap Analysis report fall within four main clusters: the Lubombo Conservancy cluster in north eastern Swaziland, the Malolotja cluster in north western Swaziland, the Mkhaya cluster in eastern Swaziland and the Ngwempisi cluster in central Swaziland. These clusters form the target areas for this project. The Mlilwane-Mantenga is a fifth cluster that was considered, however, owing to the high degree of development around these areas there are not practical prospects for establishment of new PAs here. Therefore the Mlilwane-Mantenga area is not considered a target area for the establishment of new PAs and hence is not considered in the Land-use analysis.

The PA Assessment and Gap Analysis report defined a priority towards the expansion of existing National PAs where possible. The land-use analysis focuses on potential expansion areas (buffers), new PAs and connectivity corridors within these clusters or target areas. While the focus of this project is on PAs which is internationally acceptable and nationally pragmatic it is important to view these PAs within the broader landscape surrounding them. A landscape approach should enable a focus on conservation management within the PAs to be maintained whilst at the same time defining ecosystem processes important for the maintenance of ecosystem integrity and conservation friendly practices for other land-uses in areas neighbouring PAs.

When considering those key land-uses which compete with conservation three stand out as of greatest threat, firstly, expansion of commercial agriculture in particular sugar cane cropping, secondly, expansion of human settlement and thirdly, mining. It is recommended that as an early activity in the project implementation detailed maps are developed of proposed and potential future developments with regard to these three land-uses in relation to existing and proposed PAs. From a national perspective there has been significant focus on expansion of sugar cane cropping and mining in a bid to stimulate economic growth and job creation. Large investments in water storage dams to increase the capacity for irrigation, has enabled the expansion of lucrative sugar cane cropping and there is potential for this trend to continue. In addition there has been significant growth in human settlement during the past two decades with a number of new towns being created and increased rural settlement facilitated by Chiefs seeking associated subjects and benefits. As a result, land for settlement has become scarcer and has exploded in value. These competing land-uses with high financial return place increasing pressure on PAs and the threat of their conversion to these other land- uses is ever growing and as a result, so is the need for the PAs to generate economic benefit in their own right.

Land-use Data used: The most recently available land cover map (obtained from the SNTC GIS unit) which was developed from 1:5,000 scale aerial photography associated with an alien plant survey of Swaziland undertaken in 201017. This was used to give an overview of land-cover within the target areas and to identify potential buffers and corridors. Also obtained from the SNTC GIS unit was a map of settlements at the homestead level to further help identify options for buffers and corridors. Google earth imagery was also used for site specific follow ups as well as site visits and stakeholder interviews to determine land-uses.

Land-use within the Lubombo Conservancy Cluster

The land-cover map of the Lubombo Conservancy highlights sugarcane development right up to the boundaries of Hlane Royal National Park and this represents a major risk for the PA. Cultivated dryland is also quite widespread both in the lowveld around the PAs and on the lubombos. Large areas of woodland surround most of Mlawula PA except in the Mhlumeni intrusion and broad corridors of woodland extend from Hlane PA to the west and to the south and to the east. These areas represent potential new PAs, buffers and corridors of natural habitat.

Figure 14: Land Cover in the Lubombo Conservancy Region

17 Kotzé I, Sibandze P, Beukes H, van den Berg E, Weepener H & Newby T (2010).

Land-use and Risks within Informal PAs When considering the target areas for the project it is useful to map those areas that have been heavily converted from their natural state (through urban development, irrigated agriculture, plantations, mines etc) together with settlements at the homestead level in relation to the existing and proposed PAs and potential corridors (see map below). There are four Informal PAs within this broader Lubombo Conservancy area: IYSIS, Mbuluzi, Panata and Dombeya. The land-use on IYSIS is mixed game and cattle ranching with some hunting and eco-tourism associated with the sand-river dam. Its status as a PA is relatively secure at this stage, although potential development for other agriculture is a significant risk. Mbuluzi is a private game reserve share-block estate with 28 eco-tourism lodges owned by various shareholders of the PA. Its status as a PA is very secure for the long-term this being necessity to protect the significant investments of the shareholders. A risk here is potential future overdevelopment of the area for eco-tourism. Panata is a game camp where there is some hunting within a much larger farm, which is an extensive cattle farm with game. The difference between the game camp (Informal PA) and farm is not that significant except for the game fence and predominant land-use. The long-term status of the Panata game camp is tied to that of the cattle farm and its conservation future is not that certain. Development and settlement likely to occur around the Sikhupe International Airport is a potential risk. Dombeya is a historical extensive cattle farm with game which has been subdivided (Dombeya is one portion). Dombeya is being developed by new owners into a private game reserve share-block estate with probably 10 eco-tourism lodges to be owned by various shareholders. The security of its conservation future is reliant on sufficient shares being sold which is likely but not certain and, given its small size, the risk that neighbours may develop their land in a counter-conservation/eco-tourism manner.

Land-use and Challenges within Proposed New PAs The proposed new PAs in this Lubombo Conservancy cluster include Mahuku, Manzimnyame, Nkhalashane, Shewula, Muti-muti, Jilobi and Mambane.

Shewula is a portion of Swazi National Land inhabited by the Shewula Community (approximately 10,000 people) under the control of the Shewula Chief. The proposed Shewula PA is not inhabited and is currently used for communal cattle grazing, resource harvesting and eco-tourism. The area is not suitable for agriculture or settlement owing to its steep slopes and inaccessibility and the conservation future of the area is relatively secure, although the major challenge facing conservation management in this area is poaching which is currently rampant.

Mahuku includes two extensive cattle ranches with game, namely Ndukuyamangedla held by His Majesty King Mswati III in trust for the nation and managed by Tibiyo and Grand Canyon, Her Majesty the Ndlovukazi’s personal ranch and Groenpan His Majesty the King’s personal ranch presented to him on his Coronation (also called Coronation Ranch). There have previously been proposals to convert these into conservation areas but these have not come to fruition. There is a need to present to his Majesty the King suggested conservation strategies suitable for the long-term conservation of these areas which are consistent with

63 extensive cattle ranching and will support the maintenance of natural habitat and conservation of ecosystem processes.. This will most likely depend on what these conservation strategies are and how they are implemented, and by whom. For example there is ample suitable habitat for vulture nesting here and evidence points to the likelihood of vultures nesting if it is adequately patrolled & protected from human disturbance. Ndukuyamangedla is currently patrolled by BGP which affords some protection to wildlife here.

Figure 15: Land Use and PA Connectivity Opportunities in Lubombo Region Manzimnyame includes some extensive cattle ranches with game, spanning a portion of the plateau and a number of gorges of the Lubombo range of hills. There is general interest in conserving these areas among land-owners. The major challenge facing conservation management in this area is to limit the spread of settlement and to generate sufficient financial return to sustain such activities. There are prospects for such, and since there are not many competing land-use alternatives this is possibly the area likely to offer greatest return on any investment in conservation via this project.

Nkhalashane is an extensive cattle ranch owned by the government of Swaziland and managed by the Veterinary and Livestock Services section of the Ministry of Agriculture. It was previously a holding ranch for cattle crossing the foot and mouth fence, but since the removal of this cordon fence, its use has become general cattle grazing and resource harvesting. This area is formally part of the core conservation area of the Lubombo Conservancy and there has been general support for conserving this area among the Veterinary and Livestock Services section of the Ministry of Agriculture. The major

64 challenge facing conservation management in this area is to convince the Veterinary and Livestock Services section of the Ministry of Agriculture that this is a preferable option to cattle grazing and resource harvesting in this area for the Swazi Nation (which should be relatively easily achievable) and to enforce biodiversity conservation laws and control poaching. This will most likely depend on brokering a management agreement with neighbouring conservation areas (e.g. Mbuluzi). This is possibly another area likely to offer greatest return on any investment in conservation via this project. The RSSC 5 year development plan indicates proposals to convert areas of natural woodland neighbouring Nkhalashane into sugar cane cropping and as such there is increasing urgency for securing this ranch as a PA.

Opportunities for Extensions, Buffers and Corridors There is a potential corridor linking Hlane with Panata. Already there is settlement across this area and it is unlikely that this corridor will continue to allow for movement of large game, however, if maintained it may enhance wildlife movement. There is also the possibility of linking up the Mabuda-Muti-muti conservancy (which includes the land-uses of eco-tourism, small scale cropping and livestock ranging with conservation) with Manzimnyame. There are further prospects for extending the Manzimnyame PA southwards on the Lubombo plateau including even the possibility of extending all the way to the Usutu gorge. A number of conservation friendly land-use options exist within these corridors including game and cattle ranching, bee keeping and thatch harvesting.

Land-use within the Malolotja Cluster

The land-cover map of the Malolotja cluster highlights exotic plantation forestry to the north of the PA and surrounding Bulembu and to the south of Makhonjwa. Cultivated dryland is also quite widespread. Patches of woodland and grassland intersperse the surrounding areas but there are limited opportunities for significant expansion of the PA. Consistent with the Malolotja-Songimvelo TFCA joint management plan which identifies proposed zoning of the PA and extension areas, the area extending from Malolotja to Maguga dam beyond the dam wall is currently communal land with sparse settlement and subsistence farming, but owing to steep slopes there are significant areas of natural habitat remaining and this is a proposed community resource reserve.

Land-use and Risks Within Informal PAs Phophonyane Nature Reserve and Sibetsamoya Game Reserve are the only two Informal PAs within this cluster. The land-use on Phophonyane since 1986 has been eco-tourism and conservation and its conservation status is secure. Steep slopes and rugged terrain preclude most other land-use options although it is reliant on eco-tourism off a relatively small area to sustain itself, which presents a risk. The land-use on Sibetsamoya is cattle and game ranching on a private estate and its conservation status is relatively secure although again, its small size does present a sustainability risk. However, the integration of these areas into a conservancy has mitigated some of these risks.

Land-use and Challenges Within Proposed PAs

The land-use within the Motjane vlei area is largely cattle grazing with some limited small scale dryland cropping. Some portions of the area are title deed land and others communal SNL land. The marsh has been drained, presumably largely to make the area accessible as grazing land for cattle. There may be significant resistance from the land-users to rehabilitating the marsh and there will need to be incentives for doing so. However, there are prospects for developing wetland bird watching eco-tourism associated with the rehabilitated wetland and linking this up as an additional attraction with the nearby tourism operations (Ngwenya glass centre, Hawane, Ngwenya mine). Land-use on Bulembu Mountain is largely communal cattle grazing and resource harvesting. This could probably continue as long as it was limited to suitable intensity the control of which would present a relatively minor challenge. Land-use in Makhonjwa is largely communal cattle grazing and resource harvesting with some illegal Cannabis cropping. The main challenge would be to control the clearing of forest patches for Cannabis cropping and to control resource harvesting and grazing. There is a significant threat of mining within the Barberton greenstone belt and frequent uncontrolled wildfires also require managing.

Figure 16: Land Cover in Malolotja Region

Opportunities for Extensions and Corridors There are limited options for extensions to Malolotja, but small extensions are possible in patches to the north east, east and west. Phophonyane and Sibetsamoya have already negotiated the inclusion of neighbouring small farms to form the Phophonyane conservancy. There are prospects for co-operating with the forestry plantations to facilitate eco-tourism

66 access and linkages between Malolotja, Bulembu, Makhonjwa and Phophonyane. Similarly the plantation forestry areas surrounding these PAs and proposed PAs do allow for the movement of a number of species including in particular large mammals and birds as well as some reptiles, plants and other groups. Forestry fire-breaks even allow for some movement of smaller less mobile grassland dependant species. Water run-off increases and nutrient cycling within the forestry plantations and associated alterations in aquatic ecosystems will have impacts on ecosystem functioning. It would be worthwhile to further investigate ways of maintaining connectivity and ecosystem functioning within the plantation forestry areas separating these PAs which may include mapping of fire-breaks and indigenous forest patches and building these into the broader conservation planning of the area.

Figure 17: Land Use and Connectivity Opportunities in Malolotja Region

Land-use within the Mkhaya Cluster

The land-cover map of the Mkhaya cluster highlights sugar cane cropping to the south and east and its continued expansion represents a significant risk. Cultivated dryland is also quite

68 widespread to the west and north. There are large areas of woodland extending from Mkhaya eastwards all the way to the Big Bend Conservancy which present options for the expansion of the PA.

Figure 18: Land Cover in Mkhaya Region

Land-use and Risks Within Informal PAs The Big Bend Conservancy and Mhlosinga Conservancy are the two Informal PAs in this cluster. Both are extensive cattle and game ranches. Their conservation future is not very certain and recent sugar cane cropping developments have resulted in significant changes to their boundaries, the former decreasing in size the latter increasing.

Land-use and Challenges Within Proposed PAs The proposed Mkhaya west PA is currently communal cattle grazing and the challenge here is to work with the community to develop a community conservation area which will depend on building a working relationship with the community and establishing a suitable management structure or partnership to facilitate the successful conservation management and eco-tourism development of the area. The proposed Jilobi PA is currently a communal resource harvesting area and the challenge here is to work with the community to develop suitable and practical systems to control harvesting and to limit settlement in the surrounding area.

Figure 19: Land Use and Connectivity Opportunities in the Mkhaya Region

Opportunities for Extensions, Buffers and Corridors There are prospects for extension of the Mkhaya PA eastwards as far as the Big Bend Conservancy and for a corridor between the Big Bend Conservancy and the Mhlosinga conservancy. The existing land-use in this area is extensive cattle ranching with some game which allows for conservation of natural habitat and the co-existence of most indigenous biodiversity except for large predators and competing grazers. A number of other conservation friendly land-uses could also be developed including bee keeping, shrub harvesting as well as some eco-tourism activities. This area represents potential for more intensive commercial farming of game for example the breeding of high value game.

Land-use within the Ngwempisi Cluster

The land-cover map of the Ngwempisi cluster highlights widespread cultivated dryland cropping and sprawling rural settlement with small scale sugar cane cropping to the east and some exotic plantation forestry to the west. There are large areas of woodland extending from Ngwempisi eastwards all the way to Nkonyeni Informal PA which present options for the expansion of the PA.

Figure 20: Land Cover of Ngwempisi Gorge Region

Land-use and Risks within Informal PAs The four Informal PAs within this cluster include Emantini, Libhetse, Nkonyeni and Rosecraft. Emantini is a recently established private game and nature reserve with a secure conservation status. Cattle ranching would be an alternative land-use option but is unlikely to deliver significant returns in this vegetation type and at this scale. Libhetse is similar to Emantini in land-use and risks and has been longer established but has less investment in game fencing, alien plant control and anti-poaching. Nkonyeni is a private game reserve attached to a golf eco-tourism estate with hunting and other eco-tourism operations planned and the future of its conservation status is relatively secure. Cattle ranching would be an alternative land-use option but is unlikely to deliver significant returns in this vegetation type and at this scale. Rosecraft is a private game and nature reserve with eco-tourism activities carried out within it and the future of its conservation status is secure. As with the other Informal PAs in this area, cattle ranching would be an alternative land-use option but is unlikely to deliver significant returns in this vegetation type and at this scale.

Land-use and Challenges within Proposed PAs The Ngwempisi proposed PA includes a mixture of private farms and Swazi Nation Communal Land. Land-use within the private farms includes largely cattle ranching with some small scale cropping on the boundary areas and some eco-tourism operations. Land-use within the communal land includes cattle grazing, resource harvesting and eco-tourism operations with scattered rural settlement in the boundary areas. The establishment of this as

71 a PA represents significant challenges in limiting settlement, zoning and controlling cattle grazing and resource harvesting. Significant work would be needed to build on the previous eco-tourism programs initiated here in order to operationalise the PA concept. Certainly the type of PA would not be a typical Nature Reserve, but would be more likely a protected landscape or other IUCN category 5 PA.

Figure 21: Land Use and Connectivity Opportunities in the Ngwempisi Region

Opportunities for Extensions, Buffers and Corridors The Gebeni and Dwaleni hills Protection Worthy Areas (PWAs) represent an opportunity to connect up the Emantini, Nkonyeni and Rosecraft Informal PAs with the Ngwempisi gorge. Land-use within both of these PWAs is extensive cattle ranching with game and most of the land-owners are interested in the idea of conservation management and many already practice such to some extent. The existing land-uses have allowed for the maintenance of natural habitat which permits most indigenous biodiversity to persist, however, poaching has resulted in the loss of many large mammals. Antipoaching efforts are increasing in the area with the recent development of the Informal PAs which should enable wildlife to flourish. There are a number of potential conservation friendly land-uses that could be further developed within these corridor areas including bee keeping, rural craft, hiking, mountain biking and 4x4 trails.

1.6 Climate Change Analysis

Given the global changes in climate being experienced and predicted it is important to consider the implications for the target areas and PAs both in terms of biodiversity conservation and livelihood opportunities.

Bioclimatic variables are derived from the World Climatic Database18, derived from the monthly temperature and rainfall values across the globe in order to generate more biologically meaningful variables. These are often used in ecological niche modelling (e.g., BIOCLIM, GARP). The bioclimatic variables represent annual trends (e.g., mean annual temperature, annual precipitation) seasonality (e.g., annual range in temperature and precipitation) and extreme or limiting environmental factors (e.g., temperature of the coldest and warmest month, and precipitation of the wet and dry quarters). A quarter is a period of three months (1/4 of the year). Two IPCC scenarios are used in the WorldClim dataset: A2 and B2. Recent observations are that the world seems to be following the worst case (A2) scenario and therefore this is the dataset used for this analysis. Three of these variables are used in this analysis as those most likely to be of significance for this project. These include: BIO1 = Annual Mean Temperature; BIO12 = Annual Precipitation; and BIO6 = Min Temperature of Coldest Month. Annual Temperature is used since this is a broad determinant of growth conditions and therefore habitat suitability. Annual Precipitation is used since in this semi-arid system rainfall is a key driver of productivity and system dynamics. The minimum temperature of the coldest month is used since cold snaps and minimum temperature are key determinants of survival and habitat suitability of a number of species.

1.6.1 Mean Annual Temperature

Projections of changes in mean annual temperature for 2020, 2050 and 2080 respectively show steady increases in the mean annual temperature.

18 Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 1965–1978.

Figure 22: Projected Annual Mean Temperature for Swaziland (2020)

Figure 23: Projected Annual Mean Temperature for Swaziland (2050)

Figure 24: Projected Annual Mean Temperature for Swaziland (2080)

1.6.2 Mean Annual Rainfall Projections of changes in mean annual rainfall for 2020, 2050 and 2080 respectively show steady decreases in the mean annual rainfall. The decreases appear most marked in the lowveld and Lubombo areas.

Figure 25: Projected Annual Mean Rainfall for Swaziland (2020)

Figure 26: Projected Annual Mean Rainfall for Swaziland (2050)

Figure 27: Projected Annual Mean Rainfall for Swaziland (2080)

1.6.3 Minimum Temperature of the Coldest Month

Projections of changes in the minimum temperature for the coldest month for 2020, 2050 and 2080 respectively show steady increases in the minimum temperature. These increases are most marked in the lowveld and Lubombo areas and therefore are likely to affect these eastern PAs most.

Figure 28: Projected Minimum Temperature for Swaziland’s Coldest Month (2020)

Figure 29: Projected Minimum Temperature for Swaziland’s Coldest Month (2050)

Figure 30: Projected Minimum Temperature for Swaziland’s Coldest Month (2080)

1.6.4 Implications for Biodiversity and livelihoods

The implications of the above climate change analyses are that over the next 70 years there will be changes in climate which will influence plant growth, vegetation community composition, associated habitat suitability and the distribution and abundance of species. PAs which span gradients of altitude, rainfall and temperature will allow potential for movements of species along these gradients and therefore provide more resilience to climate change. These PAs include Malolotja and to a lesser extent Mlilwane and Ngwempisi and to a lesser extent still, Mlawula then Manzimnyame, Mahuku, Bulembu and Makhonjwa. The other PAs are at risk of climate change affecting their ability to adequately conserve all the current ecosystems and species contained within them. This also points to promoting the concept of connecting up PAs as far as possible especially along climatic gradients. More detailed research, modelling and analysis of climate change impacts at the PA level are suggested for the project implementation.

In terms of livelihoods a key determinant of productivity is rainfall. The projections of decreased rainfall suggest that crop productivity will decline slightly with increased probability of failed crops and reduced grazing capacity for livestock. Therefore the climatic changes will place increased pressure on subsistence farmers to sustain their livelihoods unless farming technology and crop selection alters for the better. Farming of game animals as an alternative to domestic livestock (which the former being more drought resistant) and other associated sources of revenue may become increasingly attractive as climate changes. Furthermore, there is room for the promotion of drought resistant varieties of livestock such as indigenous Nguni cattle over other less resistant livestock varieties to increase livelihood security.

The activities proposed during the project of strengthening the existing PAs and expanding the network by adding new PAs are unlikely to be significantly affected by the projected changes in climate. If anything the importance of the project’s activities is enhanced by the projected changes in climate, since it will become increasingly important to sustain ecosystem services such as water purification and flow regulation which are aided by PAs, and to develop more diversified livelihoods associated with eco-tourism and other related economic activities. There may be increased challenges with conservation of certain species with restricted distributions and habitat requirements, so conservation planning will need to take into account the projected changes in species management plans. There will also be a need to factor climate change into the park management plans and to focus on increasing the importance of certain connectivity corridors all of which will be enhanced through this project.

2 Review of protected area systems governance in Swaziland

2.1 Introduction

While the establishment of protected areas (PAs) is now widely accepted as the cornerstone of global conservation strategies, current global systems of protected areas are not sufficiently large, well-planned, or well-managed to maximise their contribution to biodiversity conservation19.

The recognition of governance as a key factor in PA effectiveness is demonstrated by the Action Plan coming out of the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003 that recognises governance as being central to the conservation of protected areas throughout the world20.

Governance refers to the interactions among structures, processes, and traditions that determine direction, how that power is exercised, and how views of citizens or stakeholders are considered by those making decisions21.

The centrality of the concept and practice of governance is further recognised by the 7th Conference of the Parties (COP 7, 2004) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the first International Marine Protected Area Congress (IMPAC, 2005) which generated new commitments and policy guidance for protected areas worldwide.

The CBD Programme of Work (POW, Target 4.1) calls for Parties to the CBD to develop and adopt standards, criteria, and best practices for management and governance of national and regional systems of protected areas.

A clear distinction is made between “management” which addresses what is done about a given protected area and “governance” which is about who makes those decisions and how. Governance is recognised as having a major influence on the achievement of protected areas objectives [effectiveness], the sharing of relevant responsibilities, rights, costs and benefits [equity], the generation of and sustenance of community, political and financial support [viability] and the application of a wise mix of scientific and traditional knowledge and skills for sustainable use [sustainability] 22.

Furthermore, giving due recognition to governance helps to link protected areas within their broader land and waterscape, promoting ecological integrity within a supporting environment rather than creating isolated “islands” of conservation.

19CBD COP 7 (2004) 20 Dearden, P., Bennett, M. and Johnston, J. 2005. Trends in Global Protected Area Governance, 1992-2002. Environmental Management Vol. 36, No 1 pp 89-100. 21 Graham, J., Amos, B. and Plumptre, T. 2003. Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century, A Discussion Paper. Institute of Governance in Collaboration with Parks Canada and the Canadian Development Agency. Ottawa. 22 Borrini Feyerabend, G. 2008. Implementing the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas – Governance as key for effective and equitable protected area systems. TGER and TILCEPA.

This report analyses governance and institutional arrangements and capacities of different agencies to support the implementation of a landscape approach to strengthening PA management in Swaziland, recalling that governance relates to power, relationships, responsibility, influence and accountability. Specific powers and responsibilities relate to decision-making for PAs and these include:

 Determining if a PA is needed, where it should be located and the type of status and management approaches;  determining the relevant stakeholders in decision-making for the PA;  creating rules and protocols for land and resource use within the PA, and establishing zones for different levels of access and use;  allocating financial and other resources to support specific conservation and sustainable development activities;  generating revenues and selection and employment of qualified personnel;  ensuring equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of conservation among concerned parties; and  entering into agreements with parties to share or delegate some of the above powers or to decide about other relevant matters.

In Swaziland, as in the rest of the world, the governance setting of a PA clarifies who has the authority and responsibility of taking the above decisions; depending largely on formal mandates, institutions, processes and relevant legal and customary rights. Regardless of formal authority, decisions may also be influenced by history and culture, access to information, basic economic outlook and many other factors.

Four broad types of governance have been identified in the CBD Programme of Work, based on the management authority and responsibility and accountability with regards to legal, customary or otherwise legitimate rights. These include Government protected areas, co- managed protected areas, private protected areas and community conserved areas.

While all four types of governance can clearly be recognised in Swaziland, however, in all of them it is difficult to ascertain the IUCN category in which they fall.

The use of the IUCN Matrix and an appropriate understanding and application of its underlying concepts can help a country to:

 expand the coverage of its protected areas and address gaps in the system (develop more coherent protected area systems);  improve biological connectivity at landscape and seascape level through bringing more land and water under a coherent conservation strategy;  enhance public support for conservation, benefiting from a variety of culturally-based conservation capacities;  promote cost-effective conservation by harnessing the support and capacities of civil society; and

 increase the flexibility and responsiveness of the system as a whole, and thus its overall effectiveness and sustainability.

The CBD PoW invites the Parties to promote, through the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM), technical publications and other means, the international sharing of experience on effective mechanisms for stakeholder involvement and governance types in conservation in particular with regard to co-managed protected areas, indigenous and local community conserved areas and private protected areas.

Analysis of the governance issues in Swaziland is based on some of the governance principles for protected areas given in Appendix 2. Principles for Developing Sustainable Wildlife Management Laws23 are used in this study to further articulate the processes for improving the legal framework for PAs in Swaziland. These principle, indicate that law is the key tool to achieve sustainable wildlife management as it sets out the parameters for protection and use of wildlife.

Over time, legislation has shifted from the narrow command and control approach, to a more comprehensive approach based on broader concepts such as conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity which trend is informed by a number of factors to include:

 the recognition of the interdependence among species and the direct and indirect threats to wildlife and  the broad appeal of people-centred approach to wildlife management facilitating the participation of concerned individuals in wildlife-related decision making i.e. the involvement of local communities on SNL in wildlife management and the sharing of benefits.

2.2 Policy and Legislative Context

The Convention on Biological Diversity translates its guiding objectives of conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing into binding commitments in its articles and there are seven thematic programmes of work and several cross cutting issues that Parties are required to implement. In line with this, Parties have also adopted the Strategic Plan of the CBD whereby they committed themselves to have achieved significant reduction of the then current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional, and national level by 2010 as contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth. This target was subsequently endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002.

Thus, in order to support its obligations under the CBD and the achievement of its objectives, Swaziland has expended considerable effort to develop an overarching policy and legislative frame work for biodiversity management and its sustainable use. The management of wildlife

23 Morgera, E. and Wingard, J. 2009. Principles for Developing Sustainable Wildlife Management Laws. Joint Publication of FAO and CIC. Budapest. 90pp.

82 in Swaziland falls under the responsibility of the Head of State and the King’s Office has formally delegated the implementation of the Game Act and CITES to the BGP while other aspects of environmental management are under the SNTC, providing suitable bases for governance of natural resources in Swaziland.

In addition, Swaziland has committed itself to several international obligations which have a bearing on a biodiversity policy and outlined below are the most relevant of these agreements. A comprehensive list of the international conventions, treaties and agreements with the status of signing and ratification and the responsible ministry appears in Appendix 4 as articulated in a study undertaken by the Swaziland Environment Authority to produce a policy on Biodiversity Conservation and Management.

2.2.1 International Conventions and Agreements On Biodiversity

Protected area governance takes place at a number of levels which often interact with each other. In some cases, one level implements and other oversees; in others, different levels need to combine their powers or act consecutively. Interactions can be horizontal (e.g. voluntarily through collaboration and exchanges) or vertical (through hierarchy), formal (e.g. by law) or informal (e.g. by relationship and trust). The principal levels of governance range from global to the possible sub-units of a protected area.

United Nations Conventions and Initiatives

The most direct global non-binding agreements on biodiversity are part of Agenda 21. This framework for sustainable agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development was elaborated in the Programme of Action for Sustainable Development of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro 1992. At the next UNCED summit in 2002, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation was adopted. In 2000 The UN defined its Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for the eradication of poverty.

Several important international conventions and agreements which emanated from the 1992 Rio Conference, of which Swaziland is a signatory include the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD).

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is the follow up to the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, is an extension of the UNFCCC and has been signed and ratified. This Convention called for cooperation on monitoring, research and data exchange, but did not impose obligations to reduce the use of ozone-depleting substances.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol introduced control measures for some CFCs and halogens for developed countries (non-Article 5 Parties). Developing countries (Article 5 Parties) were granted a grace period allowing them to increase their use of ozone-depleting substances before taking on commitments. Since 1987, several amendments and adjustments to the

Protocol have been adopted, with amendments adding new obligations and additional ozone- depleting substances and adjustments tightening existing control schedules.

In 2002, Swaziland became a signatory to the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, regulating with the trans-boundary movement of genetically modified organisms.

The 2002, Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) arising out of their Utilization seek to provide voluntary guidance for parties in developing national strategies, legislation on access and benefit sharing.

An assessment of Swaziland’s capacity to implement the above three conventions has being carried out via the National Capacity Self Assessment Project which has investigated the needs, constraints and priorities for the implementation of the Climate Change, Desertification and Biodiversity Conventions.

In 2002, Swaziland signed the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which is the first comprehensive international agreement dealing with plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. It was adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) as an instrument to promote international harmony in matters regarding access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture to "ensure that plant genetic resources of economic and/or social interest, particularly for agriculture, will be explored, preserved, evaluated and made available for plant breeding and scientific purposes".

In 2000, Swaziland adopted the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), an unprecedented international commitment to accelerate sustainable human development. Biodiversity is represented by the MDG goal to ensure environmental sustainability.

Other International and Regional Agreements

Other global agreements with a bearing on biodiversity to which Swaziland is a party include the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) governing international trade in wildlife, which Swaziland acceded to in 1997 and is being implemented by the King’s Office through Big Game Parks (BGP).

Swaziland also entered in a number of regional environmental conventions and agreements related to biodiversity:

 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1968).  Cooperation Enforcement Operations Directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora (the Lusaka Agreement) (1994).  The General Transfrontier Conservation and Resource Area Protocol (2000).  The Lubombo Conservancy-Goba Transfrontier Conservation Area Protocol (2000).

Swaziland has also signed several SADC environmental protocols relevant to the environment and biodiversity: Protocol on Energy (1998); Protocol on Mining (2000); Protocol on Forestry (2002); Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement; MOU

84 on Cooperation in Standardisation, Quality (2003); Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses (2003); and Protocol on Fisheries (2003).

2.3 National Policy Framework Related To Biodiversity

In the national policy framework the Government of Swaziland has responded to global and national environmental and biodiversity issues and continues to be engaged in preparing policies, action plans, strategies and legislation impacting upon biodiversity.

2.3.1 National Planning and Development

The 1999 National Development Strategy (NDS) was intended to inspire and direct socio- economic development up to 2022 and provide a guide for the formulation of development plans and for equitable allocation of resources. The NDS was designed to strengthen the Government’s development planning and management capacities and provide a national consensus on the direction of future developments in the country. The NDS has identified environmental protection as a central component in all of its eight sectors. Relevant strategies relate to forestry, conservation, land use planning, improved access to land, land management, livestock management and community participation and empowerment.

The 2004 Smart Programme on Empowerment and Economic Development (SPEED) was the comprehensive action programme presented by the Prime Minister as a transformation policy statement, which has the purpose to provide a short- to medium-term development framework with time-bound targets for Swaziland. SPEED was a national programme that was to be implemented by all national players: the government, the private sector and other stakeholders. It incorporates existing government initiatives including the National Development Strategy, the Poverty Alleviation Strategy and Action Plan, the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS, the Public Sector Management Programme, the Fiscal Restructuring Programme and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The main focus is on the development of a sustainable economy by using the private sector as its engine, encouraging FDI, the growth of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), industrialisation, the provision of infrastructure, and regional development. Government and public sector reform are considered essential preconditions. SPEED identified environmental management and conservation as fundamental in the development of Swaziland. Human development is an important component which encompasses environmental management and conservation.

The 1996-2006 National Physical Development Plan has a two-fold purpose: (1) to spatially interpret national economic planning and implementation currently driving all major developments in the country, and (2) to strengthen inter-sectoral coordination of the overall development within a spatial framework and ensuring balanced use of land and natural resources.

The Regional Physical Development Plans for Swaziland’s four administrative regions are a follow-up to the NPDP. The plans for Lubombo, Manzini and Hhohho regions have been

85 completed, whereas the one for Shiselweni region is being developed. The regional plans provide structure plans for both urban and rural development in more explicit detail than is possible at the scale of the NPDP itself. Natural resources, the environment and biodiversity play an important role in the overall planning frameworks for the regions.

2.3.2 Environment and Natural Resource Management

The 1997 Swaziland Environment Action Plan (SEAP) has as main objectives (1) to provide a state-of-knowledge overview of the environmental conditions in the country; (2) to identify, prioritise and where possible quantify environmental problems; (3) to propose solutions to immediate environmental problems in the form of programmes and projects, and institutional and legislative reforms; (4) to establish a clear indication of government’s priority areas with respect to the environment so as to guide and give proper orientation to donor intervention in this field; (5) to establish a framework which provides coherent direction for the process of environmental monitoring and action planning in the future; (6) to provide a framework for continuous development and environmental policy dialogue within the country and with donor partners.

Management and use of biodiversity is one of the five major programme areas. The SEAP seeks to achieve a sustainable balance in the use of land, water and other natural resources between production systems, rural settlements and protection of the environment; and to maintain and improve biodiversity of indigenous and introduced systems in agricultural systems.

The 1999 National Environment Policy is still in draft form and has as main goal to promote the enhancement, protection and conservation of the environment and the attainment of sustainable development. The policy is based on four core principles governing: (1) responsibility for environmental conservation, (2) interaction with the environment, (3) environmental rights of individuals, and (4) the wider context of sustainable development. Its relevance to biodiversity is within the principle of sustainable use and management of natural resources, which implies restriction of consumption of natural resources and the prudent use of living natural resources such as plants and animals. The policy also safeguards the rights of the communities where resources are being exploited and ensures benefit sharing.

The 2001 draft National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) has as principal objectives (1) to conserve the biodiversity of Swaziland, (2) to encourage the sustainable use of biodiversity, and (3) to ensure that the benefits accrued from the use of biodiversity are shared equitably. The BSAP establishes six goals and makes recommendations towards their achievement: (1) to conserve a viable set of representative samples of natural ecosystems; (2) to sustainably use the biological resources of natural ecosystems outside protected areas; (3) to conserve the genetic base of Swaziland’s crop and livestock breeds; (4) to minimise risks associated with the use of modified organisms; (5) to establish effective institutional, policy and legal frameworks; and (6) to enhance public awareness and support for biodiversity conservation.

The BSAP recognises the existence of 22 pieces of sectoral legislation that need to be harmonized. It calls for the formulation of a comprehensive national legal framework for sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of biological resources. It also calls for a legal and policy framework covering biosafety in order to minimise the risks associated with the use of GMOs.

The 2003 Swaziland National Solid Waste Management Strategy has the objective to develop, implement and maintain an integrated waste management system that will reduce the adverse impacts of all forms of solid waste, so that social and economic development in Swaziland, the health of its people and the quality of its environment and its resources benefit.

The 2002 National Energy Policy is relevant to biodiversity with respect to the utilisation of energy from indigenous forest resources, in particular in areas not connected to the grid. The policy vision is crucial to economic and social development: ensuring that the development goals are met through the sustainable supply and use of energy for the benefit of all. Its main objectives are: (1) ensuring access to energy for all, (2) enhancing employment creation, (3) ensuring security of energy supply, (4) stimulating economic growth and development, and (5) ensuring environmental and health sustainability.

The 2002 Tourism Policy and Strategy is relevant to biodiversity as tourism and eco-tourism rely on Swaziland’s environmental and biodiversity assets, in particular the diversity of landscapes, nature and wildlife. The policy also addresses issues such as the development of tourism-related SMEs such as handicrafts, which utilise forest and other natural products. It should be taken into account that the development of the tourism industry in Swaziland is one of the more promising areas for enhancing income generation for the poor.

The vision of the 2002 National Forest Policy (NFP) is to achieve efficient, profitable and sustainable management and utilisation of forest resources for the benefit of the entire society, and to increase the role of forestry in environmental protection, conservation of plant and animal genetic resources and rehabilitation of degraded land. The objectives of the NFP include the development of forest resources and its sustainable balance with other land and water uses, the improvement of forest productivity, to improve living conditions and alleviate poverty, to conserve the biodiversity of forest resources and to enhance forest management.

The NFP recognises a number of policy principles, which see forests as a national asset to which access and community participation in its management needs to be secured and benefits equitably shared. Four major sub-sectors are recognised, namely industrial forestry, SNL community forestry, urban forestry and natural forests and woodlands. The NFP action plan, called the National Forestry Programme, is awaiting approval.

The 2003 National Rural Resettlement Policy is not limited to resettlement but also sets out a wide ranging policy framework related to the improvement and planning of land use. Its guiding vision is to establish a durable, practical and participatory framework for the planning and sustainable management of land, and the appropriate application of resettlement

87 strategies in rural Swaziland, in order to increase agricultural production, promote the sustainable utilisation of natural resources and improve livelihoods.

The overall goal of the 2005 draft Comprehensive Agricultural Sector Policy (CASP) is to ensure that the agriculture sector in Swaziland contributes fully to economic growth, food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainable natural resources management. Specific objectives include increasing the agricultural production and productivity levels, promoting sustainable use of land and efficient management of water resources by rural communities, encouraging community participation.

The draft CASP directly and indirectly addresses issues relevant to biodiversity, in particular the sustainable utilisation of natural resources and the environment. The CASP recognises the importance of climate change affecting production and environmental conditions. The CASP recognizes benefits that may be obtained from modern biotechnology applications in the agricultural sector and identifies risks; it calls for the formulation of a national biotechnology and biosafety policy.

The 2005 draft National Food Security Policy (NFSP) and 2006 draft National Programme for Food Security show similarities with the CASP but address more directly biodiversity and environmental issues relevant to food security. Both documents clearly outline a number of policy statements and strategies on environmental management, sustainable utilisation of natural resources, adapting to the effects of climate change, combating desertification and conserving agro- and biological diversity.

The NFSP advocates adoption of appropriate and sustainable biotechnology innovations but also raises the following concerns: (1) limited capacity and knowledge of potential uses and benefits of biotechnology for food production, and (2) lack of a regulatory environment to control and manage use of biotechnology.

2.4 National Legislative Framework Related To Biodiversity

2.4.1 Current Status of Biodiversity Legislative Framework

A large amount of legislation pertaining to biodiversity exists in Swaziland, most of which is housed in the King’s Office, Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

However, much of this legislation is out dated and fragmented, and many gaps and overlaps exist. Major gaps include the lack of:

 support for sustainable utilisation of biological resources on Swazi Nation Land (SNL), and  the lack of an umbrella Act that integrates the fragmented legislation  insufficient protection of threatened species and aquatic systems  inadequate support for ex-situ conservation and control of invasive alien organisms

 Overlaps in legislation pertain, inter alia, to the proclamation of Game Sanctuaries, Flora Reserves and Botanical Gardens.

To effectively conserve Swaziland’s biodiversity, appropriate and comprehensive legislation must be in place, and must be enforced. In recent years, some positive achievements have been made with regards to updating legislation. Several new Acts have been gazetted, e.g. the Flora Protection Act of 2000 and the Environment Management Act of 2002.

The Biodiversity Conservation and Management Policy will contribute to providing revised and additional policy elements which need to be incorporated into a new and encompassing Biodiversity Conservation and Management Bill.

2.4.2 Institutional and Management Acts

This section presents the most relevant acts related to the management of the environment and biodiversity. Other acts that relate to institutions and management are listed in Annex 4.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland Act No. 1/2005 is the supreme law in the country. Section 210 (2) provides that the state shall protect and make rational use of its land, mineral, water resources as well as its fauna and flora, and shall take appropriate measures to conserve and improve the environment for the present and future generations. The Constitution mandates Government to ensure a holistic and comprehensive approach to environmental preservation and put in place appropriate environmental regulatory framework. Pursuant to this provision and other factual studies, the Government has embarked on a legislative and policy drafting exercise to come up with a comprehensive Biodiversity Conservation and Management Act and Policy.

The Environment Management Act No. 5/2002: The purpose of this Act, in terms of Section 4, is to provide for and promote the enhancement, protection and conservation of the environment and where appropriate, the sustainable management of natural resources. It is the supreme law governing environmental matters in Swaziland through its supremacy clause and from the fact it is the national framework law on the environment.

The Act incorporates the universal environmental principles and mandates everybody, including government structures to observe the general principles of environmental conservation in the exercise of their respective powers in the Act. It transforms the Swaziland Environment Authority (SEA) to a body corporate and further establishes an Environment Management Board to take care of the Authority affairs.

The Act further requires any proponent of a Bill, regulation, public policy, programme or plan that could have an adverse effect on the protection, conservation or enhancement of the environment to first prepare a strategic environment assessment. Section 12 thereof has about 21 diverse functions of SEA which are meant to facilitate procedural activities towards the enhancement, protection as well as conservation of the environment in the country.

The Act provides for public participation, and sets out regulations for register of environmental information, requests for environmental information, public review, public hearings, findings of public hearings, public participation in licensing decisions, orders and prosecutions initiated by the public, civil actions and other regulations. The Act is a dynamic tool in that it provides for stringent sanctions in its penal codes. It is very elaborate on criminal and civil enforcement procedures in the protection of environmental rights. However, the Act does not specifically provide for biodiversity issues as a complete subject, hence the need for a separate comprehensive Act on the subject.

Environmental Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations, 2000: The object of these Regulations is to provide for prior environmental assessment before undertaking any developmental activity in the country so as to practically avoid and/or mitigate adverse impacts on the environment during their implementation. They make provision for a systematic implementation of the most important principle in environmental matters, viz.; sustainable development, and its application. This ensures, to a large extent, conservation of some ecosystems and habitats. They further put into practice the concept of public participation during projects implementations that are likely to have adverse impacts on the environment.

The Swazi Administration Order No. 6/1998: This is an Order-in Council to provide for the administration of Swazi Affairs, including the appointment, removal and functions of chiefs and indvunas. Section 25 of the Order provides for the Ngwenyama to issue, inter alia, orders regulating the following - as long as they do not conflict with any other law in force in Swaziland -: preventing the pollution of any water resources, and the obstruction of any water course; prohibiting, restricting or regulating the cutting of trees; controlling the sale, supply, use, possession or cultivation of noxious plants; regulate the burning of grass or bush; preventing soil erosion and for the protection and construction of anti-soil erosion works; and providing for the protection and preservation of game and the destruction of vermin.

Swaziland National Trust Commission Act No. 9/1972: The Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) is a body corporate established by the SNTC Act of 1972. The Act provides for the operation of cultural institutions and the proclamation and management of national parks, monuments and related matters. The Act grants the SNTC powers to proclaim national parks and monuments. It can acquire or alienate movable and immovable property subject to this Act with the approval of the Deputy Prime Minister. Any doubts or clarification of this Act require the Minister to obtain the decision of the Ngwenyama in writing which decision shall be final and binding to all concerned.

The objectives of the National Parks and Nature Reserves are outlined in Section 15 of the Act and include the promotion and conservation of indigenous animals and plants and the protection of the natural ecology and environment of the park or reserve. These parks and reserves are to be controlled and supervised by the Swaziland National Trust Commission (Section 6). The establishment of this Commission is mentioned in Section 3. Activities that are destructive to the existence of these parks and reserves (as set out in the Objectives in

Section 15) are prohibited. Prohibited activities are listed in Section 20 and include, among many others, the killing or injuring of plants and animals, and the removal of any object from within the park or reserve.

The National Parks and Nature Reserves have equal protection status and afford a high level of protection to biodiversity in general within these areas, with clear restrictions on access and any activities that affect the natural ecosystem, from removing rocks to poaching. According to the National Trust Commission Act the objectives of the declaration of a park or reserve in Swaziland are:

 To promote and conserve indigenous animal and plant life and to eliminate non- indigenous animal and plant life;  To collect together and restore a representative selection of the animal and plant life indigenous to the area;  To protect, preserve and/or restore objects of geological, archaeological, historical, ethnological and scientific interest;  To promote and protect the natural ecology and environment;  To provide facilities for scientific study and education;  To promote public appreciation of the social, economic and moral value of wildlife conservation.  Without conflicting with the foregoing objects, to provide enjoyment to visitors.

However, while the SNTC Act is one of the most relevant for biodiversity conservation, it mainly deals with protection matters and lacks provisions that relate to other pillars of the sustainable use of and equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity. The SNTC Act also does not provide for the other types of protected areas recognized by the law in Swaziland, such as Game Sanctuaries or flora reserves and botanical gardens. Furthermore, there are a number of areas which afford special protection for biodiversity by way of their management even though they are not legally declared as “protected”. These areas need to be considered and accommodated by any policy and legislation pertaining to protected areas. It also seems an omission of the SNTC Act in that it does not call for the establishment of a network of protected areas that covers all ecosystems.

The Game (Amendment) Act No. 51/1953 amended in 1991 and 1993: The purpose of this Act is to provide for the preservation of game and any other types of wildlife in Swaziland. It begins by placing open and close hunting seasons. It further classifies game into royal specially protected and common game and regulates their protection through a permit system. The Act controls trafficking in game or their products by imposing stringent sentences. It provides for sustainable exploitation of game and wildlife by providing for hunting methods and devices. The Act is administered by Big Game Parks as delegated by the King’s Office. The Game Act was amended in 1991 and again slightly amended in 1993. This Act focuses mainly on game protection and sustainable use through a defined hunting season and a permit system, and provides for the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the sustainable utilisation.

During the PPG it was identified that co-operation between SNTC and BGP is important in the context of this project. As such a number of bilateral meetings have been facilitated and a working document has emerged in order to clarify roles and responsibilities, to provide greater clarity to stakeholders and to facilitate co-operation. The elements of this working document are as follows:

A. LEGISLATION

SNTC:

The Swaziland National Trust Commission Act No. 9/1972 as amended.

“An Act to provide for the operation of cultural institutions and the proclamation of National Parks, Monuments and matters incidental thereto”.

The SNTC Act confines jurisdiction of the SNTC to the boundaries of its proclaimed institutions. Therefore SNTC is responsible for wildlife only within the boundaries of parks and reserves proclaimed under the SNTC Act.

Such powers are illustrated in the following extracts of the SNTC Act.

“Powers of park wardens and park officials:

“24.(1) Any park warden or park official acting on the orders of a park warden may, within a park or reserve or within five miles from the boundary thereof….

“24.(2) Any park warden or park official acting on the orders of a park warden may within the boundaries of a park or reserve……”

The SNTC is, however, responsible for the National Environmental Education Programme (NEEP) and operates outreach programmes into community areas. The responsibility to practice environmental education is not exclusive to SNTC and should be encouraged countrywide.

BGP:

Wildlife and Flora Act No. 51/1953 (The Game Act)

Date of Commencement 01 September 1953

“An Act to amend the laws dealing with the preservation of game and provide for the preservation of other types of wildlife in Swaziland”.

Short Title: This Act may be cited as the Game Act.

Amended by the Game (Amendment) Act No. 4/1991.

The Game Act applies to the protection of wildlife countrywide.

BGP is mandated by the Head of State to administer and manage the Game Act and CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). CITES applies only to cross-border international trade in species listed in the CITES Schedules, of both fauna and flora, from all countries of the world that are signatories to CITES (approximately 180 Sovereign States).

This mandate by the Head of State to BGP is entrenched by Royal Warrant and facilitated by Legal Notice No. 142/98, which removes the responsibilities for custodianship of the Game Act and CITES from the Ministry of Tourism and assigns them to the King’s Office.

BGP is totally committed to defending the Head of State’s primacy over wildlife, and its own mandate to administer and manage the Game Act and CITES through the King’s Office, this having been determined and installed by the Head of State.

B. PROCLAMATION OF PROTECTED AREAS (PAs)

Both the SNTC Act and the Game Act have provisions for proclamation of PAs.

Proclamation under the SNTC Act:

Gives protection against exploitation e.g. mining, or intrusions e.g. roads and overhead power lines, but this can be overruled.

Limits future land use options and provides regulation of certain activities for the land owners or users, but agreements can be entered into to lessen the impact of this.

Section 17 and Sub-Section 18 (1) of the SNTC Act read:

“Upon the approval of the Minister, the Commission may in respect of a particular park delegate to any person its powers in terms of section 16(2), (3) and (6): Provided that no such delegation shall relieve the Commission of its responsibility to control, manage and maintain each park for the objects described in section 15.

“The Director of National Parks and his functions.

“18(1) The Commission shall appoint a Director of National Parks to be in charge of all proclaimed parks.”

Proclamation under the Game Act:

Gives no protection against exploitation;

Leaves ownership integrity and management integrity intact with owner/custodian.

Section 6(1) of the Game Act provides for proclamation of Sanctuaries under the Act and is silent on all aspects of control, management, and maintenance of Sanctuaries.

There is, however, no need to proclaim any area under either Act to defend one’s wildlife resources because the Game Act, which is arguably the best anti-poaching legislation in

93 existence, already all-encompassingly protects all scheduled species in or out of proclaimed PAs, everywhere in Swaziland.

C. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS

SNTC

Issues permits :

1. To hunt, harvest or convey species within the boundaries of its proclaimed parks and reserves. Beyond these boundaries, a Game Act permit is needed.

2. The SNTC Act does not cover the issue of flora permits outside its proclaimed parks . However the authority of SNTC is mentioned in the Plant Control Act No 8/1981. This Act originated with the Ministry of Agriculture as a Phytosanitary Act to control the spread of plant disease, and includes indigenous, alien, noxious and commercial plants. It was managed by the Department of Forestry within the Ministry of Agriculture. Extract of this Act is attached (Appendix VII), which indicates the scope and intent of the Act and includes Section 16.(5) which calls for the authority of SNTC.

NOTE : a) The origin of C.2. above is as follows. In the 1970’s, the Plant Control Bill was brought to Reilly (who was a SNTC Commissioner) for comment and he suggested that wherever import and export of indigenous plants was concerned, SNTC’s approval be sought before such permits were issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. In hindsight the SNTC is irrelevant to the Plant Control Act, the purpose of which is plant health and phytosanitary issues. b) Unless there is legislation in place which BGP is not aware of, which allows SNTC to issue permits for plant collection beyond the boundaries of its own institutions as is stated in the Baseline Report.

BGP

Under the provisions of the Game Act, BGP issues permits covering :

1. All movements of scheduled species to destinations within Swaziland, or being exported from, or being imported into, Swaziland.

2. All carcasses or parts thereof, of scheduled species being translocated to destinations within Swaziland.

3. The capture and conveyance of live scheduled species between destinations.

4. The hunting, culling and possession of scheduled species or parts thereof, within Swaziland.

5. The keeping of scheduled species in captive circumstances.

6. To accredited game capture operators, permits to operate in Swaziland.

The Game Act also allows owners of land to hunt Schedule III species (Common Game) in season (01 May to 31 August) without a permit.

Under the provision of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), and as implied by this title, BGP issues permits for:

All species of fauna and flora, from all areas of the world, which are listed in the CITES schedules, which are either imported into Swaziland or exported out of Swaziland.

CITES permits cover cross border movements only.

D. OTHER

Responsibilities for wildlife matters incidental to the Game Act and CITES lie with the Head of State and the King’s Office, with administration and management delegated to BGP

2.4.3 Flora and Fauna Conservation Acts

This section presents the most important acts that directly pertain to the conservation of flora and fauna. Other acts that relate to flora and fauna are listed in Annex 3.

Flora Protection Act No.10/ 2001: The Act is to protect indigenous flora and to provide for matters incidental thereto, and replaces the Act of 1952. It provides for the Minister responsible for agriculture to establish flora reserves and prohibit the destruction of flora found therein. The Act prohibits any person from plucking, gathering, cutting, uprooting, injuring, breaking or destroying a plant of any species that is listed in the Schedule to the Act. The Minister is empowered to establish and extend flora reserves and botanical gardens. The Act provides protection for over 200 species, with harsh punishment for offenders. What is significantly different about the new Act as compared to the 1952 Act is a requirement that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be carried out in respect of any activity that would impact on indigenous flora.

The Plant Control Act No. 6/1981: This Act provides for control, movement and growing of plants and matters incidental thereto. It prohibits the exportation of indigenous plants without a written permission from the Swaziland National Trust Commission. It protects the phytosanitary condition of the flora in Swaziland by insisting on a phytosanitary certificate for all soil and plant material entering the country. The Swaziland Citrus Board is empowered to authorize the phytosanitary status of citrus consignments. The Minister of Agriculture is solely responsible to regulate or prohibit the importation of wild mushrooms. The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture ensures the protection of land from noxious weeds. The Secretary also grants permission to dispose of or use for building or manufacturing any article of timber infested by wood borer. This serves to protect our timber trees from certain insect pests. Citizens of Swaziland are empowered to notify inspectors in the Ministry of

Agriculture about the appearance of flying locusts, nymphs or eggs deposited by locusts in their property. This protects our flora from devastation by brown or red locusts (including Locusta pardalina and Nomadacris septemfasciata). Nurseries must be registered and inspected.

Certain sections of the Plant Control Act of 1981 make reference to animals. Part II, III, IV, VIII and IX outline measures to control pests and the importation of alien (exotic) species. Section 14 of the Act prohibits the importation of Second Schedule items which includes inter alia all alien animals. Since alien species are often a threat to the indigenous fauna and flora, this section of the Act, if enforced, should contribute positively towards the maintenance of Swaziland’s biodiversity.

The Protection of Freshwater Fish Act No. 75/1937: The Act prohibits the stocking or removal, cultivation, recreational fishing or dealing in fresh water fish without a permit. It provides for open and closed fishing seasons and specifies fishing techniques to ensure sustainability. The Act further regulates the introduction of alien fish into the country’s water bodies. Although it does not provide for formal protection of threatened species or species whose populations within Swaziland are currently on the decline, it gives some protection to indigenous species of fish.

2.5 State of Biodiversity Legislation

The nation has a rich culture of managing its wildlife resources as evidenced by the annual cultural and traditional festivals that rely on biodiversity products which have to be guarded jealously to perpetuate Swazi culture and tradition, itself a source of national identity and national pride unmatched elsewhere in Africa. However, much of this legislation is out dated, fragmented and many gaps and overlaps exist limiting Swaziland’s capacity to fulfil the CBD provisions.24 The gaps include:

 lack of support for sustainable utilisation of biodiversity on Swazi Nation Land (SNL);  absence of an umbrella Act that integrates the fragmented legislation;  insufficient protection of threatened species and aquatic systems; and  inadequate support for ex-situ conservation and control of alien invasive species.

On the other hand overlaps exist in other spheres such as:

 proclamation of certain protected areas is done by SNTC, while game sanctuaries are proclaimed under the Game Act; and  permits for trade in animals products are issued under the Game Act while those of flora are issued under the Flora Protection Act. All permits for international trade in species listed on CITES Schedules are issued by the CITES Management Authority on the advice of the Scientific Authority.

24 Swaziland Environment Authority 2007. Biodiversity Conservation and Management Policy. The Swaziland Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory (BCPD) Project.

Swaziland has made the following strides to implement the provisions of the CBD25:

 Signature and ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1994);  Prepared a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) under revision in 2010;  Acceded to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (1997);  Formulated a National Environment Action Plan (1997);  Formulated a Forest Policy (2000), a National Forest Programme (2002) and Forestry Bill (2008);  Promulgated a new Flora Protection Act (2000);  Established a Biodiversity Implementation Programme Committee (1997) to oversee the implementation of the CBD and its related activities;  Gazetted revised Environment Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations (2000);  Gazetted the Environmental Management Act and established the Swaziland Environment Fund (2004);  Gazetted the Water Act (2003) and prepared an Integrated Water Resources Master Plan (2008);  Strengthened the National Plant Genetic Resources Centre and National Herbarium;  Carried out a study to identify protection worthy areas with a view to declare them protected areas (2001). Big Game Parks carried out a comprehensive National Protection Worthy Areas Survey under the aegis of SNTC in 1979 which formed the basis of the 2001 survey;  Established 3 Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCA), focusing on an ecosystem wide management approach in areas of highly significant biodiversity shared by Swaziland, Mozambique and South Africa;  Established the country’s first SNL community-Based Management Area in Shewula and prepared SNL community Nature Reserve Conservation Strategy (2007);  Initiated the formulation of a national biosafety framework and drafted the Biosafety Bill (2008);  Prepared the Access and Benefit Sharing Bill (2008);  Carried out a Fisheries Survey in 2002 to prepare an inventory of fish species in the major rivers;  Prepared a Tree Atlas of Swaziland (Loffler, L. and Loffler, P. 2005);  Prepared the Annotated Checklist of the Trees of the Lubombo Conservancy (Loffler, L. and Braun, K. 2009);  Initiated an Invasive Alien Plant survey followed by an eradication campaign and preparation of an Invasive Alien Plant Strategy (2009);

25 Swaziland Environment Authority. 2010. Swaziland’s Fourth National Report to The Convention on Biological Diversity. GEF, Government of Swaziland and Convention on Biological

 Restructured the Swaziland National Trust Commission to incorporate new forms of protected areas according to IUCN categories; and  SNTC and BGP working with private sector conservancies to formalise and gazette these areas under the SNTC or Game Act.

While the above activities are indicative of Swaziland’s resolve and determination to implement the provisions of the CBD to the book, there are critical legal and institutional framework challenges that need to be addressed.

The SADC Regional Biodiversity Strategy whose objectives include the provision of guidelines for building the region’s capacity to implement provisions of the CBD gives high priority to the following constraints within the SADC region:

 Limited alternative livelihood opportunities outside agriculture and natural resource exploitation, thereby increasing pressure on natural resources;  Inadequate biodiversity inventory and monitoring systems, knowledge on and ability to handle biodiversity information;  Inadequate incentives for biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use;  Low levels of awareness, knowledge and appreciation of biodiversity at various levels;  Weak institutional and legal frameworks for implementing biodiversity initiatives;  Limited and unsustainable funding for the implementation of Biodiversity Work Plans from the CBD;  Inadequate research and development approaches for implementing biodiversity programmes; and  Limited attention to the management of Genetically Modified Organisms and Invasive Alien Species, both of which are major issues in Southern Africa.

At the local level the SADC Regional Biodiversity Strategy identifies the following as the constraints faced by Swaziland in implementing the provisions of the CBD:

 Inadequate representation of the full range of natural ecosystems in the PA network;  Unsustainable use of biodiversity outside PAs due to inadequate provision and protection of exclusive rights to manage their biological resources;  Inadequate conservation of agro-biodiversity;  Bio safety issues not adequately catered for in the existing biodiversity initiatives;  Weak institutional and legal frameworks for implementing biodiversity conservation; and  Low levels of awareness and appreciation of the value of biodiversity conservation.

However, the local list of constraints can be increased to include all those mentioned in the section relating to the constraints identified at regional level as these also apply to Swaziland.

CBD Decisions V/6 (2000) and VII/11 (2004) call on parties to apply an ecosystem approach which is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way, thus reaching a balance of the three objectives of the Convention. Furthermore, the ecosystem approach entails a social

98 process; different interested communities must be involved through the development of efficient and effective structures and processes for decision-making and management. In the framework of the ecosystem approach, parties to the CBD further adopted specific principles and operational guidelines on sustainable use, Decision VII/14: the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the sustainable use of biodiversity. These principles and guidelines were drafted with a view to generating incentives for the conservation and restoration of biodiversity because of the social, cultural and economic benefits that people derive from it. Of particular interest in this study, the following Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines are relevant:

. Principle 1: Supportive policies, laws, and institutions are in place at all levels of governance and there are effective linkages between the levels. . Principle 2: Recognising the need for a governing framework consistent with international and national laws, local users of biodiversity components should be sufficiently empowered and supported by rights to be responsible and accountable for use of the resources concerned. . Principle 4: Adaptive management should be practiced, based on science and traditional and local knowledge; iterative, timely and transparent feedback and adjustment of management based on timely feedback. . Principle 5: Sustainable use management goals and practices should avoid or minimise adverse impacts on ecosystem services, structure and functions as well as other components of ecosystem. . Principle 7: The spatial and temporal scale of management should be compatible with the ecological and socio-economic scales of the use and its impact. . Principle 9: An interdisciplinary, participatory approach should be applied at the appropriate level of management and governance related to the use. . Principle 12: The needs of indigenous and local communities who live with and are affected by the use and conservation of biological diversity, along with their contributions to its conservation and sustainable use, should be reflected in the equitable distribution of the benefits from the use. . Principle 13: The costs of management and conservation of biological diversity should be internalised within the area of management and reflected in the distribution of the benefits from the use. . Principle 14: Education and public awareness programmes on conservation and sustainable use should be implemented and more effective methods of communications should be developed between and among stakeholders and managers.

The above international obligations and principles are applicable to specific wildlife species or their habitats, or to a holistic concept of sustainable wildlife management as part of each country’s efforts to preserve biodiversity and ensure the sustainable use of its components.

Some international obligations pose significant limits to the sovereignty of countries in regulating wildlife use and conservation and one such obligation is the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES

99 requires States to adopt among other things, legislation that designates at least one Management Authority and one Scientific Authority. At the moment in Swaziland, Big Game Parks serves as both the Management Authority and the Scientific Authority outsourcing the Scientific Authority by using appropriate scientific expertise where this is available in Swaziland, but if not BGP seeks advice and guidance from the best and most appropriate scientific authorities wherever they are outside Swaziland. There is therefore a need to build capacity within Big Game Parks or to fulfil this function as is the CITES requirement.

2.6 Institutional and Governance Context

The Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs (MTEA) derives its mandate of being the primary custodian of biodiversity in Swaziland from the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland. MTEA governs laws pertaining to environmental management, protected areas and plant resources in and outside protected areas, and houses the Swaziland Environment Authority (SEA), the Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) and the Forestry Department to fulfil that mandate. Both SEA and SNTC are parastatals funded by the fiscus but functioning under independent boards appointed by the Minister.

The King’s Office is also a key custodian of biodiversity and governs laws pertaining to game as well as the implementation of the CITES. However, the King’s Office has assigned this function to Big Game Parks (BGP) which now administers the Game Act and handles all issues pertaining to CITES. Other Ministries involved with biodiversity conservation and utilisation include, The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development (MEPD), Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Prime Minister and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister among others.

Also coming out of this study as a result of discussions with various Government Departments and Agencies is the confirmation of the absence of strong platforms/mechanisms for the stakeholders to implement biodiversity projects. This is further articulated under Section 3.4.1.2: Facilitating Institutional Capacity Development where the main institutions responsible for coordinating and management of biodiversity are identified as SNTC, SEA, MOAC and the King’s Office but whose interactions are considered as weak.

2.6.1 Government Protected Areas

The Government PAs in Swaziland i.e. Malolotja, Mlawula, Mantenga and Hawane are managed under the Swaziland National Trust Commission which was established in 1972 by the SNTC Act. SNTC holds the authority, responsibility and accountability for managing the protected areas determining the conservation goals and management objectives. While its mandate includes the proclamation of protected areas it does not manage the protected areas held under private or SNL community ownership. An attempt to restructure SNTC into a commercial entity to reduce dependence on Government was undertaken through a study done by the Howarth Tourism and Leisure Consulting. However, while most of the proposed

100 recommendations were sound it appears that restructuring was not successful for the following reasons:

. The legal framework within which the restructuring was to take place was not provided, an area which can be funded under SNPAS project; . Tourism based joint ventures between SNTC and the private sector players were not managed properly due to lack of expertise on the part of SNTC (can be funded under capacity building in the SNPAS project) and the absence of legally tight agreements; . There was not enough funding to implement the restructuring as the study recommended a high initial investment as a result of an expanded Organisational structure and tourism infrastructure development. . SNTC did not recruit new personnel with relevant skills to spearhead the programme.

Largely it appears that there was a mismatch between the proposed models of restructuring and the capacity to implement the models rendering the exercise futile. Furthermore it does not regulate the utilization of wild fauna in Swaziland which is carried out under the Game Act which was enacted in 1953. Game Sanctuaries are proclaimed under the Game Act.

Table 13: Comparison of the two main Acts governing PAs in Swaziland SNTC Act Game Act Enacted in 1972 and currently under Enacted in 1953, amended in 1991 and in consideration for amendment. 1993. Proclamation of protected areas in Swaziland Proclamation and establishment of Game under SNTC Act and management of SNTC- Sanctuaries and Game Reserves. Preservation proclaimed PAs. of game and other types of wildlife throughout Swaziland SNTC does not participate in CITES BGP administers the Game Act and CITES implementation nor in the regulation and and is both the Management Authority and management of wildlife beyond the Scientific Authority for Swaziland. Seeks boundaries of PAs proclaimed under the appropriate scientific advice from scientific SNTC Act. expertise in Swaziland or, if necessary, other scientific expertise outside Swaziland to perform the function of Scientific Authority.

Does not provide for sustainable utilisation of Provides for sustainable utilisation through wild fauna issuing permits for hunting, game translocations, and game sales. Silent on equitable benefit sharing, and Limited equitable benefit sharing and therefore does not meet all CBD objectives as therefore does not meet CBD objectives as fully as it could although it issues permits for fully as it could. Ready to engage the use of wild flora. communities who are prepared to invest something tangible other than land. Issues permits for the harvesting of plants Issues permits for the use of game all over inside and outside the protected area estate Swaziland. As Management Authority,

101

SNTC Act Game Act according to the Flora Protection Act (2000), should also be issuing permits for use of wild but are not Management Authority as is flora according to CITES. designed by CITES for the issuance of such permits. Protects all species in Government PAs Game Act protects only species on Schedules; on proclaimed PAs, all species are protected. Should consider protecting all species.

According to Principle 5, based on the experience of FAO in advising member countries in the review of existing and drafting new legislation on renewable natural resources, there is a need to ensure clarity in the institutional set-up and inter-institutional coordination. The law should clarify the mandate and functions of all public authorities related to wildlife management. Legal mandates refer to legal provisions requiring or allowing government agencies or persons to engage in activities affecting the resource or its components. If possible, according to the same principle, the law should provide some guidance to the exercise of public discretion, in order to increase the legitimacy and accountability of public authorities.

Furthermore, in order to enhance the accountability of wildlife authorities and avoid the possibility of mixing management/commercial activities and control functions in the same (public or private) body. The legal options emanating from this principle is that in order to facilitate and legitimise the work of wildlife authorities, the law should define at a minimum the powers and responsibilities of each level of authority in order to clarify their respective mandates and division of labour. As a result the law should:

 establish which key government service is responsible to users, and identify discrete components of the mandate of government services at the central and local levels;  specify the criteria according to which powers should be exercised (e.g. by condition of compatibility with wildlife management plans or overall objectives for a particular species);  ensure that the actions of public authorities are open to public scrutiny and that their decisions can be judged against measurable criteria to avoid any abuse of authority; and  allocate management/commercial activities and control functions to different public or other bodies.

As wildlife legislation does not exist in isolation, it must be coordinated with legislation in other relevant areas, such that wildlife authorities need to coordinate their activities with other line government agencies in related areas of work. To make it effective, there is a need to institutionalise coordination with other public bodies and clarify how and when institutional coordination should be sought. More so if for some reason or other, it is not possible like in the current case of Swaziland to have one main body responsible for wildlife

102 management where the relevant legal mandates are and will likely remain scattered among different institutions. As a result of the above scenario, the law should:

 spell out in detail in which cases or on which matters institutional coordination should be sought;  define the procedures or mechanisms through which coordination can be achieved, for instance by (a) creating a duty to exchange information on matters of common concern, and/or request the prior consent or advise of interested government bodies, (b) setting up joint decision-making procedures, (c) creating coordination body composed of government and possibly non-governmental representatives.

Furthermore, Principle 6 of the same FAO guidelines calls for the involvement of local communities and the private sector in wildlife management. This is in recognition that history has demonstrated focusing mainly on the control functions of government authorities related to natural resources law has a limited impact on social behaviour.

Positive results can be obtained by the involvement of local communities and the creation of a significant stake in the management of wildlife resources for them. A model for stakeholder participation is presented in the figure below where at the protected area level, stakeholders make their contributions to an issue that directly affects and policies and legislation is crafted taking those concerns into consideration. Once adopted into the legislative framework, it becomes mandatory when enforced by the regulatory authority which in this case could be SNTC or BGP.

Figure 31: A model for stakeholder participation in protected area governance

103

2.6.2 SNL Community Conservation Areas (CCAs)

Community Conservation Areas (CCAs), established on Swazi National Land (SNL) generally comprise natural and modified ecosystems including significant biodiversity, ecological functions and cultural values voluntarily conserved by local communities through customary laws or other effective means and are characterised by:

 a strong relationship between a given ecosystem, area or species and a specific indigenous people or local SNL community concerned about it because of cultural, livelihood-related or other strongly felt reasons;  the fact that the SNL community possesses—de facto if not also de jure— the power to take and enforce the key management decisions regarding the territory and resources;  the fact that the voluntary management decisions and efforts of the SNL community have led to (or are well in the process of leading to) the conservation of biodiversity, ecological functions and associated cultural values, regardless of the objectives of management originally set out by the SNL community.

The above definition of CCA applies equally to the Shewula Community Nature Reserve (SCNR) and the Mambane Community Project (MCP) which are the two community conservation areas that are being analysed and were visited in this study. It is hoped that lessons learnt from these two can be replicated in other CCAs in Swaziland.

Shewula Community Conservation Area

The Shewula Community Nature Reserve (SCNR) has been in existence for over a decade having been set up by the Shewula Community Trust under the Patronage of Chief Mbandzamane, himself a strong promoter of the three CDB pillars, who served as a Board Member of the SNTC Board at the time of the establishment of the SCNR. The community decided to set aside about 2500 ha of grazing land for the purpose of establishing the SCNR with both strict preservation and sustainable use objectives. The Community established the Shewula Mountain Camp, which is registered under STA as a community ecotourism venture offering accommodation, walking trails and community experience. The camp is situated on a piece of land between the Nature Reserve and the communities. Both legal (the Trust is registered through a Deeds Office) and customary laws and institutions (through the Traditional leader) are responsible for decision making about the Nature Reserve which however, is not yet registered or gazetted as a protected area.

Community Governance Perspective A very simple organisational structure for the running of the nature reserve and the camp exists where decisions are made by the Shewula Community Trust which comprises four women and four men. The decisions are implemented by management team comprising a female camp manager, an administrator and a small support team which is responsible for cleaning and cooking for the tourists.

104

Through the years, two members from the community have received training to improve capacity for running the camp and for managing the nature reserve. However, for reasons not clear to the author, the person who received training in management of the nature reserve is performing duties not related to his training.

Shewula is collaborating with other protected areas such as Mbuluzi Game Reserve (Private Game Reserve), Hlane (held in trust by His Majesty The King but managed by Big Game Parks), Mlawula (Government Protected Area) within the confines of the Lubombo Conservancy which is part of the Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area comprising Swaziland, Mozambique and South Africa.

Considering the complexity of governance issues at the SNL community/traditional level, and its interface with government and the private sector, emphasis should be put on the identification of people with appropriate knowledge and expertise to help guide the process of SNL community participation. This view is shared by the stakeholders in the conservancy.

Within the context of the ELP, within the Technical Support Team (TST) a thematic working group on community participation is being formed and this could provide the appropriate vehicle for the guidance mentioned above. Additional funds for the operational costs and training of this team would be required to make it fully effective.

Support to the creation of a Community Based Organisation (CBO) is also considered under the ELP. This CBO would represent communities on the LC, and could expand to represent communities at a national level. This concept could be further explored under SNPAS preparation (e.g. a trust fund for the community conservation and tourism initiatives could be established; well-defined criteria and BOD would guide the funding of these initiatives during project implementation and beyond).

Under these arrangements Shewula enjoys legal recognition/shelter through the Swaziland public and private partnership policy and the SADC protocol on the development of transfrontier conservation areas. Under these arrangements Shewula is posed to grow taking advantage of the marketing and other skills provided by the other stakeholders in the conservancy and the TFCA

However, Shewula still faces numerous challenges to include:

 The nature reserve although set aside for conservation purposes is still subjected to grazing and illegal harvesting of plants and poaching of the small game found in the reserve. Due to invasive species encroachment grazing area is becoming limited.  The nature reserve is not gazetted or proclaimed and therefore not included in the land area under the protected area system of Swaziland not realising its true value in the process.  The community lacks the necessary capacity through appropriate technologies such as fencing to effectively manage the nature reserve.

105

 SNL community experience which involves tourists visiting local SNL community households is offered only by a few selected members of the SNL community resulting in limited support for the project.

2.6.3 Private Sector Protected Areas

Private Sector protected areas in Swaziland have grown in number over the past decade and now represent a large area of Swaziland’s conservation estate. The success of these areas has been facilitated by clear land ownership rights which have encouraged market driven game ranching and other conservation related industries. Generally the governance structures associated with these areas are very simple and clear-cut, often being a single individual or family and allow for efficient decision making. Where these ownership rights are clear and secure for the long-term, there are greater incentives for practicing conservation of resources for future use. This project recognises the importance of this for conservation success and will seek to further encourage the growth of private sector conservation in the country through incentives and innovative market orientated solutions.

In some cases, Private Sector protected areas have evolved from individual ranches to conservancies where adjacent landowners are jointly managing their properties as single units as exemplified by Phophonyane and Lubombo Conservancies which were visited during this study. Similar arrangements are found elsewhere in SADC. For example the Save Valley Conservancy in the south east lowveld of Zimbabwe where landowners removed internal fences and put up one perimeter fence to manage that land as a wildlife area thereby, creating one of the largest privately owned protected areas in Africa. The conservancy successfully undertakes both consumptive (hunting) and non-consumptive (photographic) tourism, which are viable enough to support conservation on a large scale.

The Lubombo Conservancy which comprises Mbuluzi, Mlawula, Hlane, Shewula and Savannah Research Station (an NGO housed in Mbuluzi) provided a written account of their conservancy governance framework which is similar to Phophonyane as follows:

Background

The Lubombo Conservancy (LC) represents Swaziland’s largest conservation area. Its members represent state, private sector, and communities. It has recently been registered as an NGO and a not-for-profit and is implementing a project funded by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), the Eco Lubombo Program (ELP). This program focuses on strengthening the LC to take a proactive conservation role in the broader landscape of the Lubombo Mountain Ecosystem (LME). Its primary strategy is to broaden the LC’s partnerships with communities, state and private sector as the means to 1) expand biodiversity conservation in the LME and 2) create a strong ecotourism product with an emphasis on rural development.

To help ensure sustainability, the LC’s conservation and tourism product should complement regional products such as the Kruger Park, and those found in Northern KZN and Southern Mozambique and significantly enhance the regional conservation and tourism product. The

106

ELP objectives and strategy are consistent with the major regional initiatives: the Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area (LTFCA), and the East3Route. The ELP has been endorsed by a number of stakeholders in South Africa and Mozambique and discussions to integrate the ELP into the LTFCA planning process have been initiated.

Integrated Management Planning (IMP) The partnership strategy focuses on an Integrated Management Planning (IMP) process. The IMP will be the tangible product of a high level of collaboration and participation supported by clear and practically designed activities supporting data collection, information management, spatial planning and zonation. An adaptive management approach will be supported through a research, monitoring and evaluation program. Initial zonation categories for the LME under the IMP are:

 Protected Areas  Conservancies  Community Conservation Areas (CCAs) and Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCCAs)  Support Zones  Protected Landscape

Participatory spatial planning will be the basis for zonation and a supporting sustainable livelihoods/natural resource management program. The SL/NRM program will be an integral part of the IMP. Biodiversity conservation will take place within this framework, and have strong links into a broad range of livelihood and natural resource management activities in the LME. This balanced approach between conservation and development, between the needs of biodiversity and the needs of people, is reflected in what is also known as the Landscape or Ecosystem Approach (EA). The EA is the primary implementation strategy of the CBD.

Private Protected Areas Governance Perspective The LC represents Swaziland’s best existing model for implementing the Landscape Approach espoused by the GEF SNPAS project. The constitution of the LC and it articles of association establish a management entity strongly based on equal partnerships of its core representatives from the state, private sector and communities. The BOD must reflect this equal partnership. It provides for a broad representation of stakeholders through the positions of Non-Executive Directors and Associate Members.

The LC through the ELP is creating an extensive stakeholder collaborative framework - a Technical Support Team - made up of thematic working groups. These, in turn, are made up of national, regional and international experts. The TST will help guide the ELP in all its components. The TST also provide the initial base for associate membership of the LC and the framework for all associate members to participate in the most effective way. The ELP is establishing the long-term business plan of the LC, which will be the basis for future funding. The implementation program of the LC will continue under the collaborative framework of the ELP. Although the ELP is at an early stage of implementation, the program has gained a

107 reasonable understanding of some of the key management ad governance issues related to conservation, tourism and rural development.

Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

The following observations on the governance framework of the LC and supporting roles and responsibilities within the context of the ‘Landscape Approach’ can be made:

 The LC must be strong as a partnership and no stakeholder should be allowed undue control over the Conservancy.  The Conservancy should have its own 5-10 year collaborative work program (ELP), and have sufficient capacity and technical expertise to coordinate and manage this program independently.  The program needs support from key partners, such as SNTC, BGP, key government agencies and NGOs, with clearly identified roles and responsibilities.

Areas which have been identified for stakeholder support during ELP implementation are as follows:

SNTC: Roles and Responsibilities to Private PAs

 Liaison with key government agencies, such as SEA, STA, Forestry, Water Affairs, Land Use Planning, etc. to further define and implement the ‘Landscape Approach’. (SNTC should be the main driver of this approach at the national level).  Support to IMP through spatial planning (GIS) and zonation; data collection, information management  Regulations, legislation and policies related to zonation  Support to the development of PA Management Plans and Business Plans based on accepted international standards  Facilitation of stewardship programs in CCAs and on privately owned land  Ecological research and research partnerships  SNL community liaison/extension and education  Training and capacity building in relevant areas  Transfrontier coordination  Support to enabling investment environment for the private sector  Funding for all PAs

Big Game Parks: Roles and Responsibilities to Private PAs

 Implementation of the Game Act and CITES  Game Act awareness raising and training with judiciary, RSP and the public at large  Game management  Translocation of wildlife  Law enforcement and training (including provision of mobile teams)

108

Government: Roles and Responsibilities to Private PAs

 Dept. of Forestry for identifying and implementing forest conservation and management areas  SEA for support to identification and valuation of ecosystem services; support to environmental and management regulations/legislation/policies for zonation; incentives and better policies to support ecotourism  Dept. of Tourism for support to tourism regulations/legislation/policies around zonation  STA for integration of tourism strategy and incentives for SNL community based ecotourism initiatives; support to private sector conservancies where ecotourism/sustainable tourism is practiced; support to ecotourism marketing  Dept. of Water Affairs for water catchment management in CCAs and Protected Landscapes  Ministry of Economic Planning to provide greater incentives and financial support to PAs and CCAs and Support Zones

NGOs/Academic Institutions: Roles and Responsibilities to Private PAs

 Collaboration on sustainable livelihoods and natural resource management programs and activities  Support to business planning, GIS and spatial zoning, data collection and information management

Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

Conservancies are therefore the vehicles through which the Landscape Approach can be implemented. It allows for equal partnerships between stakeholders, where roles and responsibilities are defined and capacity development oriented to the specific needs of the ‘bigger conservation picture’. For the LC, progress depends on these partnerships. Harmonised collaborative partnerships represent the greatest opportunity for the conservancy; internal conflicts between stakeholders represent its greatest threat. To pursue the landscape approach, or the ‘bigger picture’, the LC will need support in developing and implementing the ELP. Specific needs identified at this stage are (other incremental costs still need to be defined under the IMP process):

 Staff: minimum of a program coordinator, SNL community tourism officer and administrative assistant  Operational/logistical costs for the above including physical premises  Community capacity building and training

Community benefits from Private PAs

There are a number of benefits to SNL communities neighbouring private PAs including employment, tourism spin-offs, controlled resource harvesting by invitation (e.g. thatching grass collection) etc. Considering the complexity of governance issues at the

109 community/traditional level, and its interface with government and the private sector, emphasis should be put on the identification of people with appropriate knowledge and expertise to help guide the process of community participation. Within the context of the ELP, within the Technical Support Team (TST) a thematic working group on community participation is being formed and this could provide the appropriate vehicle for the guidance mentioned above. Additional funds for the operational costs and training of this team would be required to make it fully effective.

Incentivising Private Land owners in PA management

There are various opportunities available to actively incentivise private landowners to get more involved in the establishment, formalisation and management of Private Protected Areas. These incentives range from governance, environmental and financing mechanisms incentives, and include:

Stakeholder inclusion and Buy-in: Highlighting the importance and prioritisation of private landowner participation and "buy-in" in PA management and that the PA's under private ownership and control are models for excellence in identifying, developing and expanding PA's for the purposes of protecting and promoting biodiversity (with no abstract political objectives or "back-door" mechanisms for driving any other agendas).

Protection of Land owners’ rights: Emphasising the respect for, and protection and promotion of, private landowners' rights; and clarity and emphasis on specific benefits and added protections of being granted PA status. This is in order to allay any fears and encourage greater private-sector participation.

Enhanced benefits and stakeholder engagement: Develop incentives and benefits for increased or new participation by Private land owners; incorporating mechanisms for the private sector to propose inputs on what specifically would incentivise them, or remove disincentives. This may differ significantly from entity to entity, based on local challenges, how established a PA is, and the monetisation potential of sustainability projects etc.

Financing mechanisms from Market sources: It is recommended that mechanisms for greater participation and engagement of "outside" stakeholders be established i.e. market sources of financing for Private PAs. For example, Montigny Investments is very interested to engage with communities and private landowners to monetise alien invasive species, through the sale of biomass, through already financially sustainable mechanisms and markets. The focus on financial sustainability is crucial.

110

Financing Mechanisms through Government sources: The issue on spending "public" money on private entities needs to be addressed. The receipt of public funding by private entities is extremely problematic, and raises multiple questions that affect public management and accountability. In the case of financial sustainability of a national PAS, where some of the resources are located on private land, but are identified of critical national importance, the State has an interest in ensuring that they are managed appropriately for the long-term.

The barrier to entry for private entities to access public funds should be reduced and Private PA access to government financing should be facilitated. The promotion of biodiversity is by its very definition a public benefit and private participation is critical and should be aggressively promoted. By providing government resources to private landowners to establish and manage Private PAs would provide a strong incentive to participate in conservation

Land use change and de-gazettement protocols: A potential mechanism to allay fears of private landowners on their rights over the PA would be to allow for a mechanism to de- proclaim a PA. This would require the development of stringent procedures to be put in place, but this may facilitate participation if people don't feel "locked -in" in perpetuity, either for policy or financial reasons. Measures and monitoring protocols should also be established to allow for mixed land uses depending on the type of PA.

Most importantly, the sovereignty of His Majesty should be emphasised, especially to encourage the support of traditional structures and communities.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between BGP and SNTC, while not legally binding, shows a clear intent to co-operate in the establishment and gazettement of PAs according to their respective jurisdictions and processes. This provides a secure platform for the engagement of private land owners.

2.6.4 Shared Governance

Also referred to as collaborative co-management governance, or joint governance, is a form of governance in which decision-making authority and responsibility rest with one agency but the agency is required, by law or policy, to inform or consult other rights-holders or stakeholders, at the time of planning or implementing initiatives26.

In proper shared governance situations, the representatives of various interests or constituencies sit on a governance body with decision-making authority and responsibility and take responsibility together. Decision-making is mainly by consensus and transparent and involves one or more bodies who may have decision-making, advisory or executive roles where rules and the roles of each partner should be clearly defined. True shared governance should have three indispensable ingredients:

26 Borrini-Feyerabend, et. al. 2013

111

 A negotiated process;  A co-management agreement (e.g. an agreement describing roles, responsibilities and expected benefits and contributions from the different parties); and  A multi-party governance institution.

Transboundary Protected Areas (TBPA) which can also be referred to as TFCAs, represent a particularly important form of shared governance involving two or more governments and other local actors. The principal benefits of TFBAs include:

 promoting international peaceful cooperation, at different levels and in different for a;  enhancing environmental protection across ecosystems;  facilitating more effective research;  bringing investment and economic benefits to local and national economies;  ensuring better cross-border control of problems such as fire, pests, poaching, and smuggling27; and  in some African context, partially restores continuity between the same people/cultures that were separated by artificial borders created through colonialism.

Swaziland is taking part in the development of TFCAs with its neighbours Mozambique and South Africa to include the Maloloja/Songvela and Lubombo areas among others. In developing these TBPAs or TFCA Swaziland should be aware and prepared to deal with the governance challenges that are inherent in these processes to include:

 different and sometimes conflicting policies that can reduce effectiveness;  language barriers, cultural and or religious differences that can cause misunderstandings;  different capacities, resources and commitment or authority of protected area institutions or staff on either side of the border that can lead to dominant/weak relationships; and  lack of ratification of international protocols or conventions which can prevent them from being used in transboundary collaboration.

2.7 Expected outcomes, indicators, threats and mitigation measures

For the purpose of the PPG Process, the issues concerning protected area governance discussed in the report are presented/ summarised in matrix form below starting with the expected outcome, indicators for successful application, threats likely to be encountered and possible mitigation measures to off-set any such threats.

Table 14: Expected outcomes, indicators, threats and mitigation measures Expected outcome Indicators Threats Mitigation measures Outcome 1 Roles and Resistance from Continued dialogue Clarification of responsibilities of stakeholders to the with relevant roles and SNTC and BGP proposed changes. stakeholders in Swazi

27 Borrini-Feyerabend, et. al. 2013

112

Expected outcome Indicators Threats Mitigation measures responsibilities agreed upon through Threat to SNPASSS society to ensure between and among a Memorandum of project compliance, taking stakeholders to Understanding and implementation. note of limited time ensure conformity based on the SNTC frame. with CBD Act and Game Act objectives of Roles and biodiversity responsibilities of conservation, other Government sustainable and NGOs clearly utilisation and spelt out. equitable benefit sharing. Outcome 2 Capacity built to Resistance from Maintain current Enhance allow only Swazi some of the Management implementation of entities to perform stakeholders. Authority, Capacity CITES provision of functions of built to enhance the Management and Scientific Authority performance of the Scientific Both fauna and flora Scientific Authority. Authorities trade permits issued from CITES Management Authority only. Outcome 3 National campaign Can take long to be Be prepared for Raise awareness linked to Swazi way grasped due to long protracted campaign and knowledge of life is up and years of negative and ensure adequate about biodiversity running through all perceptions which funding for the legislation and forms of media, e.g. need to be corrected. program. management radio, television, Formalise the EESS policies at all levels newspapers, and implement its key of Swazi society. electronic networks recommendation. Promotion of equity, Support exchange fair management visits at the regional practices, level. participatory mechanisms for decision-making and accountability. Training of stakeholders in management of protected areas taking into

113

Expected outcome Indicators Threats Mitigation measures consideration IUCN categorization and management plans is on-going and management effectiveness improves.

Outcome 4 Legal platforms Resistance to change Avail resources from Legitimise the comprising especially from the fiscus for this participation of advocacy/CBO Government agencies purpose e.g. create stakeholders in PA groups set up and who might feel Stakeholder Liaison governance running. erosion of power. Officer posts within SNTC and BGP. Make it KRA for government agency. Outcome 5 All PAs proclaimed Resistance since This should be a Prepare under specific IUCN many have been condition for Management Plans category based on running without this proclamation. for each PA based management condition Management Plans on approved IUCN objectives should be flexible to category allow for revision whenever necessary. Outcome 6 Capacity built to Language barriers, Promote greater Enhance the negotiate TBPA cultural and or diversity of capacities development of development religious differences and resources; shared governance; processes; that may cause Capacity building and Trans Boundary TBPAs established misunderstanding; availability of Protected Areas and running Different capacities, resources. (TBPAs) resources and Ratification of commitment on protocols or either side of the conventions. border that may cause dominant or weak relationships; and Lack of ratification of protocols or conventions which can prevent them from being used in collaboration.

114

2.8 Conclusion

A lot of policies, strategies, projects and programmes to address biodiversity conservation and management issues exist in Swaziland to fulfil the obligations under the CBD but they are fragmented or uncoordinated. There is therefore a need to urgently address the issues of roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders to establish synergies rather than isolated implementation of these activities

Also coupled with fragmented legislation and lack of coordination, is the absence of platforms for collaboration in biodiversity conservation and management and where platforms exist there are no strong mechanisms to ensure that such platforms are utilized optimally. In the absence of action on the part of stakeholders whether due to lack of funding or other reasons it will be difficult to overcome some of the governance challenges facing the country.

The foundation is there and there is a need for closer collaboration among the stakeholders, especially between SNTC and BGP who administer the two Acts critical to biodiversity conservation in Swaziland. All other stakeholders, be they from the private sector, or communities or other Government Departments are looking for leadership from these two Organisations. It is therefore critical to ensure that the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders especially SNTC and BGP are clearly articulated to avoid replication or possible conflicts and foster trust.

115

3 Review of CBNRM in SADC to enhance CBNRM in Swaziland

3.1 Introduction

Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) is an emerging international model for natural resources management which in the last twenty years has become an increasingly popular resource management approach which promises to address both the social justice and environmental protection objectives282930. Following a protracted period of strictly centralised wildlife management and exclusive wildlife conservation, there has been a commendable attempt to balance the needs for conservation with those for rural development through the promotion of sustainable use of wildlife resources for the benefit of rural populations31.

Some workers describe emerging CBNRM initiatives as supporting the principles of participatory democracy and of building networks and linkages among different constituency groups, interdisciplinary groups, levels of governments, and economic sectors32. Many CBNRM initiatives tend to recognise the need for various vantage points and seek to incorporate the disciplines of environmental economics, conservation biology, ecology, organisational management and leadership, political science, sociology and environmental education. But what is CBNRM?

CBNRM has many definitions which are similar to those of sustainability which include both process and strategy. However, core to all these definitions is an approach to natural resource management that seeks to support long-term sustainability through the broad participation of stakeholders in decision-making33. CBNRM has evolved in the last two decades in response to the limitations of previous top-down resource management approaches which were based primarily on a pure technical approach to natural resource management34.

With respect to the conservation objective, the rationale for CBNRM development has been largely instrumental and pragmatic i.e. (a) government environmental agencies in Africa do not have the resources to fulfil their managerial mandates and need to incorporate the services of the broader populace; (b) national park and forestry estates are inadequate to meet the needs of biodiversity and need to be complemented by far larger landscapes managed for

28 Gruber, J. 2010. Key Principles of Community-Based Natural Resource Management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing commons. Environmental Management. Issue 1. 45:52-66. 29 Brosius, J., Peter., Tsing, A., Lowenhaupt, A., Zerner, C. 1998. Presenting Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-based Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 11:2 30 Baldus, R.D. 2009. A Practical Summary of Experiences after Three Decades of Community-based Wildlife Conservation in Africa. “What are the Lessons Leant?” Joint Publication of FAO and CIC. Budapest 128p 31 Baldus, 2009 32 Gruber, 2011 33 Soeftestad, L.T. (Ed) 2006. Community-Based Natural Resource Management Network, Newsletter. Issues 1-25 (On line) URL:http://www.cbnrm.net/index.html. 34Armitage, D. 2005. Adaptive capacity and Community-Based Natural Resources Management. Environmental Management 35:703-715.

116 conservation; and (c) rural farmers, in-place and beyond the effective control of government, are the real arbiters of environmental destiny and should be given the conservation role that this position dictates35. These arguments make sense only if certain conditions apply:

 When “the communal” (or community), is given form and substance in specified regimes of land and resource management.  When communal approaches and state management are understood as complimentary rather than mutually exclusive alternatives, and  When communal regimes are integrated into national systems of conservation planning and implementation.

A second objective, in addition to the conservation one discussed above, is that of rural development which encompasses poverty alleviation, livelihood enhancement and economic development as some of its components. Linking this to the conservation objectives one argument used is that the costs of conservation (both direct and opportunity costs) must be matched or exceeded by economic benefits before rural farmers are persuaded or motivated to invest in conservation36.

Another school of thought to support this is that natural resources constitute a valuable economic asset for the rural people but this asset is generally underexploited and yet this could be an important fulcrum for rural economic development if the assets’ true economic values are realised through commoditisation and captured by its rural producers. This was the case for CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe which shall be used in this paper to draw lessons from twenty or so years on CBNRM in southern Africa.

Thus, whatever the cause, this community-based approach draws upon the principles of building social capital which includes building networks, norms and trust37. A working definition of CBNRM which will be used in this study is as follows:

“CBNRM is generally viewed as a mechanism to address both environmental and social- economic goals and to balance the exploitation and conservation of valued ecosystem components. It requires some degree of devolution of decision-making power and authority over natural resources to communities and community-based organisations. The approach seeks to encourage better resource management outcomes with the full participation of communities and resource users in decision-making activities, and the incorporation of local institutions, customary practices, and knowledge systems in management, regulatory, and enforcement processes”38.

35 Murphree, M., 2004. Communal Approaches to Natural Resource Management in Africa: From Whence and to Where? Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 7:203-216. 36 Murphree 2004 37 Baker, A. 2005. Capacity Building for Sustainability: Towards Community Development in Coastal Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management 75:11-19. 38 Armitage 2005.

117

The definition clearly encourages a move away from the top-down approach of the past to a situation where the “top” sheds some of its power through devolution to communities and resource users (i.e. stakeholders) to ensure stability through ownership of decisions taken with their (stakeholders) active participation. This is part of action-oriented approaches that need to build individual capacities to make personal changes39 and provide for effective social interaction, including interactive problem solving, conflict resolution, and shared learning.

A variety of models exist for supporting these outputs including participatory action research, adaptive management, trans-disciplinary research and community based natural resource management. Such models require a degree of interaction and collaboration among actors operating at different scales of management and a commitment to the generation and sharing of knowledge40. These models are encouraged by Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 which states that:

“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous material and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided”

Principles are needed to guide the selection and location of powers among levels of government and between public and private spheres concerning all powers over natural resources. These powers include executive (decision making, implementation and enforcement), legislative (rule making), and judiciary (dispute resolution and recourse) powers.

Another important CBNRM consideration is the definition of “community” realising that the concept of community can be problematic in that failure to appreciate the heterogeneity of a “community” can result in planners engaging privileged groups. In its broadest sense, the term “community” should therefore encompass a heterogeneous set of local people with a common interest in the resources of an area, but within any community there will be stratification and conflicting interests.

It is suggested that a community should be defined as a set of people with a mutually recognised interest in the resources of a particular area rather than as people living in that

39 Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Warren, J., Noss, R.F. and Dovers, S.R. 2007. Adaptive capacity and learning to learn as leverage for socio-ecological resilience. Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment 5:375-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[375:ACALTL]2.0.CO:2 40 Raymond, C.M. and Cleary, J. 2013. A tool and process that facilitate community capacity building and social learning for natural resource management. Ecology and Society 18(1):25. http://dx.doi.org/105751/ES-05238-180125

118 area hence representing users of a resource rather than a homogenous resident unit41. A framework to identify key community types may include:

1. community of place (e.g. residents in the country side) 2. community of interest (e.g. wildlife conservation) 3. community of practice (e.g. regional natural resources management planning staff) 4. community of identity (e.g. traditional leaders)42

In the CAMPFIRE example, the “community of identity” was dominant in the definition of CBNRM while at some level of implementation all four community categories were applicable. As “community of place” all the stakeholders from the public sector (Rural District Councils/Local Government, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management), the private sector (safari operators, taxidermists) and local rural communities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs such as USAID) were involved in the programme.

As community of interest, all the stakeholders referred to above were involved in the CAMPFIRE programme. However, it was viewed by many to imply that only local rural communities were the dominant stakeholder community referred to in the program and yet its success relied heavily on the support and participation of the other stakeholder groups.

The stagnation which currently characterises/affects CAMPFIRE is as a result of the actions or lack of action by some of the stakeholders mentioned above. In this paper the term “stakeholders” shall be used to describe the different players in CBNRM i.e. local or producer communities, relevant government ministries and departments or agencies, private sector and NGOs.

3.1.1 CBNRM General Guiding and Operational Principles

The aims of community-based wildlife management (which is considered as a satellite of CBNRM) are summarised as43:

 Obtaining the voluntary participation of communities in a flexible programme that incorporates long-term solutions to problems arising from the use of natural resources;  Introducing a new system of group ownership and territorial rights to natural resources for communities resident in the target areas. The management of these resources should be placed under the custody and control of the local communities;

41 Gilmour, D. and Fisher, R. 1992. Villages Forests and Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forest in Nepal. Shayogi Press. Kathmandu. 42 Harrington, C., Curtis, A. and Black, R. 2008. Locating communities in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 10: 199-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15239080801928469. 43 Fabricius, C., Koch, E. and Magome, H. 2001. Community Wildlife Management in Southern Africa: Challenging the Assumptions of Eden. IIED Evaluating Eden Series No 6.

119

 Providing appropriate institutions under which resources can be legitimately managed and exploited by local people for their direct benefit. These benefits can take the form of income, employment and production of venison; and  Providing technical and financial assistance to communities that join the programme to enable them to realise their objectives.

Outlined below in Appendix 5 are some of the general guiding and operational principles for CBNRM which are used in this study together with specific examples from some SADC countries to build a case for enhancing CBNRM in Swaziland on Swaziland National Land.

3.1.2 Community-Based Natural Resource Management in SADC

The above generic principles and key characteristics of effective CBNRM have been applied albeit with varying degrees of success in the CBNRM movement in Southern Africa and in this section, the key principles that led to success or failures of CBNRM will be discussed for countries with effective systems to implement CBNRM.

Examples of such effective systems are found in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe where it is recognised that the maintenance of biological diversity depends on the integration of social, biological and economic factors44 and the role of the state is to facilitate this process by ensuring an enabling framework and professional technical inputs. The role of science is to support the planning, training, monitoring and evaluation phases of the policy process. In order to place CBNRM in the economic sustainability of natural resources context/mode, capital is defined as comprising three different types of assets45:

 Human-made capital (Km), that is the stock of all assets such as machinery, factories, roads and the like;

 Human capital (Kh) which includes the stock of knowledge and skills accumulated over time as a result of education, research and innovation; and

 Natural capital (Kn) which covers a wide spectrum of natural assets from resources, both exhaustible and renewable, to the fundamental biochemical cycles that regulate life upon earth.

The overall stock of capital can then be expressed as:

Kt = Km + Kh + Kn ………………………………………………. (1)

This implies that the total stock available to a society at any given point in time is a function of that society’s knowledge and level of technology. Thus to ensure sustainability, the value of the total stock Kt of all forms of capital should be constant or non-declining over time or natural capital should not decline over time making sure it is always available for use in future through some renewal mechanism.

44 Metcalfe, S.C. 1995. Communities, Parks, and Regional Planning: A Co-Management Strategy Based on the Zimbabwe Experience. Pages 270-297. In McNeely, J.A. (ed), Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. IUCN. 45 Hachileka, E. and Kokwe, M. 2000. Best Practices in Community-Based Natural Resources Management. IUCN-ROSA.

120

In this regard, CBNRM approaches can therefore be viewed as promoting human rights of communities, enhancing their control over their local resources and supporting their participation in higher level decision making processes. CBNRM programmes take various forms to include (a) imposed programmes as donor or NGO or government driven; (b) assisted programmes built on the initial efforts of the community; and (c) organic forms that are characterised by communities having ownership with respect to ideas, implementation and benefits regeneration.

Organic forms stand the best chance of contributing to rural economic development as a breakdown in existing institutional arrangements which have tended to be top-down approaches with little local participation have led to unsustainable resource use. In other words, CBNRM approaches therefore, should be seen as an attempt to turn natural resources from being “open access” to being “common property” resources. A number of factors characterise robust common property resources institutions which if applied to CBNRM will result in sustainable natural resource management.

These characteristics include clearly defined boundaries, proportional equivalence between benefits and costs, collective choice arrangements, monitoring, graduated sanctioning, and conflict resolution mechanisms among other things. Furthermore, CBNRM success is characterised by collaboration and no competition; common vision; inputs into policy process; knowledge generation; sharing of experience; benefit generation and sharing; and rural transformation. While the opposite, coupled with individualism; conflict between government and local communities; and lack of innovation, is true of CBNRM failure.

Thus when assessing the success of CBNRM, it is critical to check whether the above characteristics and or conditions have been met. To evaluate the sustainability of CBNRM, it is prudent to consider the following criteria as well:

 The nature of community management bearing in mind that the organic models/forms are more sustainable than the imposed forms.  The definition of sustainability being used, again bearing in mind that if it includes all

capital, natural (Kn) and human made (Km), as the total capital stock (Kt) available, then the over-exploitation of natural capital may not be an important factor while if sustainability is assessed based on the availability of natural stock, then it will be important that natural capital is preserved.  The link between sustainability and CBNRM touches on both macroeconomic and microeconomic issues46 where macroeconomic indicators include CBNRM’s contribution to growth; employment; trade; tourism; and use of products while the microeconomic indicators operate at the level of the individual and include income generation; natural resource based industries; standards of living; and quality of life.

46 Hachileka and Kokwe, 2000.

121

3.2 Development of Conservancies

Another strategy to enhance collaboration in the management of natural resources has been the development of conservancies on what has been termed commercial or freehold private land. A conservancy can be a protocol governing wildlife management by private landowners across their properties representing an integrated approach to wildlife management. This is characterised by binding agreements to remove internal fencing, reduce or eliminate domestic stock, provide water and law-enforcement, and follow similar management and off-take regimes47. Through cooperation between landowners, government and conservation authorities, wildlife conservation objectives can be achieved at a reduced cost to government budgets and can help generate local income to provide an incentive for local communities to protect wildlife on private land.

The CBNRM concept has its origin in Southern Africa, especially Namibia and Zimbabwe and South Africa before independence, where legislation (e.g. 1975 Parks and Wildlife Act in Zimbabwe) was amended to establish the principle that the landowner or appropriate authority of the land where wildlife was found had the legal right to utilise that wildlife. The outcome was very positive as this land use option turned out to be suitable for agricultural regions IV and V that are characterised by low rainfall. The benefits included higher financial returns as compared to cattle ranching, increased employment, economic multiplier effect and most environmental degradation was reversed.

At independence this principle was extended to the communal lands that are state owned and where the rural indigenous folk lived. For Zimbabwe, the appropriate authority status for the management and hence utilisation of wildlife, was granted to Local Government through the Rural District Councils (RDC). These RDCs were non-existent in Namibia and hence local traditional leadership assumed this role. This was the birth of community-based wildlife management in Namibia. The granting of access and user rights to different institutions (e.g. Appropriate Authority status to RDC in Zimbabwe or to Community Trusts as in Botswana) has yielded variable results in the CBNRM movement in different countries.

3.3 Development of trans-frontier conservation areas

The development of trans-frontier conservation areas (TFCA) is the extension of collaborative management of living wildlife resources across neighbouring countries. The development objectives for TFCAs include:

 Supporting long-term co-operative conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural and cultural values across boundaries;  Promoting landscape-level ecosystem management through integrated bio-regional land- use planning and management;

47 Bond, I., Child, B., de la Harpe, D., Jones, B., Barnes, J. and Anderson, H. 2003. Private Land Contribution to Conservation in South Africa. Pages 29-61. In Child, B. Parks in Transition: Biodiversity, rural development, and the bottom line. Earthscan. UK.

122

 Building trust, understanding, reconciliation and co-operation between and among countries, communities, agencies and other stakeholders;  Preventing and/or resolving tension, including over access to natural resources;  Promoting the resolution of armed conflict and/or reconciliation following armed conflict;  Sharing biodiversity and cultural resource management skills and experience, including co-operative research and information management;  Promoting more efficient and effective co-operative management programmes;  Promoting access to, and equitable and sustainable use of natural resources, consistent with national sovereignty; and  Enhancing the benefit of conservation and promoting benefit-sharing across boundaries among stakeholders.

The TFCA paradigm of conservation and development largely builds upon CBNRM as a means to realise development within these areas. This implies that CBNRM can be an important vehicle for rural development across borders. TFCA development should have formal bilateral or multilateral co-operation agreements entered into by the agencies responsible for protected areas. The involvement of communities in protected area planning, policy formulation and management is essential in TFCA as communities living on the borders between countries are generally victims of artificial divisions imposed by political boundaries. Thus CBNRM in TFCAs assumes the role, in part, of restoring the integrity of these border communities.

3.4 CBNRM in Zimbabwe: The CAMPFIRE story

At its inception in the early 1980s the CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe was in response to the new dispensation from a minority ruled state (Rhodesia) to a democratic, independent and majority ruled state (Zimbabwe). This approach provided a strategy for the new state to involve the marginalised majority of rural communities in the management of and hence benefit from wildlife resources found on their communal lands.

Policy shifts in the then Rhodesia, incorporating the commoditisation arguments culminated in the 1975 Parks and Wildlife Act which had the effect of making farms and ranches into proprietary units, combining ownership, management, cost and benefit. The result was increase in wildlife populations, improved ecological integrity and a flourishing wildlife industry, particularly as the economic value of wildlife increased between five and ten through commoditisation in the safari hunting and game viewing modes48. Because of its association with poverty alleviation, livelihoods enhancement and economic development attributes CAMPFIRE attracted the necessary donor funding at its inception which contributed to its reported success in the early years.

Legally, the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 was amended to confer the Appropriate Authority status to Rural District Councils but not to the communal land owners or producer

48 Murphree 2004

123 communities who were equivalent to the private landholders who had successfully implemented this concept during the Rhodesian times. This was the first challenge to CAMPFIRE as in this attenuated devolution, the direct links between production and benefit and between authority and responsibility were broken. This had a negative impact on the success of CAMPFIRE as commoditisation had the unintended effect of inhibiting devolution to the producer communities. In fact in CAMPFIRE, devolution has been emasculated to mean decentralisation from central government to local government i.e. the Rural District Councils.

3.4.1 Institutional Development

Rural institutional and organisational development is the third objective, in addition to conservation and economic development, which is not only complex but critical for success and sustainability in the realm of CBNRM. Under CAMPFIRE, rural communities were supposed to actively participate in the management of their wildlife and other natural resources and it has been observed that interest in natural resource management is closely linked to the levels of benefits that are received at the community level. Also important in the success of CAMPFIRE was the provision of sufficient incentives for other stakeholders to include the Rural District Councils (RDCs), the CAMPFIRE Association (CA) and the private sector (Safari operators). Thus it became necessary to develop guidelines to ensure the equitable sharing of revenue. The objectives of the guidelines were to:

 Provide an agreed framework that allows maximum financial benefits to reach communities who are managing natural resources;  Establish a transparent and accountable set of principles, which fairly allocate the financial benefits from CAMPFIRE among the stakeholders; and  Provide efficient, up-to-date and accurate information which can be used to monitor and guide the development of CAMPFIRE.

Furthermore, while financial controls and contracts could be put in place success in CAMPFIRE required a high level of trust between the stakeholders and in particular:

 RDCs need to trust that the private sector partners are maximising the income from the use of natural resources such as wildlife;  Producer communities must trust that their RDCs are being open and accountable about the income that has been earned;  Producer communities, who manage the natural resources together with their elected representatives, must trust that their elected representatives are managing the natural resources and the money devolved to community level in a responsible and accountable manner; and  RDCs need to trust that the producer communities are responsible in the management and use of their revenue.

124

Since the guidelines are an agreed set of principles and procedures, members of the CAMPFIRE Association are bound by their Constitution to implement these principles and procedures. CAMPFIRE principles include the following:

 Effective management of wildlife is best achieved by giving it focused value for those who live with it;  Differential inputs may result in differential outputs;  There must be a positive correlation between quality of management and the magnitude of benefit;  The unit of proprietorship should be the unit of production, management, and benefit;  The unit of proprietorship should be as small as practicable, within ecological and socio- political constraints.

3.4.2 Key stakeholders in CAMPFIRE

Producer Communities, made up of households which depend on, manage and live with the natural resources under their control. Decision making is facilitated through village/ward CAMPFIRE community structure. Trusts have also been established to manage small community enterprises or income generating projects. These communities are generally characterised by lack of technical skills (business management, wildlife management, negotiating skills), marginalisation in mainstream economic development and their indigenous knowledge which taught them to live in harmony with nature is ignored by hard science.

Rural District Councils (Local Government) who are responsible for the planning and administration of the districts. They comprise of elected Councillors who form the Council and an executive, which administers the decisions of Council. Under the Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27] RDCs are responsible for the management of all natural resources on behalf of the producer communities, hence being the Appropriate Authority for wildlife management in areas under their jurisdiction according to the Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 as amended.

The CAMPFIRE Association is a registered welfare organisation whose membership includes the RDCs implementing CAMPFIRE. It leads and co-ordinates the roles of other supporting agencies including government departments and NGOs. Its objective is to support the ability of rural communities to participate in the economy through the sustainable use of natural resources.

Government Departments: Sustainable management of the natural resources and protection of the environment is a statutory function of the Government of Zimbabwe. Ministries and government departments such as the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management, Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing, the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Environment Management Authority and the Forestry Commission continue to provide technical support and guidance for the development of CAMPFIRE.

125

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGOs) also known as CAMPFIRE Service providers who include among others Africa Resources Trust, WWF-SAPRO, SAFIRE, Zimbabwe Trust, Action Magazine and the government departments stated above.

Private Sector especially Safari Operators who engage in the marketing and hunting of wildlife, which has been the main revenue generation activity in CAMPFIRE: This group is often left out when discussing CAMPFIRE as CBNRM and yet they are the major players when it comes to the utilisation of wildlife in income generation. Almost all RDCs enter into agreements with safari operators when it comes to administration of hunting which is the main revenue generation activity.

3.4.3 CAMPFIRE revenue generation

Most of the revenue generated by CAMPFIRE came from wildlife-based activities with 90% of the revenue as a result of sport hunting. Of that hunting revenue 60% came out of the hunting of elephants while the rest came from other animals to include three of the big five i.e. lions, leopards and buffalo. The remaining 10% of the revenue is from other forms of tourism, the sale of hides, ivory and other animal products.

Between 1989 and 2001 (inclusive) RDCs with Appropriate Authority status earned about US$ 20 million, with the highest income coming in 1999 when districts received revenue US$ 2.7 million coming out of trophy hunting and the once-off sale of ivory that CITES had granted to three SADC countries as COP 10 held in Harare in 1997. At its inception in 1989 CAMPFIRE revenue was slightly below US$ 500 000.

3.4.4 Key lessons learnt from the CAMPFIRE experience

CAMPFIRE, as with any new and dynamic initiative, has evolved from one stage to another by constantly overcoming or adapting to challenges that emerge over the years. Some of the challenges take long to overcome and others re-emerge. While the CAMPFIRE program cannot claim to have achieved its objectives it can claim to be positively establishing the framework for developing the local community institutional capacity for managing wildlife resources. Outlined below are some of the issues that have hindered the CAMPFIRE program from achieving its objectives over the years.

One of the main problems that occurred at the inception of CAMPFIRE was that the stewardship/management of wildlife was decentralised to Local Government when RDC were granted the Appropriate Authority status by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (through the Parks and Wildlife Act). This was done in recognition of the fact that RDCs, according to the Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27], have the responsibility of managing all natural resources on behalf of the producer communities in areas under their jurisdiction.

While this sounds prudent given that Councillors are elected by the producer communities to represent them at RDC level, not all the communities represented in the RDC are wildlife producer communities leading to confusion over the actual communities that were supposed

126 to benefit from CAMPFIRE proceeds/revenues. This is in contrast to generic CBNRM Principle F (Devolution and Empowerment) in that devolution of control and decision making is not left to the affected producer communities whose interests should come first.

The local producer communities have no say as to which safari operator will undertake the hunting operations and in most cases have limited say on how the revenue will be spent. This is also in contrast to the following principles: Principle H (Monitoring, Feedback and Accountability); Principle J (Participatory Decision Making); and Principle C (Resources and Equity).

Although there are guidelines to implement revenue sharing among the stakeholders, these guidelines have not been followed by some if not most RDCs and the producer communities have no capacity/recourse to litigation and trust is lost under these circumstances. Due to the harsh economic environment that prevailed in Zimbabwe during the last decade or so most RDCs stopped paying out revenues according to the guidelines as the funds were used to run the Councils i.e. pay salaries and other running costs.

Furthermore, attempts to have safari operators make direct payments to the affected communities and other stakeholders were futile as RDCs were the ones that had contracted these operators to undertake the hunting operations. This issue is currently the most controversial issue facing the CAMPFIRE Association and its resolution would certainly reverse the current trend of events where the communities are no longer supportive of the programme.

3.5 CBNRM in Botswana

The CBNRM process commenced in Botswana in 1993 with the establishment of the Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust (CECT), to achieve the integration of environmental, economic and social objectives. The Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) and The Natural Resources Management Project (NRMP) (1989-1999) were widely credited for the setting up of CBNRM projects in Botswana. While this occurred in the absence of both policy and legislative development which came later, the number of Community-Based Organisations grew rapidly such that by 2002 forty-six CBOs were registered and twelve of them were involved in joint venture agreements (JVA).

These JVAs operated as the cash engine of the CBNRM process. The formation of the CBOs umbrella organisation, the Botswana Community-based Organisation Network (BOCOBONET) took place in 1998 followed by other CBNRM support and lobby organisations such as the CBNRM Support Programme in 1999 and the National CBNRM Forum in 2000, while the DWNP established an extension department in support of the CBNRM projects. Furthermore, all these developments were taking place without mechanisms to raise, discuss and decide on CBNRM issues at a programme level.

The CBNRM strategy is economically suitable for Botswana as it exploits key comparative advantages of the region e.g. abundant wildlife resources, scenic beauty and Parks. Botswana, unlike South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe, has the added advantage that it did not

127 experience the same kind of land expropriation that took place during the colonial era. Botswana has a low population density meaning that little pressure is placed on wildlife populations in the rural or communal areas.

The main cause of competition over wildlife areas immediately after independence in 1964 was a rapid expansion of the cattle ranches of which Botswana has the largest in the world49. Competition over wildlife use also rose sharply in the 1970s with the escalation in wildlife value and the development of the safari industry. This competition was exacerbated by a rise in meat hunting by an emergent national elite equipped with modern equipment.

Legal access to such hunting was relatively open and local communities experienced the frustration of having their land base eroded and their wildlife exploited without benefit to themselves. Furthermore, rural residents did not have the opportunities and structures to encourage them to manage and utilise wildlife for their own benefit and social development.

However, to rectify this and following protracted negotiations, District Land Boards, in a move to devolve rights and responsibilities over land and wildlife resources to communities, provided long-term leases (10-year) of designated land to communities. These communities would legally be entitled to lease tourism concessions and hunting rights to operators at market rates and the first such entities or community trusts was established in the Chobe enclave in 1994 comprising five villages. Such community trusts have stronger legal proprietorship than similar communities in the CAMPFIRE programme, and in this regard Botswana can be said to have more closely approximated the communal property-rights regime ideal than Zimbabwe.

3.5.1 Key lessons learnt from CBNRM in Botswana

In many cases, the different resource use options such as fishing, wildlife, agriculture and tourism have to contend with overlapping tenure regimes and the challenge for CBNRM initiatives is to clarify and differentiate the various claims on the same resource50. Frequently there are overlapping jurisdictions and competing rights concerning access. The present legal and policy frameworks for providing rural communities with rights over wildlife and tourism depend to a large extend on the goodwill of government in a number of different levels. For example, the President can remove the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) status which protects wildlife as a land use option, while the Minister of Commerce and Industry can make regulations that affect the WMA on issues such as grazing and keeping of livestock.

Botswana has indicated in the media that it intends to cease safari hunting with effect from 2014 and it is not clear what activities will take its place or what effect that will have not only to CBNRM in Botswana but to the region as a whole.

49 Fabricius et al 2001 50 Hasler, R. 1998. The Okavango Delta: The End of Progress? Unpublished manuscript, Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre. University of Botswana.

128

3.6 CBNRM in Namibia

As discussed above, CBNRM in Namibia developed in a similar fashion to the one in Zimbabwe. The owners of commercial farms and ranches were granted use rights over wildlife in 1967 which by independence had grown into a multi-million dollar game farming, tourist and hunting enterprise. In 1991 the Ministry of Environment and Tourism produced a policy to promote the creation of conservancies to that had emerged in Zimbabwe. The Government of Namibia (1996) defined conservancies as follows:

“A conservancy is a group of farms on which neighbouring landowners have pooled their resources for the purpose of conserving and utilising wildlife on their combined properties. The conservancy concept does not have to be restricted to the commercial farming areas, but can be extended to the communal land as well”.

Namibia unlike Zimbabwe does not have clearly defined local government structures and thus has used the conservancy model to create the management context for wildlife and natural resources in communal lands and the 1996 Nature Conservation Amendment Act provides that:

“Any group of people residing on communal land and which desires to have the area which they inhabit, or any part thereof, to be declared a conservancy shall apply to the Minister of Environment and Tourism”.

Therefore, a community can thus acquire the authority necessary under Namibian wildlife legislation to manage and utilise wildlife and natural resources within the designated conservancy area. The group’s membership must be listed and guided by a constitution with the key ingredients including: listed membership, constitution, designated boundaries, administrative and financial competence, sustainable management and utilisation objectives, accountability, and transparency51. The Minister retained regulatory oversight and may, if necessary apply such external sanctions as withdrawal of recognition, amendment or withdrawal of conditions. The legislation only confers utilisation rights over wildlife and tourism resources to communities, not the ownership of the land itself just like in Zimbabwe.

However, CBNRM in Namibia does not encounter the tension that occurs in Zimbabwe between the RDC and the producer communities which as stated earlier on results from the fact that the RDC holds the Appropriate Authority status as opposed to the producer communities. By giving secure rights over wildlife and tourism directly to the producer communities, Namibian policy and legislation allows the communities to define themselves enabling the development of cohesive social management units that are sustainable. Legislation empowers the communities to take decisions about their own destiny without prescriptions as to how large the membership should be or how a conservancy committee should be appointed. Thus communities are able to shape their conservancy according to the

51 Fabricius et al. (2001)

129 social and ecological conditions of their own areas and choose their communities in a manner consistent with their own cultural norms.

3.6.1 Key lessons learnt from CBNRM in Namibia

The only major challenge is the current system of “open access” to communal land that prevails in Namibia which poses a threat to the opportunities for sustainable resource management provided by the conservancy approach. In the absence of exclusive group land rights, other people can encroach into the conservancy and exploit the resources being conserved. There is a need to amend legislation to make sure that as much as the communities have security of wildlife and tourism, they should also have legitimate security over land.

3.7 Key lessons learnt from CBNRM in SADC

The following are some of the key lessons that can be learnt from the development of CBNRM in SADC as shown from the experiences in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe:

 Policy and legislation should be based on local needs and come from practical experience – participatory socio-economic surveys led to the development of policy and legislation by government wildlife practitioners;  CBNRM policy and legislation should allow rural communities to have as much management rights as possible – a real sense of ownership and responsibility comes with strong rights of proprietorship;  CBNRM structures need to be well defined at the time of establishment and be considered legitimate to be effective;  Individual community members should choose to join the CBNRM structure – this builds accountability and acknowledgement of rights and responsibilities;  Participatory planning processes foster stakeholder co-operation, co-ordination and a sense of ownership; and  Management authority and rights to benefit should be devolved to the lowest possible level to have maximum effect on behaviour change – transparency and accountability are easier to achieve with a smaller group and there are also logistical efficiencies.

3.8 Recommendations for CBNRM enhancement in Swaziland

While CBNRM activities are taking place in Swaziland very little has been written about this development. Examples such as the Shewula Community Trust which established the Shewula Mountain Camp and Nature Reserve are CBNRM initiatives which need to be strengthened and repeated elsewhere in Swaziland to ensure the growth of this movement which is a vehicle for transforming rural economies. The activities are centred mainly around the Mountain Camp which accommodates tourists and takes them on drives around the villages and game walks in the nature reserve.

130

The Shewula Community Trust currently engages other tourism players within the context of the Lubombo Conservancy which comprises a government protected area, some private protected areas and one NGO. However only two PAs have been proclaimed, i.e. Mlawula and Hlane, the rest are yet to be proclaimed.

Literature on CBNRM initiatives in the SADC region concentrates mainly on Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa and almost nothing is said on Swaziland and Lesotho and yet there are these known initiatives. According to the Fourth National Report to The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 2010, Swaziland established its first Community-Based Conservation Management Area in Shewula and prepared a Community Nature Reserve Conservation Strategy in 2007 but there are no follow-up publications to this.

The other two initiatives mentioned in literature are the tourist lodges in the Ngwempisi Lodge in Mahamba western Swaziland which are being developed and not much is said about them. Thus, as a starting point, there is a need to increase visibility of this initiative in Swaziland. Swaziland, given its national policy to recognise local communities as the lawful users and custodians of the biodiversity resources on land they have rights to, lays a strong foundation for the development of community-based natural resources management. However, for this to happen, there is a need to develop a national policy on community-based natural resources management. The policy should among other things:

 promote the forging of linkages between communities and other stakeholders;  avoid contradictions between different government departments;  be accessible to all role players;  aligned to international agreements that promote rural development and the sustainable use of natural resources; and  communities should be allowed to define themselves to ensure cohesion or solidarity.

Outlined below are some of the concrete actions or interventions, as learnt from other SADC countries that can enhance the growth of the CBNRM initiative in Swaziland:

 Negotiate and implement a binding CBNRM covenant or agreement with all stakeholder involved;  Establish a representative, accountable and legal CBNRM platform with participation of all stakeholders. This institution could be charged with the implementation of the CBNRM covenant or agreement. It is recommended to formally register this National CBNRM Forum as a membership trust made up of representatives from the government, CBOs, the private sector, NGOs and the principal donors supporting CBNRM;  Clarify and optimise the roles of stakeholders;  The roles of the different actors involved in facilitating CBNRM needs to be clearly reflected in the CBNRM policy;  Government involvement in direct implementation of CBNRM needs to focus on areas where the specific government departments have specialised knowledge and expertise;  There is need to provide space for NGO and private sector involvement in direct implementation of CBNRM projects;

131

 The emphasis of CBNRM implementation and co-ordination should be at local level;  A CBNRM Monitoring and Evaluation Unit to provide oversight in the implementation process should be established;  The CBNRM National Forum would be actively involved in overall CBNRM monitoring;  The Government’s unit would be responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of policies and legislation.  Development of strong and effective umbrella organisations for stakeholder groups that are representative and accountable with a mandate of lobbying and advocacy on behalf of its members on issues of concern within the CBNRM policy framework.

3.8.1 Strengthening stakeholders groups

Government

 Departments such as the Swaziland National Trust Commission, Swaziland Environmental Authority, Swaziland Tourism Authority and the Forestry that are critical to the facilitation of CBNRM need to clarify their roles and areas of support to CBNRM projects;  Greater involvement of other relevant departments into the CBNRM process; and  Better co-ordination of government activities through the creation of CBNRM Policy Unit.  Community Based Organisations (CBOs)  Experiment with different organisational models, particularly within communities. For example by establishing smaller institutional entities below the boards. This could enhance participation, ownership and transparency;  Make CBOs more professional and outsource specialised expertise that cannot be efficiently provided by a CBO;  Continuous training of the board, staff and the general membership on the constitution/deed of trust, roles and responsibilities of each level of the CBO structure. Also business management, tourism and enterprise development are key areas where capacity is required;  Adopt rotational board elections to improve the continuity of boards;  Adopt transparent and simple administrative, organisational and financial management procedures;  Adopt a standard and transparent selection process for partners to enter into joint venture agreement with;  Establish strong and effective deterrents for irregularities; and  The level and nature of support should be determined by the development stage of the CBO and by the progress made. The latter provides a performance incentive for CBOs. Moreover, CBO-performance indicators need to be established and annual inspections of CBO.

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)

132

 NGOs should make CBNRM one of their core businesses and need to specialise their support themes and areas;  Offer support to increase the capacity of the various NGOs working in CBNRM at all levels (technical, financial, institutional/organisational). This can be done through long- term service contracts within the covenant framework;  Assess the needs for ‘on the ground advisors’ and establish longer-term programmes to avoid that CBOs become dependent;  Encourage spatial and thematic specialisation of NGO support and promote high quality services. NGO support structures could be established in the proposed conservancies;  Establish a Community-Based Tourism Enterprise (CBTE) support unit, for example under the wings of umbrella body for the private sector, to co-ordinate, develop, strengthen and market CBTEs and eco-tourism; and  Establish a financial and business management support unit.

Donors and funding sources

 Funding agencies need to adopt a longer-time horizon for their support, make a longer term support commitment or integrate their short-term support in the longer-term CBNRM strategic plan/ covenant;  The Economic Promotion Fund under the RADP could be integrated into or harmonised with CBNRM funding;  Funding and support of CBOs and NGOs could take the form of performance based contracts of at least five years;  The recommended new role of the CBNRM Forum carries resource implications and capacity building which other CBNRM funding instruments may be in the position to support the new institution;  Funding mechanisms, procedures and requirements need to be simplified in order to facilitate CBO access. It is further recommended that funding could be channelled through the National CBNRM Forum to provide funding and technical support. Ideally, funding and support would be available from a one-stop support centre; and Strengthen the co-ordination of donors supporting the same organisations or with the same geographical focus to maximise effectiveness of resource use and to avoid duplication.

Private Sector

3.9 Private conservation areas could be encouraged to participate in CBNRM where appropriate; Conclusion

To enhance CBNRM in Swaziland, it is critical for Swaziland through the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs and the King’s Office to develop a comprehensive National Policy on Community Based Natural Resource Management such as the one developed for Namibia in March 2013. The policy should contain clear aims, objectives, principles and strategies taking into account experiences learnt from other SADC countries as discussed above but also putting into consideration Swaziland’s unique characteristics.

133

4 Financial Sustainability of Protected Area System in Swaziland

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Background

Swaziland’s protected areas (PAs) cover approximately 4% of the country and form the core strategy in ensuring a sound natural resource base, as well as, meeting the country’s conservation obligations under the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). In addition, the protected area system (PAS) contributes significant value to the national economy, primarily in that it underpins a large portion of the national tourism industry, the fastest growing economic sector.

In order to strengthen the PAS to achieve the conservation goals and unleash the systems’ economic potential, there is need to enhance the effectiveness of the PAS as a whole. This includes developing a regional approach to PA management and other conservation activities, strengthening partnerships with other land managers, in particular in the areas adjacent to PAs, and strengthening the integration of tourism and wildlife management.

Despite the substantial economic potential, the PAs in Swaziland are severely underfunded with the government budget allocation to the Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) as the main source of funding, supplemented by entry fees. In the fiscal year 2012/13, the budget shortfall is estimated at 27%, while community conservation areas (CCAs) are not funded at all. Moreover, the PAS is considered inadequate to meet national conservation goals, and further investment is required to expand and improve it. The latter has been articulated as a vision for the effective development of the PAS, involving changes to the PAs included in the system and the surrounding areas.

Sustainable financing requires not only securing adequate funds but also considering the quality, form, timing, targeting, use and sources of funding. It is important to build a diverse funding portfolio, going beyond conventional mechanisms and including multiple funding sources. Funds must also be managed and administered efficiently to achieve cost effectiveness of protected area management operations. In addition, it is necessary to have a mechanism for an on-going and continuously improving understanding of the financial requirements of the protected area system, as well as to be able to harness new opportunities for funding.

The objective of the financial sustainability aspect of the UNDP/GEF Project “Strengthening the National Protected Area System of Swaziland” is to produce a review of the current situation and develop the foundation on which sound financial planning that aims to achieve financial sustainability for the PAS as a whole can occur.

4.1.2 What do we mean by Sustainable Finance

Funding of PAs has been recognised as a major constraint in meeting the global biodiversity protection targets that were set under the CBD held in Rio, Brazil in 1992. As a result,

134 protected area finance formed a key agenda item at both the IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, 2003, as well as the 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (2004), culminating with the release of IUCN’s publication on the subject.52 Much of the initial debate was concerned with raising the levels of funding and developing financing mechanisms to achieve this aim. Recent emphasis has been on ensuring that financing mechanisms are not only efficient and effective, but also sustainable in order to contribute towards effective biodiversity conservation. As a signatory to the CBD, Swaziland is obliged to abide by its provisions, one of which is allocation of funds to protect biodiversity.

Around the world, national governments and international donors fund the majority of PAs, however, as a result of changing development priorities and increasing budgetary constraints, these sources have not kept up with the requirements of the PA network. Funding for PAs has been at best stable and has often declined, despite growing threats to biodiversity and expansions in PAS. In many countries, PAs are typically considered a low priority, and therefore receive only a small and unstable fraction of the needed funds. Biodiversity needs are often considered secondary by both governments and donor agencies when compared to poverty reduction, sustainable use and equitable benefit-sharing objectives.

In addition, in most counties, much of PA finance has been short-term, focusing on land acquisition and capital investment, rather than sustaining the PAS over time. In many instances funding is also underestimated due to the lack of appropriate mechanisms and planning tools to ascertain the real costs of managing and maintaining natural resources. In such cases, not only are real financial needs underestimated, but also operating costs and urgent investments are often neglected. It is for these reasons that conventional systems of funding for PAs have come into question, and development of sustainable financing mechanisms has become a global focus.

The situation in Swaziland presents a number of opportunities and potential barriers to financial sustainability. This report therefore pursues coordinated governance for the PA system that is currently managed by two main governmental agencies (SNTC and the Department of Forestry), and several private bodies whose primary objectives, management styles, and conservation approaches differ significantly (see Table 1). Each institution has adopted management arrangements, internally, with other agencies and with civil society, including allowances for overlaps in certain PAs where different agencies share responsibilities.

Table 15: Characteristics of Current Protected Area System Name Classification Management Size (Sq. Km) Hawane Nature Reserve SNTC 1.5 Mantenga Nature Reserve SNTC 7.25 Malolotja Nature Reserve SNTC 180 Mhkaya Nature Reserve Big Game Parks 100.5

52 Emerton, et. al., 2006

135

Name Classification Management Size (Sq. Km) Mlilwane Private Reserve Big Game Parks 45.6 Phophonyane Protected Area Private 5 Nisela Private Private 40 Lubumbo Trans-frontier International 4,195 total Hlane Royal National Park Big Game Parks 300 Mlawula Nature Reserve SNTC 165 Shewula Community Nature Reserve Community 600 Mbuluzi Game Reserve - private Private 25 Nkhalashane Ranch GKOS unknown Source: adapted from USAID, 2007

However, a very important consideration in regard to this financial planning exercise is the fact that Swaziland has not yet developed a culture of PA planning. There is no long-term PAS development plan in place, nor are there management plans for individual PAs. Relatively few conservation activities are taking place in the majority of the PAs and there is an absence of a historic financial data series to understand current trends and sources of funding. Furthermore, the multiplicity of management approaches and managing entities complicates a systemic understanding of the PAS financial situation. These challenges highlight the need for a comprehensive methodological approach to facilitate the development of a robust financial process that reflects a link between PA management tools, implementing partners and institutional strengthening for PA management.

As part of the UNDP/GEF Project “Strengthening the National Protected Areas Systems of Swaziland”, the aim is to significantly improve biodiversity conservation through determination of a long-term vision for biodiversity conservation, improved governance and institutional capacity, and identification of financial mechanisms to support PAS management and growth. With these characteristics in mind, the strategic approach will involve capitalising on the potential opportunities for synergies and learning, based on the existence of multiple management types and broad stakeholder involvement.

Financial plans differ from budgets in that they not only help to determine the PA funding requirements over time, but also determine the income sources to match those needs over the short-, medium- and long-term. The financial plan takes into account the fact that different sources of funding have different characteristics with regard to reliability, accessibility, flexibility of use, as well as the characteristics of the revenue streams to match both the short- and long-term requirements of the PAS. Funding mechanisms vary in terms of their time horizons. Some take time and effort to establish, providing little short-term gain but have good prospects for steady financing over the longer-term.

IUCN defines PA financial sustainability as the ‘capacity to secure stable and sufficient long- term financial resources, and to allocate them in a timely manner and appropriate form, to

136 cover the full costs of PAs (both direct and indirect) and to ensure that PAs are managed effectively and efficiently with respect to conservation and other objectives.’53

This definition touches upon several aspects related to sustainability of financial resources that are not limited to the origin or source of incoming funds. The volume of funds is certainly an important and necessary condition for effective management of PAs, but international experience shows this is rarely sufficient. In addition to raising more funds, there is a need to address the quality, form, timing and duration, targeting and sourcing of financial resources. In assessing PA financial sustainability, therefore, a range of elements and issues must be considered, including:

 Building a diverse, stable and secure funding portfolio: minimising funding risks and fluctuations.  Improving financial administration and effectiveness: ensuring that funding is allocated and spent in a way that supports PA finance needs and conservation goals.  Taking a comprehensive view of costs and benefits: covering the full range of PA costs, ensuring that those who bear PA direct, indirect and opportunity costs are recognised and adequately compensated, and ensuring that those who benefit from the PAs make a fair contribution to their maintenance. In addition, PA authorities are increasingly expected to justify their budgets in terms of benefits provided to local communities and the national economy.  Creating an enabling financial and economic framework: overcoming market, price and policy distortions that undermine PAs or act as obstacles to PA financing.  Mainstreaming and building capacity to use financial tools and mechanisms: factoring financial analysis and business planning mechanisms into PA planning processes.

4.2 Current Protected Area Framework

4.2.1 Categories of Protected Areas in Swaziland

At present, Swaziland has seventeen conservation areas,54 only six of which are gazetted (i.e. identified of national importance); of these, three are managed by the SNTC, i.e., Malolotja, Mlawula and Mantenga and three by Big Game Parks (BGP),55 i.e., Mlilwane, Hlane and Mkhaya. However, only five of the six (Mlilwane, Hlane, Mkhaya, Mlawula and Malolotja) have been proclaimed (i.e., have legal protection) under the SNTC Act of 1972 or the Game Act of 1953. The six gazetted PAs represent 86% of the current conservation area network. Forestry areas, which could be considered a part of the conservation network, are not identified as such at this point.

53 Emerton, et. al., 2006 54 Roques, 2002 55 Big Game Parks is a private non-profit trust that that manages three reserves in Swaziland (Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary, Mkhaya Game Reserve, and Hlane Royal National Park).

137

The other conservation areas (IYSIS, Big Bend/Mhlosinga Conservancy, Royal Jozini Big 6, Mbuluzi, Libhetse, Emantini, Nisela, Panata, Dombeya, Nkonyeni, Rosecraft, Sibetsamoya, Phophonyane, Muti Muti and Shewula) are not gazetted, and therefore have no legal status. These informal areas are managed either as private PAs or CCAs. As private PAs, without the legal protection offered by proclamation, the long-term security and viability of these areas as conservation areas is somewhat constrained. Though these private reserves and game ranches cover only a small area of Swaziland, the area of private land dedicated to ecotourism and game farming (and other conservation-oriented activities) is steadily increasing. Of the seventeen conservation areas, only Shewula is managed as a CCA and located on Swazi National Land (SNL).

The PAS has three ‘blocks’ of contiguous conservation lands: the first, in the Lubombo region (Hlane, Mlawula, Shewula, Mbuluzi and Simunye) represents a mix of ownership types. The second area, is near Mbabane (Mlilwane and Mantenga), and managed by BGP and SNTC, respectively, and the third, is Malolotja, managed by SNTC, and the adjoining Songimvelo Nature Reserve in South Africa that form a transnational conservation area.

Figure 32: Distributions of Protected Areas in Swaziland Data source: Roques, 2013

4.2.2 Current Protected Area Financing Approach

Depending on their legal and ownership status, the PAs in Swaziland are funded by a mix of national Government budget, self-generated income, and occasionally other sources, such as international aid and donations. Self-generated income is predominantly derived from visitor

138 fees, as well as, concessions for recreational activities, and at some sites from overnight accommodations, restaurants and camping areas. At this point in their development cycle, the majority of PAs in Swaziland require some external financial assistance in their annual budgeting process.

The variety of legal and ownership status amongst PAs complicates the ability to conduct any financial comparisons between them. At SNTC, a Government dependant parastatal56, for example, the overall annual budgeting process involves requesting an annual budget allocation from SNTC’s Board of Commissioners, the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, the Public Enterprise Unit and the Planning Budgeting Committee under the Ministry of Finance, Cabinet and finally the Parliament. SNTC then receives either part of, or their entire request that is then allocated internally between the different PAs based on Government procedures for the use of subvented recurrent and capital funding. Privately owned areas, in contrast, are obligated only to their shareholders. At this point in time, determining the total amount spent in Swaziland on conservation is almost impossible due to the large number of private PAs and the lack of consistent budgeting categories. In addition, SNTC, the manager of 50% of the formally protected lands, is almost entirely dependent on Government funding, but their annual budget requests reflects not evidence-based needs, rather a request based on an internal assessment of what they may feasibly receive in a given year. Creating a shared budget process and achieving consistency across the board in terms of expenditures, cost-efficiencies and quality control will be one of the main challenges facing this mixed-ownership PAS.

The dependence on Government funding has also been very problematic in terms of long- term planning and amounts allocated. The continual variability in how the government allocates funding and in actual amounts allocated has been very detrimental to the management activities of both SNTC and Department of Forestry (Forestry). As a result, both agencies have been unable to create a baseline of management activities, and biodiversity conservation activities have suffered. SNTC, for example, received only Swaziland Lilangeni (SSL) 17,614,000 for nature protection activity in the 2012/13 State Budget, though the actual budget allocation was SSL 18,013,655.57 Figure 2 shows how overall conservation expenditure from the Government has varied over the past several years, and Figure 3 illustrates the combined total of conservation expenditures as a proportion of the annual Government budget.58

56 A parastatal is an entity that is wholly- or partially- owned and controlled by the government 57 SNTC budget, 2013 58 Swaziland Budget Estimates 2011 and 2012

139

Figure 33: Government of Swaziland Expenditure on Conservation Between 2009 and 2013 (in 000’s Lilangeni) Based on Tourism, Gaming and Wildlife, Forestry and SNTC categories listed in the 2011 and 2012 Budget

Figure 34: Protected Area Financing in Swaziland as a Percentage of the Government Budget Based on Tourism, Gaming and Wildlife, Forestry and SNTC categories listed in the 2011 and 2012 Budget

In addition to Government funding, most PAs, including those managed by SNTC and Forestry, depend on a series of self-generated revenues that can be categorised as follows: (i) primary activities of the public institution (entrance tickets, licenses, etc.); (ii) scientific, research and expert activities; (iii) renting of space, accommodation and equipment; and (iv) donations, subsidies, and other forms of assistance. Most PAs in Swaziland charge an entrance fees and manage to capture most visitors. In addition, they charge user fees, such as camping or overnight fees. These fees are retained by the individual PAs, though there is considerable variability in the amounts charged by the various PAs for tourism related services.

Revenues from service concession (i.e., non-extractive commercial activities) are the income of the land managing agency (i.e., Forestry or SNTC) and are designated for nature protection

140 activities. The amounts collected from service concession are determined by each agency individually based on Government rules and accounting procedures. Revenues from concessions (i.e., for extractive uses such as forestry) go to the Government Budget. Concessions may be granted by the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., the Commissioner of Mines for mining concessions) and as a result there is no consistent approach to the assessment of concession request in any of the seventeen PAs, nor is there a consistent approach to fee collection, impact assessment, impact fees or mitigation activities on any concession related activities. Furthermore, since there is a fundamental distinction in the constitutional law of Swaziland between the State and its Government on the one hand, and the ‘Swazi Nation’ and the king on the other, the legal status of the land may also affect the ability to regulate any concessions.

At this point, the PAs in Swaziland receive no financial support from international donors for conservation related operations, nor are any large international NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature of The Nature Conservancy, active in conservation activities in the country.

4.3 Strengthening the National Protected Area System

4.3.1 Economic Rationale for Investing in Protected Area System

Tourism is of growing economic importance around the world. It is an industry that in 2012 contributed 9.3% to the GDP of the global economy and employed 9% of the world’s economically active population.59 It is a key growth sector that has an important impact not only in economic aggregates, but also in employment creation and poverty alleviation. In many countries with significant tourist attractions, tourism has emerged as an impetus for economic growth given its ability to generate foreign exchange and employment. As an economic sector, it is one of the few sectors that can deliver growth and employment on the scale required to make a difference in Swaziland. As a destination country, where natural resources form the mainstay of tourist attractions, the development of a strong business approach to PAs management can result in a significant increase in the number of visitors who are searching for a more diverse vacation experience, one that includes culture, rural communities and places of natural beauty.

Despite Swaziland’s stagnant economy, tourism earnings as a share of GDP increased from about 1.98% in 2000, to 2.5% in direct contributions60 and 5.4% in indirect contributions61 in 2012. In addition, tourism contributed 2.49% to Swaziland’s exports. The direct contribution

59 WTTC, 2013 60 The calculation of direct contribution of Travel & Tourism to GDP by WTTC reflects the ‘internal’ spending on Travel & Tourism (total spending within a particular country on Travel & Tourism by residents and non-residents for business and leisure purposes), as well as, government ‘individual’ spending - spending by government on Travel & Tourism services directly linked to visitors, such as museums or PAS. 61 The indirect (induced) contribution measures the GDP and jobs supported by the spending of those who are directly or indirectly employed by the Travel & Tourism industry (travel & tourism investment spending, Government ‘collective’ spending and the domestic purchases of goods and services by the sectors dealing directly with tourists)

141 of the Travel and Tourism to employment is 4.8% of the total economic activity, and its’ indirect contribution is 13.8%.62 These numbers serve to highlight the importance of understanding the economic impact of PA tourism as an important policy tool that can then guide tourism development and investments, and augment tourisms’ benefits to the economy.63 Economic valuations from other Southern African countries show that increased investments in PAs could generate an economic rate of return of up to 42%.64 While neighbouring countries are not directly equivalent, this indicates that tourism to Swaziland has room to grow. Yet, tourism’s economic contribution to the Swazi economy has been not clearly recognised by policy-makers in their approach to, or funding of, PAs.

The World Tourism Organisation notes that there is considerable space for growth in the region based on projections that indicate that the region will attract 36 million tourists in 2020. Swaziland is in the early stages of its development as a tourism destination and its product base remains largely underdeveloped. This is reflected in the low number of visitor arrivals and the short time spent in the country. Visitor arrivals totalled 1,328,366 in 2011 demonstrating very low utilisation when compared to the numbers registered by its regional neighbours.

Table 16: Proportion of Leisure Tourism and Repeat Rates, Selected Key Markets 2012 Market Leisure Tourism as a Repeat Average Length of Percentage of that Percentage Rates Stay (Days) Market Total UK 81% 30% 3.5 Germany 89% 15% 2.1 Netherlands 94% 12% 1.7 France 90% 12% 1.6 USA 62% 30% 5.2 South Africa 39% 84% 2.2 Source: Marketing Strategy, 2013 and STA Tourism Statistics, 2011

Despite the fact that the tourism industry in Swaziland has outperformed the general economy, the country has not been able to leverage this into sustainable economic growth, nor has it been able to definitively link the country’s assets to tourism growth. There are many reasons for this, and this report is not the place to delve into these issues, however, at the base of achieving financial sustainability for Swaziland’s PA network lies the ability to pull together a national tourism strategy on which increased visitation depends. This strategic base is essential not only as a source of increased visitation and tourism in-country spend but also as a driver of economic growth and eventually increased biodiversity protection.

62 WTTC, 2013 63 Dwyer, et. al., 1993 64 Turpie, et. al., 2009

142

Tourism as an Engine of Growth

The tourism ‘industry’ is actually a complex set of inter-related industries such as transportation, food, lodging, tour agencies, and its basic components include: visitors, attractions, services, host communities, information, and infrastructure. As a result, the development of a vibrant tourism sector results from the participation and transparent interaction between a broad range of direct and indirect stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Government at all levels, municipalities, private sector, local communities, international, regional and domestic tourists, NGOs, financial institutions, international development Organisations, the media and the general public. There is a ‘supply side’ that includes attractions, such as national parks and their management, sometimes referred to as ‘inputs.’ On the ‘demand side’ there are what visitors do and want and the experiences they have, or in other words ‘outcomes.’

Internally to Swaziland, the main challenge lies in the promotion and development of tourism as an engine for economic growth, and in the engagement of the public and private sectors, as well as communities, in making the delivery of services in the tourism sector a reality. The growth of tourism depends on the long-term vision, on the capacity to evaluate opportunities and understand realities and in the recognition that tourism is a highly competitive international industry that requires planning, investment, strategic alliances and strategic management.

At its most basic level, the success of tourism, with its transversal linkages and as a development mechanism, lies in the ability to move travellers from place to place, providing them the services and experiences they desire and, hopefully, producing benefits for local residents, visitors, and the environment. Success depends on the capacity to aggregate the factors that directly or indirectly impact the performance, as well as the capacity to react to challenges affecting this highly competitive and volatile sector.

Taking into account the current low base of existing tourism development and infrastructure and the goals and objectives set out in the NDS, the tourism vision that guides any strategic planning process should reflect the nature of goal setting, and can realistically only be set for the long-term.

Conservation as a Key Tourism Factor

Conservation is one of the key elements that promote this type of aggregation. Conservation is the mechanism both the government and private sector use to protect natural assets, and tourism is one of the most important uses of these natural assets, linking both sectors together. This being so, it is necessary to understand the symbiotic relationship between conservation and tourism, and how the linkages between them operate, so that each can assist the other in achieving individual national objectives.

From a tourism perspective, conservation is both an input—the destination—and an outcome—the experience. On the tourism spectrum that ranges from high intensity aspects (such as resort hotels or cruise ships) to low intensity aspects, conservation is most closely

143 associated with ecotourism. There is broad agreement among the tourism industry stakeholders in Swaziland that ecotourism is one of the primary approaches that need to be developed to achieve long-term industry sustainability.

Defined narrowly, ecotourism is a specialized niche of nature travel that focuses on low- impact travel to pristine areas. Education and cultural attractions are also important defining elements for some. A broader perspective views ecotourism as a philosophy of travel that respects the land, people and culture, and as a strategy of using sustainable tourism as a tool for both conservation and economic development, and as a set of goals and principles that can apply to all forms of travel, even ‘mass tourism.’ It is more appropriate to think of tourism as an experience spectrum, that includes both large scale ‘mass tourism’ and small scale ‘ecotourism’ and other specialty niches. The point is to minimize impacts and costs and maximize benefits as travellers flow through the experiences in the system.

In this sense, the strategy for developing sustainable tourism for Swaziland is simple. By aligning outcome-based communications and interpretive planning with conservation management goals, tourism will produce sustainable benefits for the environment, businesses, locals, and visitors. This approach has three primary elements or goals that are inter-related and reinforce each other: Conservation/biodiversity, Economic development, and Quality visitor experiences.

Figure 35: Sustainable Tourism Goals Conservation relates to the overall health of the environment, as measured by biodiversity and preservation of historic or cultural sites. This also provides the high-quality setting for recreation and tourism.

Economic Development concerns the business of outdoor recreation and tourism in protected areas. Sustainable recreation and tourism programs will build support for both conservation and the management of protected areas.

Quality Visitor Experiences depend on properly managed settings and attractions (including scenery), professional tourism services and infrastructure, and adequate visitor information and interpretation. Quality visitor experiences are the foundation for successful recreation and tourism. Without a quality visitor experience and (public) programs carefully linked to

144 conservation management goals, there will be no sustainable tourism business and no support for PAs or for conservation.

A strategy that ensures that a tourism destination achieves these three goals is a key success factor. The national tourism strategy, therefore, needs to represent Swaziland’s strengths and tourism potential, and sound strategies must be developed to translate this ‘potential’ into the delivery of tourism and the related economic and social benefits for the country. These should be based on the leveraging of: (i) the diversity and quality of Swaziland’s natural and wildlife resources and the opportunities these provide for tourism products development; and (ii) the cultural identity of Swaziland, determined by its heritage, people and history, and its differences from other countries in southern Africa. Successful implementation of these two main strategies is critical.

Three additional foundational factors that will provide the critical edge needed to push Swaziland towards its future status as an international tourism destination are: (i) regional (southern Africa) integration; (ii) marketing and product development geared towards selected source and niche markets; and (iii) the application and leveraging of spatially focused integrated planning, marketing and product development. The first two factors were addressed in the Swaziland Tourism Authority’s latest strategic marketing document65.

While much assessment of the tourism strategy in Swaziland has occurred, as far as the Project Team has been able to determine, this thinking has not yet been articulated in a manner that will allow the various Government agencies and various tourism industry bodies to orient themselves around a cohesive strategy that links all the required aspects.

Figure 36: Critical Success Factor for Maximising Swaziland’s Tourism Potential Strategic Linkages

One of the hallmarks of our world is that everything is connected. From a tourism perspective this means that we must think beyond the boundaries of a specific PA, country or region and link local actions to larger frameworks to leverage efforts and maximize benefits. People

65 Marketing Strategy, 2013

145 seldom come to visit a ‘park.’ Visitors may not even know which PA they are in. They come to enjoy specific attractions within the area and they often visit multiple attractions in a single trip. Therefore, it is important to understand how people actually travel and not overlook important linkages with other PAs and tourist attractions outside PAs. The nascent Eco Trails project is one example. It can connect national PAs and support ecotourism through a regional ‘biodiversity’ theme and can serve as a powerful tool for marketing and environmental education.

The following figures are not intended to replace any concrete strategic tourism strategies, activities or documents, nor do they replace related conservation or community development activities. They are an articulation of these varied information sources, documents and on- the-ground activities, and present a first, and preliminary, stab at identifying a more cohesive approach to developing Swaziland’s tourism sector in the context of this Projects’ need to link conservation priorities with community development in order to start defining the baseline from which financial sustainability of the PAs can be established.

Figure 37: A Spatial Framework for Tourism in Swaziland

146

Figure 38: Preliminary Spatial Identification of Potential Tourism Priority Areas

147

Recommended Action Items

Based on the above, and despite the fact that tourism strategy per se is not a part of this Project, the following actions are considered critical to the ability of the PAS to develop and eventually achieve financial sustainability, and to the development of tourism enterprises that will enhance economic growth. One of the key factors considered in recommending these actions, is their linkage and ability to reinforce each other and the potential for relatively quick implementation.

1) Identify Priority Areas for Tourism Related Investment. A critical aspect is the need to identify key areas of focus where resources will be channelled in support of strategic product and market development. Based on such identification, and on-the-ground verification of these priority areas, develop a strategy to prioritise the attraction of investment for the development of well-planned, integrated quality destinations and enhance tourism development opportunities in synergy with the private sector, regional and community development initiatives as a way of promoting both visitor and social service delivery and poverty reduction. This is a foundation for many other action items. Estimated cost: 30,000- 40,000 USD.

2) Priority Related Zoning. Prioritise areas for tourism development and prepare appropriate land-use and community development plans in consultation with local communities. The prioritisation of tourism in strategic areas does not exclude the possibility that other types of land use will exist in these areas, but merely that there will not be incompatible activities and interests. Promote the participation in tourism by the private sector and local communities by influencing the provision of both technical and financial assistance, focusing community leadership in decision making and creating a platform for developing strategic and support partnerships between community initiatives and the private sector to maximise opportunities. Estimated cost: 60,000-80,000 USD.

3) Interpretation, Communication and Identity. Prepare an interpretive/strategic communication plan, with stakeholder input. Define goals, outcomes, target audiences, thematic messages, and conceptual media and program products for guided and self-guided tours. Also define appropriate niche markets and promote the PAS as an ecotourism destination with a high-quality environment. Design an integrated “family” of brochures, banners, flyers, maps, posters, and postcards to advertise the PAS. Produce a small set of these items to generate support and immediate visibility for the system’s ecotourism program. Estimated cost: 45,000-50,000 USD.

4) Tourism Packages. Develop new routes and information that promote sustainable tourism and connect localities and communities through a series of circuits. Estimated costs: 100,000 USD

5) Standards and Guidelines. Develop a sustainable tourism methodology for proposed service concessions and trail developments, based on international standards and approaches and input from local stakeholders. Require private sector proponents to develop and conduct

148 planning and capacity monitoring, inter-institutional coordination and technical assistance. Estimated cost: 10,000 USD.

6) Pilot Project. Develop a pilot project involving all stakeholders to enhance and interpret recreational and historic resources as a sustainable tourism attraction, produce economic benefits, and increase the quality of the visitor experience. Estimated costs: 100,000 USD

4.3.2 The Protected Area System

The overall vision is to effectively expand, manage and develop Swaziland’s protected area network in order to adequately protect the biodiversity and landscapes of the country. The main objective is to devise a system of integrating land and natural resource management that transforms the current PA patchwork into a protected areas network, while creating incentives for all Swazis (land management agencies, conservancies, private landowners and tourism operators) to work together toward a common goal.

The PA units identified for inclusion in the national PAS, and the reasons behind their inclusion, are identified in the PAS assessment, while the institutional restructuring element of the vision is detailed comprehensively in the Governance assessment of this Project. When combined with the financial sustainability review, the overall intent is to overcome current institutional inefficiencies, devolve budgetary control to the relevant agencies, and give incentives for achieving greater efficiency and profitability

Key Success Factors for Financial Sustainability

The identification of financial mechanisms to support PAS management and growth is tied directly to improved governance and institutional capacity. With this in mind, the financial planning process provides a unique opportunity to benchmark the costs of PA management out of the diverse experience and knowledge of key stakeholders, both public and private. This information can then be used to create synergies and learning that will benefit the PAS as a whole, while increasing both transparency of information accountability in the use of funds.

Key success factors for financial sustainability are:

 Appropriate policies and laws to allow PAs to manage the entire revenue stream from generation of income to investment.  Full recognition of the multiple contributions of PAs to the national economy, poverty alleviation and national development in general.  Substantial increase in current governmental budget allocation to PAs.  Agencies responsible for managing PAs with sufficient capacity to manage PAs based on sound principles of business planning as well as conservation biology principles, ensuring that there is sufficient human capacity to use financial tools for improving PA financial sustainability.  Business plans and other planning tools are prepared based on internationally accepted standards and used to ensure that funds are managed and administered in a way that

149

promotes cost efficiency and management effectiveness, allows for long-term planning and security, and provides incentives and opportunities for managers to generate and retain funds at the PA level.

Building a diverse funding portfolio is a key element of PA financial stability and sustainability.

4.3.3 Financial Planning Process for the Protected Area System

Given the ‘balkanised’ nature of the current PAS governance framework, as well as, its continued mixed-ownership future, it is important to create a set of consistent standards and parameters according to which all PAs will be measured. This will enable the development of a consistent financial reporting platform for long-term assessment of financial sustainability.

With this in mind, the financial planning process undertaken for this Project considered three major steps, with participation from different stakeholders:

 The Financial Scorecard — to determine the current system-wide benchmark of governance and financial sustainability  Financial Needs Assessment (FNA) — to determine system-wide parameters for PA management needs  Financial Projections and Identifying Sources of Funding — to determine feasible financing options for long-term financial sustainability

The Financial Scorecard

UNDP’s Scorecard for Protected Areas Financial Sustainability66 (Scorecard) was applied in order to assess the starting point for building a sustainable finance strategy for the national PAS. The purpose of the scorecard tool is to track progress and support efforts towards system level PA financial sustainability.

The exercise involves a establishing a qualitative baseline for the financial plan, and the results of this first scorecard evaluation will provide the basis of a comprehensive strategy to tackle the most important and pressing financial sustainability issues. The scorecard tool consists of a number of elements that facilitate the assessment of current conditions of financing the management of PAs. The Scorecard assumes that there needs to be a regular flow of resources to promote an enabling environment for PA sustainability. It assesses and records the significant aspects of a PA financing system to determine its current health, and to indicate the systems’ long-term capacities to holistically move towards an improved financial situation.

The qualitative part of the scorecard tool considers the following three components fundamental for achieving a fully functioning financial system at the site and system level:

66 Bovarnik, 2007

150

Component 1: Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks; Component 2: Business planning and tools for cost-effective management; and Component 3: Tools for revenue generation.

The Scorecard was introduced in a participative manner through a one-day workshop with representatives from the land management agencies related to PA conservation in Swaziland and with participation of private PAs and CCA representatives. The 21 elements of the Scorecard were reviewed, and the scores developed from information provided during and following the workshop. The results were shared with all participants for feedback and suggestions in a subsequent workshop.

Application of the quantitative part of the tool was not considered feasible at this point in the process due to the lack of financial information. The information was requested in the early stages of the process but owing to the current financial and accounting systems that do not generate information at the PA level, and the inability of the various entities to respond to the information requests, it was not provided. Further, there remains confusion by stakeholders regarding the inclusion of certain PAs in the national system (mainly due to gaps in existing conservation policies), and unwillingness by private entities to share their financial information. As the intention is that the Scorecard develop into an effective evaluation tracking tool for assessing the overall impact of implementing the financial strategy over time, it is assumed that as the PAS develops, and as polices and other critical financial systems are put into place, the Scorecard can be applied to greater effect in subsequent years.

Figure 8 presents the aggregate outcome of the Scorecard exercise for the PAS. Out of the three components the best performance, with 14% of achievement, is the one related to the legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks. On the opposite side, the component related to the existence of business planning tools for cost effective management achieved the lowest score (1.6%). This is because only few PAs can account for suitable site based management, and none possess current management plans. An extreme example is the past decade at SNTC. Due to mandated changes in business approaches, insufficient funding leading to lackadaisical implementation, the past decade has been extremely detrimental to SNTCs long-term financial viability, its ability to develop long-term visitor based programs, as well as its ability to improve its conservation programs.

16% 14% 14% 12% 10% 8% 7% 6% 4% 1.60% 2% 0% Component 1: Legal, Component 2: Business Component 3: Tools for Regulatory and Planning and Tools for Revenue Generation Institutional Cost-Effective Frameworks Management

151

Figure 39: Financial Scorecard – Overall Results per Component

The Scorecard information also suggests that although a number of mechanisms and tools are applied and implemented at the PA level, they are not necessarily integrated into a broader planning and cost effective approach for financial sustainability. This calls for a greater articulation of both institutional framework and conservation planning tools, in order to facilitate the shift from individual PA management into a PA system that can be managed cohesively. In the absence of strong institutional capacities, as well as, clarity regarding legal and policy frameworks, it is difficult to envision both planning and revenue generating tools being implemented properly at both system and site levels. For this reason the Scorecard’s first component should be given heightened consideration as a catalyst for other systemic changes. The following is summary of the key points highlighted by the Scorecard evaluation. A full review is located in Annex 6.3.

Component 1: Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Frameworks, is a catalyst of systemic change favouring PAS financial sustainability. Priority areas identified are:

The legal, policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks affecting PA financing systems need to be clearly defined and supportive of effective financial planning, revenue generation and improved PA management. At present, Swaziland does not have sufficient regulations and frameworks that facilitate the overall implementation of the existing policies. Swaziland is also missing the legal and policy participation mechanisms for PA management.

Financial capacity building and technical training go hand-in-hand with the need to attract, retain and train human resources that will engage in the implementation of this and other plans, as well as, the development and implementation of business plans and specific site based new financial mechanisms.

No economic valuation studies related to PAs have been identified so far and decision- makers undervalue the importance of PAs and conservation.

Another priority area is the need to address and enhancing current low levels of government budgeting for the PAS. A first step in this direction is consideration of the FNA as guidance for systemic resource allocation as an integral part of institutional governance structures—to enable and require the use of effective, transparent mechanisms for allocation, management and accounting of revenues and expenditures.

Component 2: Business Planning and Tools for Cost-Effective Management. Financial planning, accounting and business planning are important tools for cost-effective management when undertaken on a regular and systematic basis.

Swaziland has a limited PA planning culture, and lacks a system for generating information about the current expenditures of specific PAs; there are only rough estimates based on aggregate information from each managing entity.

152

An integral part of improving financial sustainability is the generation of a system-wide PA visitor service development plan, generation of site level management plans, business plans and comprehensive management effectiveness assessments. Their implementation and further adoption will require time, as these represent an important effort towards capacity building among the agencies in charge of the PAS. Priority areas for action are site level planning to determine the potential and needs of each unit in the system operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems that could inform decision-making and resource allocation across the PAS; budget allocation methods and the need to determine consistent criteria and parameters for allocation across the entire system; specific training and support networks to enable PA managers to operate more cost-effectively.

A key step in the process of strengthening agencies for system level management is effective site level capacity building that improves financial and managerial skills for cost-effective management.

Improved planning may also help raise funds from international donors, as there will be more assurance that funds will be more effectively invested. The national PAS must be in a position to have enough capacity to invite potential donors to track their investments at any time, as a measure for excellent cost-effective expenditures, reputation and transparency.

Component 3: Tools for Revenue Generation. Diversification of revenue sources is a powerful strategy to reduce both vulnerability to external shocks and dependency on limited government budgets. This component achieved a 7% score, suggesting the existence of the rudiments of information and approaches towards the supply side of financial sustainability equation.

Although a number of revenue generation mechanisms are in place, several major problems remain including: implementation; undervaluing of tourism services; and inconsistent application of service approaches and a lack of tourism infrastructure from which revenues for individual PAs and the national PAS can be leveraged.

Marketing and communication strategies represent an interesting area for future development and priority as well as the need to create public awareness and a clear positioning of the PAS as a key economic engine in Swaziland.

Tourism is a key growth sector that has an important impact not only in economic aggregates but also in employment creation and poverty alleviation. The development of a strong business approach to PAs management can result in a significant increase in the number of visitors. There is also a need to link any such activities to PA partnerships with private operators, as well as development of a unified approach to marketing.

Training, at all levels, both technical and financial is a key issue that needs to be addressed by all PAs. The lack of training affects all aspects of PA management, and inhibits the ability to develop crosscutting efficiencies, multi-PA coordination, as well as, provide better visitor services and enhanced resource management activities. Consideration should be given to

153 developing a consistent training base for all PA employees that will address environmental education and interpretation, natural resource management and law enforcement.

Assessing Financial Needs

The FNA constitutes the starting point of quantitative financial planning process. It is the first step of an integrated effort to ensure long-term and stable funding to meet the PA management objectives of the entire PAS. The FNA was fully supported and developed in a participative manner involving management staff, key stakeholders and entities responsible for PAs. The major outcomes of the FNA are the result of consultations with relevant agencies and key stakeholders, a specific workshop for discussions, recommendations and decision-making.

A FNA focuses on the requirements for identified management programs and key activities, with an analysis of both current and future needs for a consistent approach to PA management and biodiversity conservation across the various PAs of the Swaziland national system. It is a dynamic tool that provides for continuous improvement and review, promoting PA adaptive management. As such, it is an integral component of a systems’ management, and is compatible with other management tools, such as management plans, management effectiveness assessment, annual operational plans and budget estimates.

An important feature of a FNA is the determination of Basic and Ideal Management Scenarios for each PA. Management scenario setting involves consideration of the types of activities and programs that are required for effective PAs management, and particularly determination of the basic activities and programs that must be implemented for an area to be considered a de facto PA and not just a ‘paper park’. This is especially true of the PAs under consideration as an integral part of the national PA system.

Basic and Ideal therefore represent the two ends of effective PA management spectrum and are represented at both the site and systemic expenditure levels. Site level expenditure involves costs associated with the management of individual PAs. Systemic expenditure involves costs related to activities and key responsibilities undertaken at the central level (both in entity headquarters and system headquarters) in order to promote the homogenous management of the system as a unit, and to pursue economies of scale and other cost effective measures.

Another key feature of a FNA is the development of standards regarding the resource requirements for PA management so that they that can then be applied across the national PAS. Addressing this step was particularly challenging as it occurred within the context of a shortage, at both the site and system levels, of current management and operational plans, as well as, on-going deliberation on which PAs should be considered a part of the national system. The standards developed in the workshop are grouped according to the following five expenditure categories and consist of eighty different items (Table 5) used for the FNA at both the site and systemic levels:

 Human Resources (Recurrent Costs)

154

 Operational Costs (Recurrent Costs)  Basic Equipment (Recurrent Costs)  Professional Services (Capital Costs)  Infrastructure, Major Equipment & Vehicles (Capital Costs)

Recurrent costs are expended on a yearly and regular basis, and include salaries and operational costs, while capital costs are neither regular nor yearly and include costs for infrastructure, major equipment, vehicles and consultancies.

4.3.4 Different Types of Management Programs

Site level management plans usually group key PA activities according to a set of structured programs that respond to management objectives and priorities. After review of the most common management programs in PAs, the workshop participants chose the following eight programs as representative of the resources and management needs. These management programs represent the framework for operational resource needs assessment in every PA, and the programmatic requirements for meeting regulatory requirements. They are also used to differentiate the two management scenarios.

Administration and Planning: Includes general management activities, such as accounting and financial management, office and infrastructure maintenance, human resources management, communication with stakeholders, preparation of reports, etc. It also involves participative processes to develop and monitor the implementation of key planning tools such as management plans, annual operational plans, business plans and management effectiveness assessments.

Environmental Education: The involvement of the public as a major stakeholder is very critical to PA management. This is important in empowering the public to act in a way that protects biological diversity and engages them in planning and management of PAs.

Resource Management, Mitigation and Restoration: Activities and projects that preserve biodiversity, and prevent, or limit, major impacts to ecosystems. When environmental impacts occur. In addition, this program coordinates activities and projects to protect and preserve cultural heritage.

Patrolling and Enforcement: Considers activities aimed at ensuring the enforcement of the law within PA limits, with the objective to prevent threats and negative impacts to PA integrity and the resources within their boundaries.

Research and Monitoring: Research is critical to informing planning and management for protected areas. Likewise, on-going monitoring is important to determine changes in threat levels based on new management interventions.

Sustainable Livelihoods: This program considers the integral socio-economic development of people living in the buffer zones around PAs, as a fundamental objective of PA

155 management. This involves a wide range of development related projects and activities in areas such as health, economic development, gender, etc.

Sustainable Use of Resources: Ensures that PA resources are used in a sustainable way, according to regulatory directives, management plans, national regulations, zoning, and impact tools such as carrying capacity. When combined with visitor services, it promotes a framework for economic use of PA natural features and resources.

Visitor Services: Ensure that PA resources are made available to provide opportunities for a broad spectrum of the public to participate and enjoy resource- and wildlife-based recreation activities. Visitor services also provide meaningful education and interpretive experiences and support to recreation activities. When combined with sustainable use of resources, it promotes a framework for economic use of PA natural features and resources.

Table 17: Programmatic Management Activities as Developed During the Workshop Administra Resource Patrolling & Sustainable Environment Sustainable Visitor tion & Management Enforcement Use of al Education Livelihood Services Planning , Mitigation Resources and Restoration Human Invasive Levy fines Game School Resource Advertisi Resources species managemen groups harvesting ng & t marketin g Finance Monitoring Address Water Environmen Invasive Infrastruc & poaching catchment tal clubs species ture (for evaluation managemen recreatio t nal activities ) Monitorin Enrichment Training Fishing Specific Guided Interpreti g and planting & outreach tours ve evaluation plant communicat services of staff nurseries ion programs Technical Prescribed Fencing Bush meat Outreach / Communit Environ support burning education y outreach mental for visitors education Visitor Game Law Resource Online Eco- Environ regulation manageme enforcemen harvesting access recreation mental and nt & game t / outreach (including activities and monitorin introductio to medicinal communi g ns communitie plants, ty s as well as woodcrafts, outreach supporting timber,

156

Administra Resource Patrolling & Sustainable Environment Sustainable Visitor tion & Management Enforcement Use of al Education Livelihood Services Planning , Mitigation Resources and Restoration systems grasses/fibr (judicial, e, bio- police etc.) prospecting, honey hunting, mushrooms collection) Managem Inventories Regulated Interpretatio Alternativ Guided ent and & entry n e activities business population livelihood planning counts s On-going Impact Indigenous PA zoning managem mitigation knowledge ent PA zoning Ecosystem Disseminati and on of resource information restoration and training Buffer Support to zone PA manageme personnel nt outreach activities Programmatic activities related to Research and Monitoring were not detailed as all stakeholders agreed that there is a need to develop a comprehensive program at the PAS level, as well as individual programs that are site specific.

The Basic and Ideal Management Scenarios

Management scenarios are useful to reflect management priorities and separate between the programs and activities considered fundamental to achieve management priorities in the short- and medium-term, and those that can be expected to add value and complement current practices in the longer term.

The selected scenarios are based on the eight management programs identified above, and the criteria behind the program selection for immediate and basic management are based on the consensus opinion of the implementing agencies and stakeholder present during the workshop.

157

Figure 40: Management Programs for Basic and Ideal Scenarios While implementing the first two identified programs is considered the Basic Management Scenario at the site level, the implementation, at the site level, of all programs constitutes an Ideal Management Scenario (Figure 9). The selection of these two priority programs also reflects the understanding that many of the other programs require a longer development time for implementation, as well as, the current budgetary constraints under which most PAs currently operate.

General Standards for Protected Area Management

The second important outcome of the FNA workshop was the definition of a set of standards for consideration by the national PAS. Eighty items were chosen after careful consideration of their relevance and use for site conservation management. Considering the need for adaptive management and bearing in mind that every PA possesses unique characteristics, and has different management directives, these standards should be considered as a point of reference that might not be applied in every case, but contribute to overall PAS planning and management.

The selected standards respond to the analysis of the resources needed to implement the two management programs for the Basic Scenario, and the eight programs that constitute the Ideal Scenario. In this regard, the participants considered tourism infrastructure mainly for the Ideal Scenario due to the upfront capital requirements. Professional services to address sustainable livelihoods, research and sustainable use of resources are also represented only in the Ideal Scenario.

Table 18 and 19 present the 80 items identified for each of the scenarios, and 55 of these items are considered essential for the Basic Scenario. These items are divided into the five expenditure categories identified earlier. Human Resources (12); Operational Costs (10); Equipment (13); Professional Services with 16 items at the Site Level and 12 items at the Systemic Level; and Infrastructure, Major Equipment and Vehicles with 17 items. Items at

158 the Systemic Level consist entirely of professional services and represent activities that benefit the system as a whole and not just an individual PA.

Table 18: Categories of Standards for Protected Area Management Standard Category Total Site Level 68 Human Resources 12 Operational Costs 10 Equipment 13 Infrastructure, Major Equipment and Vehicles 17 Professional Services 16 Systemic Level 12 Professional Services 12

Table 18 contains the standards that have been proposed for the PAs in the system. Standards have been set for both the Basic and Ideal Scenarios, bearing in mind the different PAs programs would fall into these two scenarios.

Table 19: Standards for Protected Area Management for the Basic and Ideal Scenarios67 Expenditure Category (Site Suggested Standard Cost per Unit Level) Basic Scenario Ideal Scenario (in SSL) Human Resources Large Reserve68 PA Manager (Technical) 1 per PA (PA = 1 per PA Region for Forestry) Program Officer (education/ 10 per PA community/ outreach/ visitor services and attendants) Program Officer (law 4 LE and 2 security 20 per PA (1 per E3,000 enforcement/ security) per PA (1 per 750 750 ha) ha) Program Officer (ecology/ 1 per PA 2 per PA NRM) Ancillary / maintenance staff 1 per PA 2 per PA Volunteers 5 per PA for 3 20 per PA for 3 months months Administrative Assistant 1 per PA Small Reserve or Community PA with No Income

67 The Scenario standards are presented as ‘complete’ sets, i.e., the Ideal Scenario does NOT require the addition of the line items noted in the Basic Scenario. 68 An indication for what the size definition for a large reserve is needed.

159

Expenditure Category (Site Suggested Standard Cost per Unit Level) Basic Scenario Ideal Scenario (in SSL) PA Manager (Technical) 1 per PA 1 per PA Program Officer 1 per PA 1 per PA (administration/ planning /education/ ecology/ NRM) Program Officer (visitor 2 per PA services/ law enforcement/ maintenance/ ecology/ NRM) Volunteers 3 per PA Ancillary / maintenance staff 3 per PA Operational Costs Natural resource management Highveld: cost per Highveld: cost per (including prescribed burning acre needed acre needed and invasive species control)69 Middleveld: cost per Middleveld: cost acre needed per acre needed Lowveld: cost per Lowveld: cost per acre needed acre needed Lubombo: cost per Lubombo: cost per acre needed acre needed Training70 Cost per ranger Fuel / Diesel Average 5,000 litres per consumption per car vehicle or average per year or 5,000 7,200 km per year litres per vehicle or per person average 7,200 km per year per person Basic utilities (electricity, Average cost per Average cost per water, rental facilities) month month Basic ICT costs (phone, Average cost per Average cost per internet) month month Workshops and meetings 4 meetings of 15 6 meetings of 30 organised by the PA per year participants participants (does not include (depending on PA accommodation) could be more)

69 During the workshop the following equivalent cost was suggested as a standard for calculating the operational costs of the programmatic activity of natural resource management: Highveld – 2 people per 1,000 hectares; Middle – 2 people per 150 hectares; Lowveld – 2 people per 300 hectares; Lubombo – 2 people per 300 hectares. The Project Team believes that this equivalency scale underestimates the true cost of natural resource management activities.

70 One of the issues identified was the need to provide consistent training in all aspects of PA service provision to all personnel.

160

Expenditure Category (Site Suggested Standard Cost per Unit Level) Basic Scenario Ideal Scenario (in SSL) Uniforms 2 per person per year 2 per person per year Travel related subsistence 84 hours per month per person Insurance (public liability, 3.5% of employers, buildings/and infrastructure, vehicles) major equipment and vehicles Maintenance 5% of infrastructure, 5% of major equipment and infrastructure, vehicles major equipment and vehicles Equipment Firearms & ammunition E15,00071 Medical equipment (first aid 1 per building & 1 1 per building & 1 kit) per vehicle per vehicle Radios 1 per 3 rangers and 1 1 per ranger and 1 E3,000 base radio per PA base radio per PA Office ICT (computer, printer, 1 each per PA Site specific E7,000 w/o scanner, fax, internet service) internet service Fire management equipment 1 working fire unit 1 working fire unit E25,000 (including sprayers, rakes, fire per 8,000 ha per 8,000 ha beaters, bowser, slashers, saws, bush knives, chain saws, brush cutters, protective clothing) and a working fire unit72 Protective field equipment 1 per ranger 1 per ranger (water poncho, / knife, canteen) Camping equipment 1 per 4 rangers 1 per 2 rangers (depending on PA (depending on PA size) size) GPS and handheld GPS 1 per 2 rangers E2,000

71 Firearms: 12 ga pump shotgun = E4,000; scoped rifle (.308 or bigger) = E7,000;

72 A working fire unit consists water tank with pump drawn by tractor or bakkie, big nozzle and coiled small nozzle, 6 spray packs, 10 fire beaters (conveyor belt-type) and 2 hand held fire drills. Estimated at E18,000.

161

Expenditure Category (Site Suggested Standard Cost per Unit Level) Basic Scenario Ideal Scenario (in SSL) devices (depending on PA size) Projector 1 per Visitor Centre 1 per Visitor Centre Photo camera 1 per PA 1 per PA Binoculars 1 per building 2 per building E2,000 Telescope 1 per Visitor Centre Fire control equipment 1 per building & 1 1 per building & 1 per vehicle per vehicle Infrastructure, Major Equipment and Vehicles Fencing Site specific Site specific E23/m (if done by community) Roads (maintenance and internal access) Trails (including signs and Site specific Site specific related infrastructure) Vehicles per PA 1 per 9,000 hectares 1 per 6,000 Tractor73 = (4 x 4 double cab hectares (4 x 4 E275,000 pickup) double cab pickup) Single cab and 1 tractor per bakkie (4x4) = large PA E170,00 Veld management tools74 See footnote See footnote E25,000 Water infrastructure Site specific Site specific Administrative Centre /main 1 per PA; 150 m2 1 per PA; 150 m2 PA Office without reception without reception area area Gun safe 1 per PA 2 per PA E2,500 Security Post (Entrance gate) 1 per high pressure 1 per high pressure zone; 15 m2 (site zone; 15 m2 (site specific) specific) Satellite Ranger Station 1 per high pressure 1 per high pressure zone; 30 m2 (site zone; 30 m2 (site specific) specific) Ranger Base (house/base) 1 per PA; 80 m2 (site 1 per PA; 80 m2

73 55kw tractor equipped with a 3 to 6 ton trailer, a slasher, a scraper blade and a water bowser

74 Veld management tools include AIP control, bush knives, spades, shovels, 1 chainsaw, 2 brush cutters, 4 spray packs

162

Expenditure Category (Site Suggested Standard Cost per Unit Level) Basic Scenario Ideal Scenario (in SSL) specific) (site specific) Visitor / Environmental 1 per PA; 200 m2 Education Centre (site specific) Research Office 1 per PA; 150 m2 (site specific) Boundaries Markers 1 per 10 km 1 per 1 km Store Room 1 per PA; 50 m2, concrete Signs 1 per access/entrance Site specific + 1 visitor centre + 1 per road Electrical infrastructure Site specific Site specific Systemic Services Headquarter Technical Services Provision Ecologist (=Forester for 1 per agency 1 per agency Forestry) Taxonomist / Entomologist 1 per agency (Forestry only) Program Officer (Game 1 per agency capture) [SNTC only] Wildlife veterinarian 1 per agency Program Officer (GIS 1 per agency 1 per agency coordinator) Advertising and marketing 2 per agency75 services Program Officer (outreach 1 per agency coordinator) Program Officer 1 per agency (environmental education) Program Officer (natural 1 per agency resource accounting and sustainable resource use) Program Officer (tourism and 1 per agency visitor services) Program Officer (law 1 per agency

75 The assumption is that staff will provide basic and recurring marketing services, but the bulk of activities will be outsourced to a private entity. Also, during the workshop participants estimated they would require 4 people per agency, the Project Team recommends 2 people per agency.

163

Expenditure Category (Site Suggested Standard Cost per Unit Level) Basic Scenario Ideal Scenario (in SSL) enforcement) Management plan formulation 1 every 10 years 1 every 10 years (includes research program) Management plan review 1 every 3–5 years 1 every 3–5 years Management effectiveness 1 every 3 years at 1 every 3 years at assessment (some operational system level PA level changes should be reviewed in operational plan) Business plans (including 1 every 10 years 1 every 10 years tourism development/ feasibility study) Enforcement plan For PAs with special For PAs with needs special needs Commissioned land surveyor Site specific Site specific Systemic / Countrywide services GIS and alphanumerical To be provided by To be provided by database Surveyor General Surveyor General Water quality testing 2 per year 4 per year Fisheries assessment 4 per year 12 per year (depending on water (depending on body) water body) Soil scientist External contract External contract Consultancy to establish a research and monitoring program including research protocols and training to PA Consultancies related to the 1 per year at 10 3 per year at 10 POW commitments (CBD) people per people per assessment assessment Consultancy to develop CBD 1 every 2 years 1 every 1 year reports and other related international commitments Attendance at international PA 1 per year per PA 3 per year per PA conservation related conferences and events Update PAS Strategic Plan 1 every 10 years 1 every 10 years International & regional Through STA Through STA marketing outreach Outreach (Radio broadcasts) 12 per year 48 per year Information Site specific Site specific

164

Expenditure Category (Site Suggested Standard Cost per Unit Level) Basic Scenario Ideal Scenario (in SSL) handouts/brochures

From this list of standards it is also clear that there is an urgent need to develop a workable and realistic management model for CCAs that could then be reviewed and assessed for common costs and standards.

4.3.5 Results of the Financial Needs Assessment

In order to make adequate financial projections regarding the requirements of the PAS, it is critical that a realistic and strategic approach be taken to PA planning, determining when it would be likely to achieve the Basic Scenario stage and then how, incrementally, through continuous improvement in management and financial achievement, the system will be able to reach the Ideal Management Scenario. The determination of the financial needs of the national PAS reflects an estimation of the real needs and resources necessary to accomplish management goals and programs in both the Basic and Ideal Scenarios, based on a consistent set of parameters that are accepted by all land managing entities (Table 20) that also reflects the synergies that a can be delivered in a mixed-ownership PAS.

At present details on expenditure and financing needs from the various PA managing entities are inconsistent, therefore the development of a cross cutting and consistent FNA for the PAS, including requisite expenditure levels that could highlight areas where cost-efficiencies might exist both within the individual authorities and across the board is not possible. An example of this is the fact that the expenditure levels submitted by SNTC to the Cabinet reflect the political realities of Swaziland: the information provided to the budget review process is not an evidenced-based resource needs expenditure request, but rather a request based on an internal assessment of what SNTC may feasibly be given receive in a given year. Based on the 2011 budget allocation, the annual SNTC budget shortfall since that year is at least 27%. Further, none of the stakeholders provided sufficient information for the Project Team to complete the required parameter costs (Table 20) that would allow development of a complete FNA for the Basic and Ideal Scenarios required to manage PAs in Swaziland at a level consistent with mandated directives and international standards.

4.4 Current Funding for Protected Areas in Swaziland

There are two major sources of funding for the management of PAs: governmental budgets and self-generated funds. There is at present no annual breakdown for current sources of funding for all PAs, nor is there a unit that is dedicated to keep track of this important information.

The vast majority of funding to manage the SNTC and Forestry PAs is from governmental sources, assigned through specific budgets for each of the agencies in charge of PA management. As a result of the minimal financial resources allocated by the government, the

165 budget barely allows for the maintenance of immediate management functions and key staff, though both agencies are looking at ways in which to increase self-generated revenues. The second source of resources for SNTC and Forestry with important potential for growth is self- generated revenues, although the current amount generated is still very low. The funding source for most private PAs is self-generated funds. Among the variety of mechanisms in place it is worth mentioning the entrance fees, different user fees and use charges. All of the key land management entities have some experience with these mechanisms.

It is clear that the current composition of mechanisms and sources is insufficient and inadequate, since it is not, as far as can be determined, meeting the financial needs of the system, nor is it taking full advantage of available funding and market-based opportunities.

4.4.1 Key Problems and Opportunities

Based on the site visits and associated meetings, a set of key problems related to PA financing in Swaziland were identified, and a set of potential solutions and opportunities were recommended, as detailed in Annex 6. The problems are grouped partly based key issues to explore, as follows:

 Diversity of income  Visitor entrance fees  Service Concessions  Government management and contributions  Partnerships for co-financing  Business administration  Legal issues

4.4.2 Requirements for Financial Sustainability

Equitable Distribution of Funds in a Mixed Ownership Protected Area System

For a mixed-ownership PAS to function and succeed over time, it is critical that the required resource management standards and expectations be acknowledged, determined and accepted by all stakeholders. A first step in this direction was taken with the FNA. Additional follow-up is needed in order to complete this first step. A second critical aspect is the establishment of the baseline expectation in regard to financial planning and accounting. This refers not only to Government oversight over the PA units identified as important on a national level from a resource management perspective, but also to making explicit the responsibilities that private entities have, and consent to, when accepting public funding.

Government oversight over PA units identified as important on a national level requires the development of a professional and specialised financial planning and accounting system for all the units included. The existence of such oversight will enable an increase in financial synergies, improve cost efficiencies and ensure transparency in use of public funds. Included among their oversight responsibilities are a consistent, cost accounting standard among all PAs; a consistent set of requirements and standards for PA resource management; a

166 consistent PA financial reporting format that will allow for comparisons; and verification/auditing of PA financial and natural resource management programs and achievements.

The second facet is making explicit the responsibilities that private entities have, and consent to, when accepting public funding. The receipt of public funding by private entities is extremely problematic, and raises multiple questions that affect public management and accountability. In the case of financial sustainability of a national PAS, where some of the resources are located on private land, but are identified of critical national importance, the State has an interest in ensuring that they are managed appropriately for the long-term. In this context, based on the international UNDP/GEF standards for disbursement of public funds the following tenets are recommended for adoption, to be elaborated on by the oversight unit in line with existing Government regulations:

For Private PAs:

 Annual accounting for use of funds and in accordance with the rules set.  Annual requests for funds must be submitted in advance, and in accordance with the set rules.  The cost standards can be surpassed (i.e., a more efficient use of funds may be employed).  Oversight on private PAs applies to expenditures and management achievements of natural resource management and law enforcement programs only. Private PAs cannot receive funds for visitor services and infrastructure, or any of the other programmatic activities as these represent direct investment in private assets.  National funds applied to marketing of the PAS, may be applied to private PAs in limited contexts when part of a national marketing campaign that benefits all PAs in the system.

The receipt of public funding by private entities is extremely problematic, and raises multiple questions that affect public management and accountability. In the case of financial sustainability of a national PAS, where some of the resources are located on private land, but are identified of critical national importance, the State has an interest in ensuring that they are managed appropriately for the long-term.

For CCAs:

Many of the financial issues that apply to private PAs also apply to CCAs; however, as communal property there should be greater leeway in the use of public funding to encourage their development, in line with the economic development and biodiversity protection goals of the NDS. In this context, the following tenets are recommended for adoption, to be elaborated on by the oversight agency in line with existing Government regulations:

 Annual accounting for use of funds and in accordance with the set rules.  Annual requests for funds must be submitted in advance, and in accordance with the set rules

167

 The cost standards can be surpassed (i.e., a more efficient use of funds may be employed).

Unless a CCA requests otherwise, oversight applies to all levels of programmatic expenditures and is subject to the development both long- and short-term plans. Review of appropriateness of the oversight level should occur every five years.

4.4.3 Financial Requirements for Implementation

Table 20 presents some of the most promising mechanisms available to finance PA conservation in Swaziland. Financing mechanisms were assessed using a rapid feasibility assessment, considering issues such as the legal and political feasibility, the complexity of implementing the mechanism, as well as, the potential financial return. Some of the listed mechanisms are either being presently implemented in Swaziland, but need to improve, or have been implemented by different PAS in the region; international funding sources are not included in this assessment.

Table 20: Feasible Financial Mechanisms Feasibility Legal Political Complexity Return Total Public Government subvention to SNTC and 3 2 2 3 10 Forestry Department Taxes on hotels and aviation 2 1 2 3 8 Tax breaks or subsidies for private 2 1 2 2 7 conservation effort/investment Charges or penalties related to natural 2 1 2 2 7 resource use Direct public investment for PA 3 1 1 3 8 infrastructure Self-Generated Sources Tourism fees (visitors, hotels, tour 3 3 1 3 10 operators) Carbon credits / REDD 2 3 3 2 10 Tourism service concessions 3 3 2 3 11 Watershed protection incentives 1 1 3 1 6 Publicity (contracts for access, etc.) 2 3 2 2 9 Bio-prospecting agreements 1 2 3 2 8 Tradable development rights 2 1 3 3 9 (biodiversity offsets and easements) Utilisation of invasive species 3 2 2 2 9 Private Dedicated fund-raising campaigns / 3 3 2 2 10

168 special events Note: 1=Low, 3=High

The above noted mechanisms were considered because of the feasibility of implementation and success. A number of critical success factors are taken into account such as the complexity and technical capacity that needs to be in place, the cost of implementation in comparison with the potential revenues that will be generated, and the political support that will be demanded in order to ensure an enabling institutional and legal environment to realise these opportunities. Another important consideration made is the time that each mechanism will take before generating an adequate level of funding to meet the planned expectations. It is considered important to prioritise mechanisms according to their potential to generate returns in the short and medium term, which means they should become viable between the first and third year of implementation.

Of the 14 selected mechanisms, eight gave a total score higher than 8 points. Scores higher than 8 points suggest a greater potential for successful implementation in the short- and medium-term. This allows for prioritising mechanisms that combine both high feasibility of implementation and high impact in terms of revenue generation. However, in planning for future funding, one of the eight high scoring mechanisms (tradable development rights— biodiversity offsets and easements) is omitted, and one score of 8 (taxes on hotels and aviation) has been included as a reflection of political and legal governance.

For a comprehensive assessment of viability of these mechanisms, and an indication of when and how their implementation could impact financial viability of each PA, the FNA needs to be completed, and the Basic and Ideal Management Scenarios budgets, based on factual financial data, developed for all the units that are included in the national PAS.

4.4.4 Preliminary Assessment of Landscape Based Financing Sources

Sustainable financing or long-term financial sustainability refers to securing adequate financing to cover the true costs of managing an economically and ecologically viable landscape with respect to agreed objectives regarding biodiversity and habitat conservation, as well as, sustainable use of natural resources. It requires a combination of national and sub- national public investments, payment mechanisms for goods and services, and the coordination of donor grants and cooperation, as well as, the enabling conditions that allow the financing to be effectively and efficiently delivered.

There are three primary source categories: Government, Market, and Donor. Each source of financing (i.e., the origin of the financial resources used to underwrite the investment and pay those who carry out landscape management) has a range of possible sub-sources to generate actual financing. As noted earlier, this assessment focuses on only those sources most relevant and feasible for current and potential future financing for Swaziland.

169

4.5 Government Sources of Finance

Government (domestic) budgets can be made to represent a significant amount of financial support for all aspects of landscape management, including direct budget allocations for conservation forests and PAs, tax earmarks and fee revenues to manage production forests and other industries. This money is channelled from the national budget, generated by taxes or other non-tax revenue, to local government structures and the land managing entities.

Specifically, government administered fiscal instruments include taxes and subsidies on natural resource extraction, removal of environmentally damaging product subsidies, introduction of new product taxes and user charges, and modifications of other taxes and charges. Properly designed, these create economic incentives for more efficient resource use and pollution abatement, by driving up the cost of environmentally harmful activities or increasing the returns to sustainable approaches (e.g., environmental taxes and charges); mobilise funds for environmental protection and natural resource management (e.g., via environmental charges and fiscal transfers); and ensure a more equitable distribution of benefits and costs from the management of environmental resources (e.g. improved access to environmental public goods via public investments and pricing reforms).76 Unfortunately, fluctuations in international markets, poor economic conditions, and other factors can cause government revenues and budget allocations to vary year by year, resulting in insufficient and uncertain funding for conservation and sustainable development. Earmarking revenues collected through various fiscal instruments specifically for defined and justifiable sustainable landscape management needs can allow governments to stabilise and even increase their allocations.

Swaziland’s PAS has been traditionally funded from the government treasury and given low priority, as it was seen to have little to contribute to the national development process. Recurrent budgets are commonly just enough to keep only basic management structures in place, and capital budgets were insufficient to prevent depreciation and decay of PA infrastructure. However, valuation studies in other African countries have shown that the PAS underpin a large part of the national tourism industry and, as such, generates significant economic value in terms of income and employment.77 These studies have also shown that enhanced investment in the PAS will be economically efficient, resulting in positive economic returns in terms of income.

Licensing & Royalty Fees — Licensing and royalty fees are typically classified as government non-tax revenue, either on a one-time or on an annual basis. The fee magnitude is dependent on government policy, but they are typically attached to a quantifiable number (e.g., amount of natural resources extracted). Concessions are contractual agreements, usually extended over long periods of time, between a government and a non-governmental

76 Emerton, et. al., 2006

77 Turpie, et al. 2009

170 party. The concession allows the non-governmental party to engage in an activity within the area of question, such as: logging or mining, and generates revenue to the government in the form of a concession payment(s). One of the more specific concession types that may be feasible is Trophy Hunting Concessions. In some PAs, it may be possible to develop hunting concessions. While the potential off-take from the PAs is assumed to be 1 to 2% of all game populations in the PAs,78 the proposed level of hunting should not interfere with wildlife viewing tourism or biodiversity conservation goals. A comprehensive review of this potential funding source for all PAs should be undertaken in conjunction with BGP.

To address some of the fee and licensing issues related to game management, it is recommended that a Game Product Trust Fund be established. The Game Product Trust Fund should be a revolving fund, for use of the funds collected through the sale of wildlife products (including trophy hunting, game product sales, live game auctions, live game export levies, hunting concessions, hunting license fees), for re-investment in conservation efforts (in all types of PAs), with an emphasis on community development projects and conservancies. A strict set of rules for use and disbursement of funds should be determined and adhered to. The fund should be able to provide grants to emerging public wildlife organisations and PAs, and consideration should also be given to using these funds for bettering PA related law enforcement. An independent board that will include representatives of all the land management entities should approve and verify all fund requisitions.

Licensing and royalty fees, on the other hand, reflect fees for non-extractive use. For example, PA Image Copyrights. Often pictures or footage is taken in natural areas like PAs for commercial purposes like advertising. In some countries charging, image copyrights by a PA authority, such as SNTC, is based on internal regulations defining the terms for taking picture and turning footage for commercial purposes within the PA boundaries. In many cases these internal regulations are not supported by clear national legislation though a consistent national directive is helpful. Under such cases, picture and footage can be taken free of charge provided it is for personal use only. On the other hand, if the purpose is commercial, written authorisation is required. If the authorisation is granted, specific fees are charged. Assistance of PA personnel is included in these fees and nothing is to be paid separately to the individual employees providing assistance. In case of non-compliance, the PA can reserve the right to sequestrate all visual material and charge fines based on existing copyright laws. In Italy, for example, the fees are: Filmmaking footage 500 to 5,000 Euro; Television footage 200 to 2,000 Euro; and picture taking from 50 to 1,000 Euros.

Taxes & Fees — There is often a precedent and legal framework that makes tourism entrance fees a viable financing mechanism to establish and collect funds. The tourism industry, and associated revenues, is dependent upon a number of factors, primarily: the ease of accessing the destination in question and visitor willingness to pay. Among the fees in this category are: (i) Transportation and Hotel Taxes. Some countries, such as Costa Rica, Nepal, Galápagos, Belize, and the Turks and Caicos, have established hotel and airport passenger

78 Based on reported hunting concessions in other Southern African countries.

171 taxes specifically dedicated to raising revenue for conservation. Swaziland has an existing airport tax, and consideration should be given to using that tax, in full or in part, for conservation revenue. Another consideration can be a hotel tax. For example, assignment of one night per room per year, at an average price of 100 USD, from all accommodation services that will be dedicated to conservation. (ii) Document and Financial Transaction Fees. Given the current size of the financial services industry compared to the tourism one in Swaziland, consideration should be given to the establishment of a financial transaction fee of 1 or 2% that would be dedicated to conservation. Another option is consideration for the establishment of a document stamp fee dedicated to conservation, equalling 1 or 2% of the transaction value. In the USA, the State of Florida uses a 2% document stamp tax to repay a long-term bond that is dedicated to acquisition of lands and defraying the cost of public land management.

Development of supportive tax and incentive mechanisms to promote private investment in tourism and biodiversity conservation on private PAs should be encouraged.

Fines — Fines for resource related transgressions are in place in Swaziland. It appears, however, that there is a need to adjust the legally determined fine levels (currently perceived by the conservation community as too low) to increase their function as a deterrent, as well as work with the judicial system and various enforcement agencies to ensure that the fines are collected and applied. In addition, it would be beneficial for the country to develop a mechanism that ensures that the collected fines are directed back into conservation related activities.

Subsidies & Tax Breaks for Private Conservation Investments — The use of incentives or tax breaks to encourage private conservation investments, within existing PAs or to establish new PAs, is a well-known financial tool in many countries, though its formulation depends in the country’s legal and tax collection structure. When using such a tool it is important to ensure that the funds are used not only for land set-asides, but also for management.

4.6 Market Sources of Finance

At the centre of all conservation activities lies the intrinsic value of the country’s biodiversity as a valuable economic and ecological asset. The many goods and services produced across the landscape include raw materials, environmental services (e.g., watershed protection and carbon sequestration), tourism opportunities, traditional natural resource use, and extraction industries. Charging for these services allows for multiple benefits: it acknowledges the value that ecosystems provide and it raises new funds for the landscape.

Tourism Payments, Fees & Taxes — There is often a precedent and legal framework that makes tourism entrance fees a viable financing mechanism to establish and collect funds. The tourism industry, and associated revenues, is dependent upon a number of factors, primarily: the ease of accessing the destination in question and visitor willingness to pay. Among the fees in this category are: (i) Protected Area Entrance Fees. Most PAs in Swaziland already

172 collect this fee, though a casual review indicates that in some cases the fees may be too low. (ii) Recreation License Fees and Special Access Payments. Many PAs charge additional fees for PA-related activities: daily use fees; vehicle, boat, and plane fees; camping fees; and special service fees, such as game drives. Incomes from these sources supplement the basic PA entry revenue and help cover the true costs of supporting PA visitors. This income capitalises on highly attractive features (e.g., scenery, charismatic species).

Royalties from Private-Public Sector Partnerships and Service Concessions — Many of the PAs have the capacity for increased numbers of accommodations, across a whole range from bottom- to top-end establishments, including back-country and luxury bush-camps. The development of this type of tourism infrastructure can yield significant benefits, however, development for the generation of income should not compromise the conservation objectives of the PAs. It is important that the balance between the revenue generation and conservation objectives of the PAs be maintained. Factors that need to be taken into consideration include roads, water supply and electricity, the potential levels of congestion on the road networks within the PAs, and the impact these networks may have on biodiversity. As revenue generation is not a simple function of the number of visitors, strategy more compatible with conservation objectives is to concentrate on providing quality services, rather than quantity.

When public-private partnerships are developed for accommodations, the private operators are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the facilities. A typical lease period for this type of arrangement is 15 to 45 years, with assets being handed back to the PA at the end of the period and in top condition. The expected royalty amounts to about 5 – 15% of annual turnover. Often a guaranteed minimum payment to the PA is included in the contract. Moreover, in order to cover the additional cost of the service concession management and to ensure the high level of visitor experience in PAs, it is strongly recommended that the tourism concession fees be reinvested in PA management, operations and training.

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) — No payments are received for ecosystem services generated by the PAS. This is currently a major area of activity and research around the world, as governments and conservation agencies seek more innovative ways of financing conservation. Analysis of successful cases where such payments do occur and do make a difference to conservation efforts are, however, limited to a few basic services, primarily water supply and carbon sequestration.

One such example is the REDD financing mechanism that directly links financial incentives for conservation with carbon stored in forests and natural woodlands. REDD was introduced in the Bali Roadmap in 200779 and accepted by the UNFCCC participating states at the Copenhagen Summit as a potentially critical mechanism in global climate change mitigation through its incentive-based market approach. The general principle is that countries can

79 As part of the Bali Road Map, the nations pledged “policy approaches and positive incentives” on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries, and enhancement of forest carbon stock in developing countries (REDD+).

173 receive credits for decreasing emissions by preventing forest degradation and loss. In other words, States are preventing forest carbon emissions by agreeing to not conduct logging and agriculture activities within the PAs. The emission reductions can then be translated into Verified Emissions Reduction credits and sold to parties in domestic or overseas markets. The profits from these sales are then channelled back into conservation and protection efforts, or to benefit the communities living on the areas in question. Generally speaking, both production forests and PAs are viable sites for REDD projects.

Most REDD research and information is based on Asian countries. While there is general agreement that the overall potential in Africa is comparatively low, existing research indicates a potential range of between 3–50 USD per hectare per annum. The actual amounts paid are extremely variable and project dependant. The Makira project in Madagascar, for example, generates 27 metric ton of carbon for each forested hectare. Based on this, a 1,000 hectare forested area may generate 81,000 USD annually (at 3 USD/carbon credit). A different approach is the Sofala community in Mozambique, where each household in the community is guaranteed an income of 40 USD per annum for 7 years for based on household performance (payments to farmers are front-end loaded each year by 30%). As part of this carbon & REDD project the farmers can choose agro-forestry (for soil improvement, fuel wood and fodder for livestock) or indigenous fruit trees in order to improve yields and reduce forest clearing pressure.

Carbon credit80 projects have a difficult set-up process, which sometimes limits their applicability, though the potential revenue is substantial. For this revenue to eventuate as a viable revenue mechanism, much work needs to occur on institutional capacities and policies, verification of REDD potential in Swaziland, ensuring the transparency of financial flows and permits by the authorities, clarification of regulations on revenue distribution requirements between the project developers, the State and local communities.

A sub-segment of PES is revenue generation from invasive alien species (IAS). Tessema (2012) coined the phrase “eradication by utilisation” to describe the economic use of IAS as a means of harnessing their economic potentials for meeting basic human needs, and at the same time control their spread and possibly eradicate them. In the context of PAs, this can be a viable means for increasing the relatively short-term financial opportunities available to PA managers, while at the same time addressing a key natural resource management objective: the removal of IAS.

In Swaziland, where by some estimates 20% of the land is covered by IAS, they pose a dire and immediate threat to biodiversity. The threat IASs pose is exacerbated by the dependence of the population on non-timber forest products for both household services and income. Within PAs, addressing IAS for biodiversity and management should be considered of utmost priority. Promoting the utilisation of any IAS remains a controversial approach due to the

80 A carbon credit represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent removed, avoided or sequestered. The current market price for a carbon credit is around 3 USD per credit.

174 potential to contributing to their spread, especially when effective integrated management strategies are not implemented. For utilisation to work it must be integrated with management strategy. In addition to the urgent natural resource management aspects of an IAS utilisation program, other key elements of any such program include education and training, development of secondary industries, especially in the communities surrounding PAs, and community and enterprise development training. Additional information about this option can be found in the Income Generation assessment.

Tradable Development Rights (Biodiversity Offsets & Mitigation Banking) — Many consider this option a sub-segment of PES. In environmental contexts, mitigation generally refers to efforts to reduce or offset the negative environmental consequences of activities that are permitted despite their negative impact. Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development and persisting after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been implemented. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve “no net loss” or preferably a net gain, of on-the-ground biodiversity with respect to species composition, habitat structure and ecosystem services, including livelihood aspects. The compensation payments on biodiversity offsets vary widely in amount, and may be voluntary or required by law. There is a need to strengthen both existing technical and regulatory capacity, as well as, ensuring that the legal and policy framework is in place prior to using this revenue option.

Cause Related Marketing / Corporate Social Responsibility / Special Event Marketing — In cause-related marketing a company links with, and donates to a non-profit organisation, as part of a program to promote the company's products or services by associating the company with the activities of the non-profit organisation. Cause marketing involves, for example, the sale of adoption rights for PA attributes. Numerous wildlife adoption schemes act as revenue generating mechanisms for conservation-oriented NGOs in this manner. Whether such a scheme specific to one country (as opposed to a species) could work is still to be tested, but would be a case of clever marketing. A scheme of this sort could also include interesting and unusual small animal and plant species that are endemic to the country. Adopt a Park campaigns are another option for collaboration and fund raising.

In recent years, as many public companies become more sensitive to their environmental footprint, they want to convey and promote a positive corporate image to the public and a link with conservation can help them do this. Other motivations for private sector involvement include access to capital, as more and more investors require sound environmental performance and pension funds favour leaders in this sector. Among the options for this type of collaboration are: (i) Providing funding to PAs, either as a donation to increase visibility in relation to conservation activities or means of mitigating the environmental impacts of activities; (ii) Providing professionally qualified experts in fields such as finance, infrastructure development and maintenance, tourism and concession management; (ii) Salary round-ups: In this mechanism, users allow utilities to round up (or in the case of salary payments to round down) the cents in their bills and donate the cents to a designated charity. Collection and transfer costs are low because the payment systems are

175 both highly standardised and internet-based. Even if each donation is just cents, the totals can be huge.81

Special events and campaigns linked to activities that rely on natural resources, such as bike rides, can also be leveraged to generate funds for PAs — either as part of a voluntary donation campaign or as part of the ticket price. Coordination with event organisers for such activities is required in advance, and it is useful when there is a central authority that is aware of all such activities well in advance to assist in generating funding as well as collaborating on potential marketing activities.

Bioprospecting — Bioprospecting is the systematic search for new sources of chemical compounds, genes, proteins, microorganisms, and other products with potential economic value. Pharmaceutical companies enter bio-prospecting agreements with countries in order to engage in these pursuits. In return, the companies get exclusive rights to screen the biodiversity for pharmaceutical compounds. In the event that the search leads to the development of a major drug, the agreements stipulates the benefit sharing (e.g., profits) to the host country. The host country, at its discretion, can utilise the money for biodiversity conservation or other activities. Concession fees and a share of expected royalties for any commercially valuable discoveries are often paid in advance, with a proportion of the payment typically allocated to in situ conservation efforts in PAs. The rules and procedures governing bioprospecting are, of necessity, quite complex and require a very clear legislative and regulatory environment, as well as, continuous enforcement, and as a result, this option is considered viable in the immediate future for Swaziland.

4.7 The Strategic Action Plan for Financial Sustainability

Sustainable financing requires not only securing adequate funds but also considering the quality, form, timing, targeting, use and sources of funding. It is important to build a diverse funding portfolio, going beyond conventional mechanisms and including multiple funding sources. Funds must also be managed and administered efficiently to achieve cost effectiveness of PA management operations. In addition, it is necessary to have a mechanism for an on-going and continuously improving understanding of the financial requirements of the PAS, as well as to be able to harness new opportunities for funding.

A number of options have been explored to secure sufficient and sustainable financing for an effective PAS in Swaziland. High priority mechanisms for continuation include motivation for government budget investments, motivation for donor grant investment, and collection of PA user fees. High priority mechanisms for further development and/or exploration and development include collection of service concession fees, user fees, revenues from game management, capture of carbon market income, and development of revenue streams from IAS.

81 Koch-Weser and Jacobs, 2007

176

Actions that need to be taken over the upcoming three year period (2015-2018) include effective use of the governmental funding and ensuring that this funding is stabilised at a reasonable level, and acquiring the economic evidence to continue motivating the treasury for additional funding to PAs in the interests of national development goals. Review and updating of PA fees should be undertaken on an on-going basis by all PAs, and should be concurrent with an analysis of demand, re-evaluation of needs and objectives and required essential actions. Other actions needed include establishment of a system for eliciting voluntary payments, investigation into the potential market and mechanisms for a more systemic use of carbon and REDD mechanisms and the development of revenue streams from IAS. Implementation of these actions should bring Swaziland closer to attaining financial sustainability for its PAS to safeguard the essential natural resource base and to secure economic benefits for the country.

The following Strategic Action Plan is guided by the need to effectively improve the financial sustainability of Swaziland’s PAS. The application of the Scorecard on financial management resulted in low scores when compared with international and regional countries, and the broad objective is to incrementally improve performance in all the areas where weaknesses were identified.

The strategic goals are:

 To improve the policy, legal and institutional framework to facilitate effective implementation of mechanisms for revenue generation and retention.  To improve the allocation of resources for the management of PAs.  Establish mechanism to monitor implementation of this strategy.

The projected PAS outcomes are:

 Improve Scorecard component 1 from 14% to 50% by year 2025  Improve Scorecard component 2 from 1.6% to 40% by year 2025  Improve Scorecard component 3 from 7% to 30% by year 2025

177

Table 21: Strategic Action Plan Actions Indicators Timing To Be Indicativ Implement e Budget ed (USD) Improve the policy, legal and Define clear policies and procedures to ensure effective application of 2014 - Government n/a institutional framework to facilitate revenue generating mechanisms across the system. 2015 agencies effective implementation of Define appropriate legal and institutional conditions to implement mechanisms for revenue generation new financial mechanisms in order to diversify the current funding and retention portfolio. Define policy and legal mechanisms to allow for: An overall increase in the current rate of user fees and other sources of revenue Allowing access and benefit sharing with communities and other stakeholders An overall increase in the current rate of illegal use fines Ensure that readiness of the Organise a PAs financial planning unit 2014 - Government n/a Economic Development Unit to Create an enabling financial and economic framework 2015 agencies address PAs requirements Establish a mechanism to monitor the implementation of this strategy. Improve PAS integration into national planning and key development processes. Improve conservation planning Improve financial administration and effectiveness ensuring that 2014 - Government 20,000 tools; taking into consideration funding is allocated and spent in a way that supports PA finance 2015 agencies; mainstreaming financial needs and conservation goals. PA units; sustainability issues into current Design and implement an administrative and financial system for Central tools as well as designing new PAS. Statistics tools to address specific funding Design and implement accounting and monitoring systems that Office Actions Indicators Timing To Be Indicativ Implement e Budget ed (USD) opportunities. facilitates control and decision making and cost centre system operational linked to PA management and business plans Generate criteria and policies for PA resource allocation Undertake market assessments, feasibility and economic valuations to propose a set of tariffs for PAs goods and services (PES), and investigate the potential market and mechanisms for a voluntary biodiversity offsets scheme.

30,000 Develop PAS visitor services and Develop a system wide recreation and conservation infrastructure and 2014 – SNTC and 50,000 development plan services plan, including opportunity zones and surrounding 2015 STA community development Generate a marketing and communication strategy to promote PA goods and services. Develop a system wide ‘annual pass’ system and revenue sharing 50,000 mechanism Mainstream consistent system wide Complete FNA for all PAs, and develop PAS budget based on the 2014 – SNTC 20,000 management standards Basic and Ideal scenarios 2015 Mainstream management plans for Develop a standard and format for PA management plans that 2014 – SNTC 70,000 each PA and develop and support includes a financial sustainability component. 2015 (for PA financial model Develop current PA management plans and business plans for all SNTC PAS units units and Ensure that management plans and business plans are developed for PA manager CCAs only)

179

Actions Indicators Timing To Be Indicativ Implement e Budget ed (USD) all non-SNPAS units based on internationally accepted standards, and in line with the standard format developed for all units within the PAS Improve the allocation of resources Improve and adjust the design of management, concessions and other 100,000 for the management of PAs. participation schemes to effectively generate additional resources for PA conservation. Build capacity in co-managers and further promote other institutional arrangements that facilitate participation in the PAS. Increase governmental budget (operational and capital) for PA management Build a diverse stable and secure funding portfolio, minimising funding risks and fluctuations. Use existing economic evidence to Design and implement a strategy to elevate PAS profile among 2014 - SNTC 20,000 continue motivating to treasury for decision makers and public opinion. 2015 additional funding for PAs in Conduct a system level economic valuation, stressing the benefits of interests of national development the PAS to the key economic sectors, as well as, poverty alleviation goals in Swaziland, and build an economic case for financing conservation. Improve training and networking Facilitate a network and enabling conditions for PA managers to On- All land 100,000 / of PA personnel. share their knowledge and experience regarding conservation going managemen year finance, such as periodic meetings and information tools. t entities Provide adequate training and incentives for PA managers. Develop specific products based on the opportunities for cooperation and in kind support for the different management programs, such as

180

Actions Indicators Timing To Be Indicativ Implement e Budget ed (USD) sponsorship from universities to undertake monitoring and research activities. Develop specific environmental education, interpretation, visitor service provision and law enforcement training for all personnel in PAs to improve service provision, and ensure the development of system wide standards. Develop training in ecotourism, tourism guides, ecotourism SME management Review and update park fees Review current user fees and generate a procedure and methodology 2014 SNTC and 60,000 / periodically based on proper on- to update them every five year with a thorough analysis. Economic review going analysis of demand and re- Developme evaluation of needs and objectives. nt Unit Develop a revenue sharing and Develop a revenue sharing and revenue allocation mechanism 2014 - Government 20,000 revenue allocation mechanism Develop and market a multi-PA entry pass 2016 agencies Establish a secure and non- Voluntary payment system established 2015 - Economic 20,000 intrusive system for eliciting 2016 Developme voluntary payments in which nt Unit voluntary payments are explicitly made into a trust fund or chosen project fund. Develop guidelines for lease 2014 - Government 20,000 duration, remuneration levels and 2016 agencies gender affirmative action obligations to be incorporated in

181

Actions Indicators Timing To Be Indicativ Implement e Budget ed (USD) the contractual relations governing tourism partnerships

182

5 Rural income generation activities in the communities surrounding protected areas in Swaziland

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Background

5.1.2 Sustainable Livelihoods

The sustainable livelihood approach is concerned first and foremost with people. It seeks to gain an accurate and realistic understanding of people’s strengths (assets or capital endowments) and how the endeavour to convert these into positive livelihood outcomes. The approach is founded on a belief that people require a range of assets to achieve positive livelihood outcomes. Livelihood, therefore, implies more than just making a living. It encompasses ways and styles needed to achieve the capabilities and assets—both material and social—resources and activities required for means of living82.

No single category of assets on its own is sufficient to yield all the many and varied livelihood outcomes that people seek. This is particularly true for poor people whose access to any given category of assets tends to be very limited. For example, if someone has secure access to land (natural capital), they may also be well endowed with financial capital, as they are able to use the land not only for direct productive activities but also as collateral for loans. Although agriculture may not be the sole sources of income, forests, water, land, livestock, crop and knowledge are essential resources in livelihood generation for households in rural areas.

5.1.2 Livelihoods Context in Swaziland

Swaziland is basically an agrarian society, with agriculture at the core of its economy. The areas in and around Swaziland’s PAs are compatible with the sustainable livelihoods approach mostly because the aim is sustainable conservation of biological biodiversity by increasing livelihood status of local people and managing natural resources in a sustainable way. One way of reducing biotic pressure on a PA can be achieved diversifying the livelihood activities and strategies of people thereby increasing their asset status.

Swaziland’s agricultural growth is highly unstable with significant year-to-year variations. Improving agricultural performance is critical to the improvement of livelihoods and reduction of rural poverty in Swaziland. The agricultural sector in Swaziland has been plagued with numerous constraints and problems for a long time. These include: (i) Low productivity—average yields of maize (the most widely cultivated crop) are 20-25% below the 1997 yields; (ii) Poorly developed rural road infrastructure limiting access to markets; (iii) Drought and inadequate public investments to expand and maintain surface irrigation systems; (iv) Small and fragmented farms, together with a moribund formal credit system and widespread communal land tenancy acting as disincentive for private investment in land; (v) A lack of transparency in product marketing, specifically the linkage between price, quality and farmers’ decisions; and (vi) Inadequate public research and extension services crippled by the lack of strategic focus, funding shortages and the inability to effectively utilise the available resources.

These constraints, in turn reflect on the main problems faced by rural communities: (i) Low income (although there is no specific data on average earnings in rural areas, it is visibly evident that the current income can hardly support basic needs); (ii) Lack of Capital and Credit Sources (farmers face difficulties in obtaining capital for their livelihood activities); (iii) Unemployment (employment opportunities are very rare in the community because of the absence of firm programs and projects providing non-farm employment); and (iv) Low price of produce (farmers have no control of the price of their produce).

82 Huq, 2001

184

The above-mentioned problems are interrelated and interconnected. These problems cannot be solved in isolation and single-handedly by one sector of society, and should be addressed in a coordinated and cooperative manner.

In addition, to the key issues that relate to judicious use and management of the resource base on which rural people depend for their livelihoods, rural governance has a vital role. In Swaziland this means accounting for a dual poltical system that combines the modern, fairly democratic Tinkhundla83 system with the traditional Chiefdom system. In the Chiefdom system, the Chief and Indvunas84 functions are inherited, while in the Tinkhundla system, representatives are elected. To be successful, a development strategy must be supported by both authorities.

5.2 Biodiversity Conservation in Swaziland

Although Swaziland is small, it has a great variation in landscape, geology and climate. It also supports a diverse assemblage of habitats, and a significant portion of Southern Africa’s plant and animal species occur within its boundaries. The diversity of species is supported by an equally diverse mix of habitats, ranging from Savanna woodlands, grass plains, man-made reservoirs and natural rivers to Montane vegetation belts in the west of the country. Swaziland also forms part of two world biodiversity hot spots: Maputaland in the East and the Drakensberg Escarpment in the West.

This natural resource base is under increasing pressure from changing techniques in agriculture, changing land uses and land use practices, increased industrial production and population growth. Deforestation and degradation of the natural forest and woodland areas caused by a combination of conversion of land to agriculture, uncontrolled extraction of forest products from communal land and large livestock populations, is further compounded by the underlying socio-economic conditions and increasing population pressure.

Reversing land degradation stemming from unsustainable land use, weak management, and the lack of information systems, is a key challenge for both biodiversity protection and for raising agricultural productivity85. Land degradation is closely associated with population pressure in both high-density urban and rural settings, and the lack of knowledge regarding deforestation or soil conservation in drought-affected areas. More specifically, environmental problems arising from large-scale irrigated agriculture, particularly sugar cane production, has led to the destruction of the natural vegetation on large tracts of land. Forests and woodland areas are also endangered due to unsustainable forest product extraction. These areas are being depleted through practices such as cattle overstocking and overgrazing, and reliance on trees for fuel wood, as well as, alien plant invasions. Drought is a recurring problem in the Lowveld affecting water security, which is hampered by fragmented

83 Board of elected Bucophos, headed by the Indvuna Yenkhundla (political body) 84 Works below and on behalf of the chief. Under the chief are three to five Indvunas 85 AfDB, 2012

185 management, out-dated legislation, and pollution—from both local industries and transboundary sources, in addition to increasing levels of industrial and municipal pollution.

Biodiversity is vitally important to the country’s economic development. It is indeed its economic basis, the single most important factor in the people’s welfare. Agriculture, the country’s economic backbone is directly dependent on biodiversity. Similarly, tourism—an emerging economic growth area—depends on the availability and sustainable use of biodiversity.

An emerging threat to Swaziland’s sustainable development is climate change, with adverse effects already being observed on the environment itself, human health, food security, economic activity, and physical infrastructure. The country is currently threatened by a decrease in perennial surface drainage, which will have major impacts on river flow and soil- water content, with potentially serious socio-economic repercussions in rural areas. While the national frameworks are in place, integration and mainstreaming of environment sustainability into core agricultural and rural development processes remain a challenge.

5.2.1 Threats to Biodiversity Conservation and Related Issues

Land degradation, fragmentation of habitats, invasive alien species (IAS), and rapid degradation of the biological resources are the key challenges to be addressed by the country. In addition, ever increasing poverty, particularly in the rural areas, and population growth is resulting in the rapid degradation of Swaziland’s biodiversity in a vicious cycle of declining availability. Combined with recurrent drought, is resulting in a heavily degraded natural environment that responsible agencies are battling to address in light of higher national priorities. The various policy and legislative initiatives launched by the government have so far remained mostly on paper, are not cross sectoral or integrated and most importantly are not matched by adequate funding and expertise to implement the measures recommended by stakeholders86. The anthropogenic threats facing Swaziland’s biodiversity are broadly grouped as follows:

Habitat destruction is probably the most important factor leading to the decline and, ultimately, the extinction of animal and plant populations around the world. In Swaziland, habitat destruction is acerbated by urbanisation as Swaziland’s towns are expanding at rapid rates, and agricultural development, especially, commercial agricultural development, that has transformed many of Swaziland’s natural systems through resource use, mono-cultures and pollution.

High Dependency on Natural Resources: Traditional methods of energy utilisation and natural resource collection for daily cooking, heating and for other domestic uses in Swaziland depend on firewood collected from forests. An average load of 30 kg of fuel wood is needed daily for each household87. Free and uncontrolled firewood collection in SNL

86 SEA, 2009

87 Manyatsi and Hlophe, 2010 186 forests has destroyed much flora and fauna. The rate of deforestation has yet to be measured, but appears to be quite high as indiscriminate wood-cutting of certain species, for building homes and fences, household implements, furniture and for firewood occurs. Swaziland’s indigenous trees are also cut for the manufacturing of tourist artefacts. The populations of some species of trees, such as kiaat (Pterocarpus angolensis, umvangati), are rapidly being depleted, which could result in local extinctions. In addition, plant collection for food and medicinal use has further degraded ecosystems, as plants are collected prematurely and in a haphazard manner without the use of proper technical methods. As common resources, people have a tendency of overexploiting them in order to get a higher profit in a short period of time. In addition, the indiscriminate use of fire is widely practiced in Swaziland, not only as a survival strategy, but also as a tradition—the annual winter burning on the Highveld, for example. Though fire is an integral and essential part of grassland and savannah ecosystems, its indiscriminate use, can and does alter the habitats, resulting in decreased biodiversity.

High Cattle Population and Overgrazing. Animal husbandry is a vital part of Swaziland’s traditions and almost every household keeps a herd of animals to obtain manure, milk, and meat and to plough their fields. The density of livestock, especially cattle, on SNL in many communities is far higher than the carrying capacity of the land. As a result, severe overgrazing has occurred in these areas, leading to the loss of forest regeneration potential and grassland vegetation, thereby causing soil erosion and landslide problems.

Hunting and Poaching. Illegal and uncontrolled hunting has resulted in the extermination of most of Swaziland's large mammals, especially on SNL. Many species of fauna and flora are used in traditional medicine and are heavily exploited by the tinyanga (traditional healers), but the effects of this exploitation have yet to be quantified. In addition, many species of vertebrates are killed for food and/or superstition. Crop and livestock depletion, and the expansion of cattle grazing area in the PAs and SNL, have also compelled hunting of the larger game animals.

5.2.2 Biodiversity Conservation through Community Participation

Since the 1980s, community development, natural resource management and conservation have become intertwined. Community based natural resource management (CBNRM) aims to create the right incentives and conditions for groups of resource users within defined jurisdictions to use natural resources sustainably. It aims to alleviate rural poverty and advance conservation by strengthening rural economies and empowering communities to manage resources for their long-term social, economic and ecological benefits. CBNRM is based on the recognition that local people must have power to decide over their natural resources in order to encourage sustainable development. CBNRM assumes that once rural communities participate in natural resource utilisation and derive economic benefits, this will cultivate a spirit of ownership that will ultimately lead to sustainable use of the natural resources. In East and Southern Africa, CBNRM has been adopted as an approach that aims at achieving rural economic development and natural resource management.

187

In many instances, some of the key issues regarding management of wildlife on communal lands that have attracted the attention of CBNRM programs manifest themselves in the management of grazing, forest, and other natural resources upon which people depend for basic livelihood needs.88 Most CBNRM programs have in addition to conservation, one of four main focus areas: sustainable livelihoods, incentive based approaches, devolution and communal proprietorship that reflect the ideas articulated in the World Development Report 2000/200189 that suggest that dealing with poverty must move beyond the promotion of general economic growth to adopt a broader agenda of action that includes providing targeted economic opportunities for the poor, building up the assets of poor people, facilitating their empowerment and reducing their vulnerability to various risks and shocks.

CBNRM programs are also based on the understanding that biodiversity directly contributes to people’s livelihoods through ecosystem provisioning services90. Indeed, in the immediate short-term, income-earning opportunities depend more on the abundance and availability of particular species (e.g., timber and non-timber forest resources providing food, medicine, fuel and tradable goods) than the number of different species91 while in the mid- to long-term, biodiversity per se (i.e., variability) plays a very important role. At the same time, asset-poor households rely significantly on low-value resources, with limited commercial value, mostly common-pool resources under common property regimes such as SNL, whereas asset-rich households are able to capture revenues from more commercially profitable resources, such as livestock rearing. In this context, poor households, with very few substitute possibilities, have an even higher dependence on biodiversity, spending time in at least five different activities from collecting wild foods to carvings as a risk management strategy to decrease their vulnerability92.

This means that biodiversity conservation activities to support poverty alleviation depend on the how: how conservation projects are designed and carried out; how poor and marginalised people are consulted, involved in and associated with the conservation objectives and activities; and how poverty alleviation is prioritised in biodiversity projects and policies. The ‘how’ is usually linked to three broader goals, each centred on local organisations and communities that aim to promote a participatory approach towards sustaining biodiversity conservation and management for long-term benefits:

Community Development

Infrastructure development: These types of projects often include building community capacity to meet basic needs such as infrastructure, training, job creation, health education, sanitation and water supply, in addition to school development program and conservation

88 Turner, 2004 89 World Bank, 2001. Focus areas suggested include: Human assets such as skills, good health and the capacity to work; Natural assets such as land and its resources; Physical capital such as access to infrastructure; Financial assets such as access to credit; and Social assets such as networks of relationships 90 Balmford et al., 2008 91 Roe et al., 2011 92 Kerapeletswe and Lovett, 2001

188 awareness training. In the context of PAs, the development of tourism facilities and infrastructure are part of this

Eco-tourism development is a growing source of revenue for the long-term management and care of PAs worldwide. Eco-tourism only works when it yields economic benefits to local people, supports conservation and reduces the human impact of travel by ensuring that visitors travel responsibly, help protect the wildlife they are visiting and contribute to the well-being of local communities. Its achievement requires the active and educated participation of tourists and local communities alike.

IGAs include the promotion of farm and non-farm agrarian activities, such as fibre production, and its market development, promotion of improved varieties of livestock farming, promotion of small farm based enterprises, such as bee-keeping, as well as alternative livelihood skills and capacity development to local people and communities, etc.

Local Culture Conservation. Swaziland is a country rich in its cultural aspects. Though at present there are no plans to develop and enhance cultural conservation activities, this type of activity is a key aspect of increasing the tourism potential of Swaziland’s PAs, in addition to the income generation potential they embody.

Natural Resource Management

Community forestry management has been identified as one of the best approaches for sustainable forest resource management and livelihood enhancement of the communities dependent on forest resources. This approach recognises that the communities themselves are in a better position to protect forests, reduce forest degradation and deforestation, provided that they are empowered and facilitated with knowledge of the ecosystem and best practices, technologies, market linkages, access to credit and ability to partner with the Government, private sector, CSOs and other entities.

Grazing area management: Overgrazing of livestock in the areas around PAs poses a serious threat to biodiversity. Proper utilisation and management of pastureland, through peoples’ participation, is the major objective of grazing area management. Identification of pastureland inside the PA, determination of the carrying capacity of these lands, preparation of a grazing area management plan, formation of grazing area management user groups, and preparation of an operational plan for grazing areas, etc. are some of the key activities that could be undertaken.

There are at least five conservation mechanisms that can serve as a route out of poverty, depending on the region: community timber enterprises, nature-based tourism, PA jobs, agroforestry and agro-biodiversity conservation93. In Swaziland, at this point in time, is that there is still a tremendous skills and capacity gap that presents a barrier to utilising all five of these options effectively. At the same time, there is a shortage in training capacity in order to assist both communities and individual to leap over this barrier.

93 Roe, 2010

189

5.2.3 Lessons Learned from CBNRM Programs in the Region

The following highlights some common lessons learned from CBNRM programs in the region (Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe). This is not a comprehensive review of CBRNM programs, but rather, a review of selected program to tease out common threads.

Economic benefits

One of the biggest weaknesses of CBNRM programs is the poor distribution of CBNRM financial and employment benefits. In many locations, rural communities derive little or no financial, employment and food benefits from CBNRM programs at a household level. When CBNRM programs are primarily designed to achieve conservation, without equal focus on issues relating to social empowerment or economic development, this has also resulted in community funds being kept in the bank without re-investment or in misuse and misappropriation.

In most cases, communities decide to use their cash revenue to pay for infrastructure and services that would benefit the whole community. Some of the infrastructure and services bought and paid for by the revenue received include: the construction of roads and concrete causeways, the construction of school class rooms, purchase of tractors that assists in tillage and transportation means for community members.

Very few communities choose to make household or individual cash distributions. Experience from Zimbabwe and Botswana shows that when they do occur, they provide a significant proportion to local income, are highly appreciated and help to develop a sense of belonging to the trust. Cash distributions also motivate a community to act in a particular way based on an appreciation of the value of the resource whose benefits then accrue to individuals in a direct and visible manner. When communities choose to disburse non-cash benefits such as provision of meat (from the hunted wildlife), these disbursements also have a positive impact on the average household’s welfare

As a rule, conservancies create relatively few direct full-time jobs. One of their indirect benefits is the ability to retain younger, better-educated and more productive people in rural areas, as an alternative for urbanisation.

In Namibia, where partial economic evaluations have occurred, conservancies show that 78% of their income is from tourism related ventures (overnight accommodations, trophy hunting, tourism), and in the rural areas more than 50% of the cash income received by conservancy residents could be viewed as conservancy-related.

One key ‘take away’ is that not enough information is collected about household and individual incomes, resources and perceptions prior to the development of these community programs, and as a result accurate measurement of changes in perception, income and aptitude is not possible.

190

Institutions

Social capital elements such as ‘relationships of trust’ between the community and its traditional leadership and between the traditional leadership and project implementers are important factors in promoting communal ownership over CBNRM initiatives. It is important that institutional arrangements to be inclusive and create a ‘space’ for all relevant stakeholders.

CBNRM programs have led to the development of representative village institutions that can be used for other development activities, increased exposure to private sector and business thinking and management, and increased the demand for accountability within and by the community. These can also lead to local empowerment, pride and self-confidence and reduced dependency on government.

Sustainability

Community mobilisation and organisation should belong to communities and it should be directed by their goals and ideas. The sustainability of CBNRM should in this case make rural communities have a sense of ownership of the natural resources on which their projects are based with benefits of use clearly at their disposal not managed by government, NGO or private sector group. The CBNRM concept was developed from a wildlife utilisation perspective. This results in underestimating the potential value of and resource management linkages with other natural resources such as veld products, non-timber forest products (NTFP) and cultural activities.

Skills and capacity

The lack of entrepreneurship and managerial skills in the tourism business by local communities has led them to form joint partnerships with private sector companies, mainly in the form of contract agreements rather than community-private sector partnerships. There is very little skill transfer in these types of agreements, and no real collaboration or learning— communities have little to do with the management, monitoring or practicalities of running a tourism business. Most of the participating communities have become labourers and land lords who are aware that money will come regardless of participation or performance in a system of passive participation with disincentives to work.

The lack of understanding of the CBNRM concepts leads to community-based tourism being conducted without sufficient skill and capacity support. This is also reflected in the failure of communities to come up with tourist projects that match their skills and knowledge.

One of the main challenges facing CBNRM is a predominately foreign (or non-local) owned tourism industry. The goods and services provided in these tourist enclaves are beyond the financial means of the local communities and any foreign currency generated may have only a minimal effect upon the economy of the host location. A sustainable tourism industry should be sensitive to the needs and aspirations of the host population and provide them the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

191

Environmental impact

Experience from Botswana shows that wildlife population levels and trends (since 1987) have remained stable, while steenbok, impala and elephant numbers have increased by up to 5%, this despite the fact that 50% of commercial hunting now takes place in community- designated areas with 100% of the concession and quota fees accruing to community organisations. In Zimbabwe, there are no specific data on wildlife inventory in community areas, but a 50% increase (since 1993) in plains game quotas suggests a comparable increase in wildlife populations and a decline in poaching

In Namibia, the development of conservancies has contributed to the maintenance of wild habitat and has helped to promote wildlife and tourism as a legitimate land uses. Most of the registered conservancies have zoned specific areas of their conservancies as dedicated wildlife management areas in which trophy hunting and/or tourism is promoted.

Livelihood security and diversity

CBNRM has made a stronger contribution towards diversifying livelihood sources than producing a significant impact on poverty reduction except for employees and those with access to allowances. At best, CBNRM projects are an additional source of livelihood.

5.3 The Review Sites

This cursory review of current income generation conditions in Swaziland was conducted in three areas near two PAs, namely Malolotja Nature Reserve and the Lubombo Conservancy area, as the communities within these broadly defined areas represent the arc of issues that need to be addressed.

5.3.1 Bulembu

Bulembu, a privately owned not-for-profit company owned by Bulembu Ministries Swaziland, is a small town located in north-western Swaziland. Between 1939 and 2001, Bulembu operated as a chrysotile mine. Following heavy losses in the late 1980s and subsequent bankruptcy, HVL Asbestos purchased the mine and ran it until its liquidation in 2001. The 10,000 residents of Bulembu deserted the town in search for employment. In 2006, the not-for-profit Bulembu Ministries Swaziland purchased the town and surrounding 1,700 hectares with a vision to rejuvenate the town to a self-sustaining entity that combines sustainable, innovative enterprises with orphan care for 2,000 of Swaziland’s most vulnerable children. Most IGAs in Bulembu are initiated by the Bulembu Ministries Swaziland, and managed centrally, as the intent is to create an economically viable and sustainable community by 2020.

The Bulembu area incorporates a continuum of habitats that includes the Drakensburg representing the Afromontane Archipelago (1050-1400 m), the Middleveld (400-1000 m), the Lowveld (150-400 m), the Lubombo Mountains (high point of 770 m), and the Maputaland/Tongaland coastal plain. While these types of habitat are found elsewhere in

192

Swaziland and South Africa, it is only in the northern parts of Swaziland that this continuum is compressed into a maximum east-west distance of 200km. This renders the area uniquely valuable from a scientific point of view compressing high levels of floral and faunal biodiversity into a relatively small area.

5.3.2 Malolotja Nature Reserve

The Malolotja Nature Reserve, the largest proclaimed PA in Swaziland, extends over 18,000 hectares in northwest Swaziland; located in northwestern Swaziland between the border towns of Bulembu and Ngwenya, along the eastern Drakensberg escarpment of southern Africa. The western boundary of the reserve forms the border with South Africa, abutting on Songimvelo Nature Reserve. Bulembu Ministries Swaziland and Swaziland Plantations own the land north of the reserve. The site is dominated by the Silotfwane, Mgwayiza and Ngwenya mountain ranges, including two of Swaziland’s highest peaks, Ngwenya (1,837 m) and Silotfwane (1,680 m), as well as, its highest waterfall, Malolotja Falls. Steep valleys and gorges cut into this mountain escarpment, while deep river valleys and gentle rolling grassland plains dominate the adjacent landscape. Sour highland grassveld covers the gently undulating hills and slopes interspersed with narrow drainage lines. Scrubby vegetation occurs patchily along clear, fast-flowing mountain streams. The valley slopes contain savannah trees and shrubs. Forests are restricted to the mesic valleys. Also present are rocky outcrops, as well as open rock cliffs that form part of the Drakensberg escarpment. Within the reserve lie some of the oldest known sedimentary rocks c. 3,600 million years in age.

The proclamation and gazetting of the Reserve in the early 1970s required the resettlement of the families living within the PA to good agricultural land adjacent to it on the Reserves’ northern boundary. To improve relations with surrounding communities, and to offset the limits placed on resource use within the Reserve, limitations inherent in PA management, extensive outreach and community development projects have been advanced. The Reserve operates as a facilitator for the communities, and a dedicated community outreach officer identifies appropriate community development projects, helps secure their funding from development agencies, and facilitates their implementation.

The economy of the area surrounding the Reserve depends mainly on smallholder farming, subsistence forestry, occasional fishing, honey production, and livestock husbandry. In this context, there is a need for these villages to diversify economic activities based on local resources, as the daily struggle for food and household income keeps people from improving their situation. Further, the interaction between crop production and animal husbandry is a key characteristic of the current agricultural systems in the Swaziland. In both social and economic aspects, many of the villages in the Malolotja area lack access to utility and transportation infrastructure that would assist in developing or accessing additional income sources. The villages around Malolotja currently receive direct capacity support from SNTC, via the outreach program.

193

5.3.3 The Lubombo Conservancy

The Lubombo Conservancy a unique combination of five national, private and community- owned PAs—Mlawula Nature Reserve, Shewula Nature Reserve, Mbuluzi Game Reserve, Hlane Royal National Park, and a conservation area within the Inyoni Yami Swaziland Irrigation Scheme (IYSIS)—is considered the most extensive PA within Swaziland, with approximately 60,000 contiguous hectares. An important aspect of the Conservancy is that it incorporates all Swazi tenure systems, including the Shewula Nature Reserve, the only protected area established on SNL, in a transparent and participatory process that included the Shewula Chiefdom. The PAs of the Lubombo Conservancy have come together in a coordinated effort to ensure sustainable conservation of ecosystems that also enhances the quality of life of the regions’ people; this represents a viable model for SNL-based conservation.

From a biodiversity perspective, the Lubombo Conservancy and its proposed expansion area in the Lubombo Escarpment, such as the Muti Muti Conservancy, Manzimnyame, Jilobi Forest and Mambane, are a part of the Eastern Swaziland Lubombo ecosystem. This ecosystem together with the Licuati Forest in Mozambique, have been identified as a Key Biodiversity Area within the Maputaland-Albany-Pondoland (MAP) Biodiversity Hotspot. The vision and objectives of the Lubombo Conservancy are consistent with the Government of Swaziland's Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Areas programme.

The objectives of the Lubombo Conservancy are:

 To establish one reserve among the core (founding) conservancy members where animals can freely roam between the reserves without any hindrances from fences that separate the different conservation areas;  To create a mosaic of protected areas in the Swaziland Lubombo, capitalising on the opportunities presented in the Swaziland Government’s proposed legislation for more participatory types of protected areas such as protected landscapes and resource management areas;  To identify and develop ecotourism and other sustainable development opportunities for local communities in the Swaziland Lubombo

The Lubombo Conservancy has the tourism objective of creating a spectacular ecotourism product that is a place for self-exploration, discovery and fulfilment and builds on the potential offered by complementary products in South Africa and Mozambique.

The Shewula community, a rural community of about 3,000 people, is located in the Lubombo Mountains of northeastern Swaziland. The area is home to Swaziland’s largest population of raptors, including the martial and Bateleur eagles, as well as marabou stork and vultures.

The community set aside 2,650 hectares, near the Lomahasha border on one of the most popular tourist routes, as a community managed nature reserve. Within this area, the community developed an eco-cultural tourism camp (Shewula Mountain Camp) that serves as

194 the focus for a range of community based activities run by the Shewula Trust. The Mountain Camp is the central driver of income in order to fund four biodiversity related programs: for wildlife and PAs, for forestry management/development of an indigenous plant nursery, for maintenance and protection of springs and wells, for the restoration of degraded soils and a sustainable agriculture program. In addition to these, the funds are used for improving utility access and the development of a community-based system of social welfare for the orphans and vulnerable children and their caretakers (mostly widows and elderly people). Shewula Mountain Camp is the first of project of its type in Swaziland, and one of the most successful community projects in southern Africa.

The Lunkuntfu (Mambane) community, a rural community of about 3,000 people, is located at the base of the Lubombo Mountains under the Nkilongo Inkhundla. The Usuthu- Tembe-Futi Transfrontier Conservation Area links to the eastern end of this area. The area has great potential for both eco-tourism and tourism development, and some preliminary development needs were identified in the 2008 Usuthu Gorge Concept Development Plan and other supporting documents from the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative. At the same time, the community itself is located in a one of the most remote, poorest and driest parts of Swaziland, with few access options leading to it or to the surrounding natural attractions. The community is dependent on cattle rearing and arable farming for its income, and maize is the major crop, most of which is for subsistence consumption. The community lacks infrastructure for access, water, schools and health-care facilities.

5.4 Socio-Economic Conditions

The prevalence of poverty is greatest in the Shiselweni district with 76%, followed by Lubombo (73%), Manzini (70%) and Hhohho (61%) districts. From an ecological perspective, the Lubombo region has the highest poverty levels (81%), compared to Middle and Lowveld each with 71%, and the Highveld (64%) regions. Poverty is more prevalent in the rural areas (76%) when compared to the population in urban areas (50%). The Lubombo region also has the lowest literacy rate (73.1%), when compared to the Manzini (87.2%), Hhohho (82.2%), and Shiselweni (79.8%) districts. Adult literacy in the urban areas is 90% compared to 78.3% in the rural areas.94

Poverty is most prevalent among households whose heads depend on subsistence economic activities or disguised unemployment (77%), followed by paid seasonal workers (62%), self- employed persons (60%) and paid non-seasonal employees (38%). In rural areas, households depend on non-farm employment for the majority of their income (75%). 63% of female- headed households are poor and lack productive assets when compared to male-headed households. Households headed by illiterate persons have a higher poverty rate (71%) than those headed by persons with primary school education (30%). Households with 4 or more children had a poverty prevalence of 81% compared to 51% for families with one child.

94 PRSAP, 2007

195

The prevalence of poverty among households with safe sources of water is lower compared to others. Poverty prevalence is around 70% among households using rivers, canals, and wells compared to 24% in those households using indoor piped water. Households using the bush for a toilet (a characteristic of rural areas) exhibit much higher poverty prevalence (78%) compared to those using flush toilets (23%).

The poverty prevalence among the elderly (both men and women) was the highest compared to all other age groups. Elderly women have the highest poverty rates (81.3%) compared to elderly men (76.9%). In addition, most widows, regardless of their age, are poorer than their married counterparts. The poverty prevalence among widows is 73% compared to 66.9% among married women and 51.3% among unmarried women.

In designing interventions towards the reduction of poverty, the National Poverty Reduction Strategy and Action Plan (2007) recommends that preference be given to the poorest and most vulnerable groups and rural areas as there is a strong correlation between poverty and the populations’ social characteristics, such as education and health standards, access to safe water and sanitation, or family size.95 In this regard, the Lubombo region is a priority candidate for preferential treatment, while the Hhohho region offers a different set of challenges

5.4.1 Economic Gain from the Use of Natural Forests and Woodlands

The natural forests and woodlands of the Swaziland provide a diverse range of important services and products that contribute to the development of the country. An example of a valuable forest service is its ability to function as a watershed thereby securing water resources, reducing severe soil erosion and ameliorating the impacts of shocks to the environment. These forests also provide a valuable service through their ability to sustain productive levels of biodiversity from which a variety of products are generated including timber and NTFPs. These same resources also constitute a major natural asset for rural communities, where 75% of the population resides and where poverty is very high, and the livelihood of a majority of the people depends on them.

Communities look to the forest to fulfil their basic needs that include food, medicine, construction materials, fuel wood, medicine and fodder, and access to the natural woodland resources is determined by membership in the community, with the traditional leaders defining the access rules. In Swaziland, almost a quarter of the people extract forest resources on a daily basis, a clear indication of the dependence on the woodlands for survival. The vast majority of the rural poor depend on and derive many direct and indirect uses and benefits from natural forest and woodland resources, including, food, construction material, fuel wood, medicine, and fodder96. All household members extract the resources, and in most cases they extract similar resources. There is anecdotal evidence that women in Swaziland are

95 PRSAP, 2007

96 Singwane and Shabangu, 2012

196 the primary users of natural resources and woodlands, and regional comparisons show that in rural communities, women and girls collect an estimated 75% of water and firewood.

The primary challenges to biodiversity conservation lies as much in the attitudes of the public to natural areas, as it does in the unending erosion of SNL cleared for farming, construction, charcoal production, lumber production, food, medicine and fuel wood. Given the level of uncertainty that the country faces in its major earning sectors and the promotion of diversification in the agricultural sector, NTFPs may offer a valid avenue for revenue generation particularly for the rural poor.

Despite the rural populations’ level of dependence on NTFPs, there is very little direct information on the economic gains from unrestricted access to natural resources. Although several studies analysed the potential and utilisation of the many direct and indirect benefits and services of forests and woodlands in Swaziland, information on the economic values of such benefits remains deficient. In addition, biodiversity studies produced to date have not focused on either cataloguing the species used or the conservation issues related to NTFP usage. Furthermore, both the flow of benefits and asset values of natural forests and woodland resources are not captured in Swaziland’s National Accounts System.97

Dlamini and Geldenhuys (2011) have found that because of the extremely low input costs associated with NTFPs resource harvesting and utilisation, this type of use remains a viable strategy for poor households, for both domestic consumption and trade. They estimate that the annual per household value of edible NTFPs is between 44 and 1,434 USD. These figures are extremely high in light of the fact that the study only covered edible products, and excluded fuel wood, bush-meat and domestic plants. These values are also higher than the South African average of 193 USD per household for edibles, though they are comparable to values from the South African Lowveld (Bushbuckridge area). Earlier research found that edible NTFPs in Swaziland comprise between 1% and 3% of the total value of NTFPs.98 Based on this, the minimum contribution range of NTFPs to household income is between 7.5% and 22%, and is most likely to be even higher.

In addition, very little attention has been paid to the socio-economic aspects related to the NTFP sector. There is a lack of knowledge related to the trade, markets and the socio- economic impacts on the stakeholders involved in the NTFP sector. The distinct gender and age related dynamics pertaining to the harvesting and the manufacturing process involving NTFPs are yet to be understood. Other than establishing the fact that NTFP usage forms a common basis for a traditional form of rural livelihood, current research on the NTFP sector is inadequate to answer the question as to its level of success in alleviating poverty. At the same time, the level of demand for some NTFPs has lasted in the face of advancing technological changes. The level of consumer demand may be due in part to the quality of

97 The National Accounting System disguises the fact that economic growth and development have taken place primarily through degradation of the natural environment as stock of renewable and non-renewable resources. (Hassan et al., 2002)

98 Hassan et al. (2002)

197 craftsmanship and/or quality of the products (e.g. NTFP organic based insecticides, traditional herbal remedies versus pharmaceutical remedies), while other products have commercial potential and are arguably constrained by the resource limitations of the sector. A preliminary summary of the identified gaps in the NTFP market in Swaziland is located in the appendices.

5.5 Government Stakeholders in Income Generation Activities

The current IGAs in the areas surrounding Swaziland’s PAs encompass many sectors. A number of governmental institutions are responsible for addressing these by the nature of their responsibilities. The Ministry of Economic Planning and Development oversees micro projects coordination, national development strategy coordination, national population issues, integrated development planning, introduction of the sector-wide approach and coordination of and mainstreaming of poverty eradication programs. Their broad mandate is to manage and operationalize the implementation of the National Development Strategy, which encompasses policy formulation, strategic planning, the formulation of the capital program, and the budget. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is primarily responsible for development of rural income generation programs, through its primary mandate: ensuring household food security and increased sustainable agricultural productivity through diversification and enhancement of commercial agricultural activities. They have the capacity and knowledge to provide training services to the various communities.

At the same time, much of the on-the-ground responsibilities for oversight, communication and follow-up fall on Swaziland National Trust commission (SNTC) and the Department of Forestry (Forestry), both a part of the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs. Forestry’s mandate is the maintenance of a coherent and contemporary forest policy and disseminating technical knowledge on forest management, markets and organisational aspects to communities, individuals and companies. The SNTC is responsible for the conservation of Swaziland’s nature and the cultural heritage through sustainable utilisation of these resources and promotion of environmental awareness throughout the nation. SNTC’s community outreach programme promotes amicable relations with PA neighbours coupled with fundamental empowerment on sustainable rural development through appropriate training and is often the lead in managing community relations.

To the extent that the Project Team could determine, the MoA maintains at least three basic IGAs on a regular basis: apiculture (beekeeping), indigenous poultry raising and an edible oil program that is focused on sunflower seeds. The latter two are fixed income programs, where the MoA guarantees the product sale price. By the far, the best-known and most widely available program is apiculture. Beyond these three programs, the development of new IGA programs seems to be sporadic and dependent, for the most part, on donor funding. As far as could be determined, all three programs are designed based on internationally accepted standards in terms of up-front training requirements and seed costs from participants. No information was provided in regard to program costs, monitoring and evaluation or success rates, though an undated regional situation analysis of the beekeeping industry in southern Africa notes that the MoA trained 3,000 farmers and less than 10% remain active.

198

In terms of addressing rural poverty, the mandates of the two land management agencies, SNTC and Forestry, are unclear and there is no adequate definition of the tasks and the demarcation of areas of responsibility in each of these of sister agencies, and between them and the MoA. This has resulted in the overlapping and conflict between programs, as well as lack of coordination and unhealthy competition. The situation is obviously caused by the underdevelopment of institutional capacity to provide positive outcomes. Furthermore, the present structure through which IGAs are provided is also incomplete in the sense that many key functions are either absent or are not being followed. In addition, field operations activities in all three agencies are hampered by the absence of an organised extension system, with the required trained personnel to manage and support IGAs. A recent smallholder and rural sector review by the World Bank99 identified the limited effectiveness of MoA extension services, low qualification of field extension staff and inconsistent technical advice to smallholders as a key sector constraint.

In addition to these three agencies, there are additional IGA programs that are managed individually by other agencies. One such program is the Ministry of Natural Resources & Energy’s energy efficient household stove program. Another is the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs curio and handicraft program. The Project Team did not receive any detailed information regarding these programs. However, as with the other programs, there appears to be little coordination and collaboration between the various agencies and programs. For any long-term benefits to accrue from any of these programs, all the agencies need to work together in a coordinated manner to ensure that income related development strategies are implemented properly through a coherent approach.

5.6 Recommendations for Potential Livelihood Interventions

With increasing population and falling productivity of farmlands, generating alternative sources of income is essential. It is important to promote activities that balance the need for conserving biodiversity and meet the requirements of local communities, on the one hand, and promote technologies and skills that can provide additional income on the other. Uneven development and inadequate service provision are a significant cause of poverty in Swaziland’s rural areas. They are not issues that can be easily redressed through institutional strengthening initiatives. While it is acknowledged that interventions in these areas are important, this report stresses the need to address the inequitable distribution of development benefits through supporting existing production and marketing systems, wherever possible, as a single intervention cannot raise the living standards of communities. An additional lens for review of these interventions is the need to increase protection of biodiversity.

99 World Bank, 2011

199

Figure 41: Linkage among livelihood elements and implementation methods The first set of intervention recommendations is based on addressing the two interrelated pillars of rural livelihoods: small-scale income-generating activities and subsistence agriculture. Without addressing these, any additional interventions will not be useful. The emphasis is on building upon pre-existing systems and capacities, which greatly increases the likelihood that the proposed interventions will be self-sustaining. Collectively, the proposed interventions would stimulate the informal economy and provide long-term benefits to rural people. Similarly, support to subsistence agriculture would add diversity to pre-existing production systems, while simultaneously improving the long-term viability of the resource base, particularly in areas where land is already under pressure.

The second set of recommended interventions is tied to the development of tourism related enterprises. There is no doubt that there is a large scope of activities and enterprises that could be developed by individuals and communities in the areas reviewed, and around PAs in general. For the most part, there are three constraining factors:

There is absence of a functional national development plan that links all the PAs in terms of their internal development needs and external connections to the surrounding communities. This plan would link the tourist and recreational potential of the various PAs and the activities within them into a cohesive whole. Such a link would allow both communities and individuals to develop tourism related ventures. It would also allow individual PAs to leverage that information into an assessment of development and tourism needs, as well as the need for and ability to utilise individual or community based enterprises to the PAs benefit. Development of such a plan, focused on the visitor related aspects of PAs, is to be considered of utmost priority.

Site-specific determination of which activities are both feasible and viable in each community. The long-term financial security for communities depends on the ability to comprehensively implement any such tourism and development plan in an appropriate manner. Such as an assessment is beyond the scope of this report, though it should be considered of utmost priority.

200

The current skill and capacity level of individuals and communities. The recommendations at this point are capacity building interventions for community-managed micro-enterprises, introduction and production of high-value niche products and services, capacity and awareness raising and access to resources, technologies, and markets.

A crucial element in the success of both types of interventions is the development of consistent technical support and the development of proven access to working credit. The lack of access is a critical constraint, and an approach to resolve this issue should be included. Use of a partnership approach is recommended, as there are local partners, such as SWIFT, with experience in providing business development training and links to micro-lenders.

5.6.1 Improving the Productivity of Current Farming Systems

This is the most vital issue faced by the rural communities in Swaziland. Interventions for improving the productivity of the subsistence systems are much needed, and there is considerable potential to increase subsistence food production. The most efficient way to increase production of the staple food crops is adoption of improved cultivation methods. Any increase in productivity results in an improved return on their labour inputs, which is the main criterion that villagers use when deciding whether to adopt new systems. Among the possibilities are agro-forestry, improvements to soil fertility, and the introduction of other off- season cash crops

Agro-forestry, an integrated approach of using the interactive benefits from combining trees and shrubs with crops and/or livestock, is a relatively low-cost solution that can raise productivity of smallholdings by up to 60%. This would not only increase a households’ food availability, it can potentially free some food supplies for sale outside the household. It has the additional benefit of providing corridors for the movement of animals.

A second option is improving soil fertility. Among the easiest to implement are utilisation of soil-restoring green manure. For example, research from India shows that areas previously covered with Siam weed (Chromoleana odorata) and lantana (Lantana camera) are 10% more fertile than adjacent areas. Siam weed has also been used successfully an enricher for organic and farm based manure. Urgent applied research in the Swazi physical environment is needed to verify application.

5.6.2 Promotion of Appropriate Technologies

Diversification beyond the immediate subsistence level of crop production is a requirement for any real progress to be made on income generation. The interventions noted below are based on existing programs that have minimum negative effects on the environment, as well as, comparable new ones. Successful establishment of these could create the basis for both income generation and the initial process of development of some of the skills set needed to create and manage tourism related enterprises.

Beekeeping, indigenous poultry farming and edible oil programs are relatively easy to expand and improve (from current program levels) and most communities would strongly

201 support these activities. For this to occur, however, additional information and training needs to be provided to communities and community outreach officers, and a follow-up assessment, that includes an understanding of why and where these projects succeed or fail developed. Indigenous poultry and edible oil programs are especially recommended as the MoA takes upon itself the collection of the products, an issue that presents a large barrier to increased adoption of beekeeping. In addition, the poultry can provide an additional source of meat and eggs for the family. Consideration should also be given to the expansion of edible oil programs beyond the current reliance on sunflower oil.

Simultaneously with the expansion of these programs, development of a more systemic collection process—one that relies on the development of a cadre of local collectors— should be considered for development of an additional income option, and for removal of a key barrier to more widespread adoption. The collection network should be based, for example, on local collectors using cargo bicycles (with or without flatbed or closed cart trailers), allowing them to collect from multiple locations that then bring the products to a central collection point for motorised distribution.

Commercial worm farming is one of the rural enterprises that can be developed at both a smallholder scale and a larger commercial enterprise. The use of earthworms in waste management by utilising and breaking down organic wastes has received increasing attention over the last 20 years, where research programs and commercial projects have been developed in many countries on all continents, led by the growing realisation that organic matter in the waste stream can be used as a resource rather than going to landfills; that diversion, remediation and recycling of organic matter from the waste stream can create a marketable product for sale; and by the increasing recognition of vermiculture, as a viable alternative to composting100.

Among the benefits of vermiculture are: reduced need for fertilisers, perticides and herbicides; soil nitrates remain in the plant root zone preventing nitrogen leaching into ground water; water quality is enhanced as pollutants are degraded; the water holding capacity of soil is increased; reduced erosion of topsoil; and increased crop quality. Vermiculture products include worm livestock and cocoons (for sale), live bait for fishing, vermimeal, compost and fertilisers (vermicompost, vermicast and vermiliquid). Each product requires a different level of input. Vermicompost works well as a soil additive, increasing water-holding capacity, improving soil structure and adding natural fertiliser elements. It can be sold in bulk for agricultural applications or bagged for horticultural uses. There is an added benefit to worm farming and that is the ability to use Bugweed (Solanum mauritianum), an IAS, as worm feed. There is anecdotal evidence101 that Bugweed strengthens the pH of vermiliquid fertiliser trifold.

100 Vermicompost is seven times richer than compost and requires a seventh of the quantity (Munroe, Manual of On-Farm Vermicomposting and Vermiculture).

101 Worms4Africa

202

The current dairy development situation is considered dire by the MoA, but they have not been able to develop an effective income generation program so far. The introduction of cows is technically feasible and could generate both short- and long-term income. However, there are several main obstacles: (i) cows are considered an important asset. The introduction of dairy cows could distort local social equilibrium by providing a very significant economic advantage to those owners; (ii) the MoA has not yet found the way to maintain and support the level of commitment required by the dairy owners with the related technical consistency. Despite this, development of an effective dairy program should be prioritised. A related second tier development is milk processing which can only be developed if milk-cows are introduced. Milk processing, however, is a long-term activity and should only be considered when there is sufficient capital in existence, as it that takes at least 2 to 3 years before any return on investment materialises.

Fresh food and firewood are significant sources of cash income for many rural villagers. The significance of rural markets varies greatly between communities, and is most developed where there are marked differences in the ecology, resource base and livelihood strategies within one area, and the relative importance of domestically marketed food and other items also varies greatly. There is, however, room to consider and develop semi-rural markets. The development of competitive farm gate markets is an important step in promoting increased production. Establishing retail networks for rural farm products is another option. Interventions should support and enhance the marketing of fresh produce, both between and within communities. The role of marketing organisations in selling farm products should be reviewed, as at present, farmers are always at the mercy of the dealers or middlemen. It is suggested that farmers themselves should be taught to market their own produce. In doing so, farmers could get competitive farm gate prices for their produce. A number of activities additional capacity building initiatives that would increase the overall volume and value of locally marketed produce are also needed. With the exception of some minor ad hoc initiatives, support to fresh produce marketing has never been a focus of donor or government development programs. Such support would represent a major innovation in the delivery of development assistance to rural people. Development of these will also benefit from the development of a rural collectors network.

Apart from the food markets, local retail markets should also be developed. Organising both rural and urban-educated unemployed and local CSOs to form marketing associations on a profit basis could help to link producers to markets for both food products and non-perishable products. Such organisations can develop market linkages and pass on the necessary information to producers and purchase in bulk from them. The potential to develop linkages with the government, institutions, estates, hotels, and restaurants should be explored.

NTFPs are another option for improving livelihoods and enhancing conservation. The fibre- yielding species, such as black wattle, Siam weed and lantana, provide scope for local-level processing and value addition for handicrafts and furniture production, and as a rule require only a small amount of capital to start operations. Such industries can be the occupation of the people after the planting/cropping seasons are finished. The Small Enterprises Development Company (SEDCO), a Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Trade

203 venture, is in the process of developing natural fibre programs in conjunction with the Global Natural Fibre Forum. Both handicraft and fibre production programs should focus on the use of Siam weed, lantana and black wattle, as these plant species are IAS, but are also considered extremely viable for handicrafts, furniture and cardboard production. The use of a well-promoted and supported fair trade type certification standard that would support and encourage use of IAS, such as Siam weed, lantana and black wattle, for the handicraft market and local furniture would reflect in sellers’ ability to gain higher prices for their products.

To support the development of a constant raw material source, ensure sufficient supply of NTFPs to households, as well as to improve the ability to manage natural resources within PAs, the development of community woodlots is recommended.

At a different scale, a more systemic approach to skills development such as carpentry and furniture making should be considered. Wattle furniture is highly prized due to its durability and grain colours, and is available in abundance. The establishment of native plant nurseries should be developed, and consideration should be given to the development of both marula and kiaat plantations as these tree species are not only endangered but also highly prized for cultural and market reasons, and there is a need to start planning for long-term maintenance of both species outside of PAs while ensuring continued use of them as a NTFP resource. Forestry has some limited experience with nurseries for these trees, and there is an immediate need to develop and expand on their existing program and knowledge. Consideration should be given to the development of value added NTFP programs, such as the establishment and marketing of jam and fruit preservatives, and the development of value added honey products (similar to marula oil use) in partnership with Bulembu Ministries, or a private entity.

Consideration should be given to the development of community-based Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs. There are several options for developing community based PES, including both carbon and REDD projects, with the income providing for schools, utilities, and other community needs. These programs have both an upfront cost and are time consuming to set up, however they can provide much needed income. For example, in the Sofala community in Mozambique, each household is guaranteed an income of 40 USD per annum for 7 years for based on household performance (payments to farmers are front-end loaded each year by 30%). As part of this carbon & REDD project the farmers can choose agro-forestry (for soil improvement, fuel wood and fodder for livestock) or indigenous fruit trees with the purpose of improving yields and reducing forest clearing pressure. The project also has riparian stabilisation planting and habitat restoration components.

Introduction of other household fuel solutions such as fuel-efficient stoves and improved charcoal processing should be encouraged. Such technologies could assist households by reducing their need to collect firewood and free the household’s time and allow them the opportunity to develop alternative incomes. Among the technologies to be considered are fuel-efficient stoves, solar water filters for households who do not have access to potable water, solar charged lanterns and solar water heaters. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy has a program to encourage the use of such stoves, and provide them to interested

204 households, but there is a need to expand the program and train communities not only to produce such stoves on their own, but also encourage the use of other energy efficient household technology.

A related IGA is the production and sale of briquettes, made by compacting biomass waste, including invasive alien species (IAS), that can serve as both a household and institutional fuel. Briquettes are a better fuel than firewood. At present, a program to train in the production and use of briquettes is not available in Swaziland.

Lastly, consideration should be given to the systemic distribution of solar-based electricity, so that remote communities can acquire access to technology. This would allow households to develop the skills to create non-farm small enterprises, such as data entry, that could provide additional sources of income.

5.6.3 Commercial Use of Invasive Alien Species

IAS are characterised by rapid growth rates, extensive dispersal capabilities, large and rapid reproductive output, and broad environmental tolerance.102 It is estimated that as many as 50% of invasive species in general can be classified as ecologically harmful, based on their actual impacts103.

Biological invasions are considered as a key threat to biodiversity104 due to the extensive damage on the habitats they invade, which include impact on indigenous species diversity, soil nutrient composition, altering forest fire cycles, loss of productivity of invading ecosystems and the threat to endangered or threatened plant species around the world. Invasive species may also cause changes in environmental services, such as flood control and water supply, water assimilation, nutrient recycling, conservation and regeneration of soils.105

Tessema (2012) coined the phrase “eradication by utilisation” to describe the economic use of IAS as a means of harnessing their economic potentials for meeting basic human needs, and at the same time control their spread and possibly eradicate them. As unpopular as this concept seems, in the context of PAs and biodiversity protection, it can be a viable means for increasing the relatively short-term financial opportunities available to PA managers, while at the same time addressing a key natural resource management objective: the removal of IAS. Promoting the utilisation of any IAS remains a controversial approach due to the potential to contributing to their spread, especially when effective integrated management strategies are not implemented. For utilisation to work it must be integrated with a coherent and comprehensive PA management strategy.

In Swaziland, where by some estimates 20% of the land is covered by IAS, they pose a dire and immediate threat to biodiversity. The threat IASs pose is exacerbated by the dependence

102 Geesing et al., 2000 103 Richardson et al. 2000 104 Mooney and Hobbs, 2000 105 Pimentel et al., 2005

205 of the population on NTFPs for both household services and income as noted earlier. Within PAs, addressing IAS for biodiversity and management should be considered of utmost priority. Of comparable importance is the development of education and awareness community outreach programs on the topic. All stakeholders involved in the development of IGAs should highlight IAS utilisation as part of their programs where possible. These types of programs, in addition to their income generation potential, will allow communities to actively participate in resource management activities both within and around PAs.

Selected utilisation options for IAS in Swaziland

Siam weed (Chromolaena odorata): biogas production; improving soil fertility and reducing the fallow period of farm lands; mulch for increased maize yield; livestock feed; leaf meal for poultry; insect and rodent repellent for temporal storage of maize; plant fertiliser, compost and mulch; remediation of heavy metals in soils; treatment for oily wastewater; charcoal and briquettes;

Lantana (Lantana camara): basket and broom making; furniture and handicraft products (; fuel wood and biogas (when dry); charcoal and briquettes; construction material for bee hives; as vermicompost can increase field yield; botanical insecticide to protect crops; improve soil productivity; source of low cost enzyme for detergents alkaline protease; flower can be used a natural silk dye; biofuel and bioethanol; paper pulp (high fibre values)

Black wattle (Acacia mearnsii): furniture and handicraft products (specialty timber); fuel wood and biogas (when dry); charcoal and briquettes; construction material; paper pulp (high fibre values); biomass; commercial tannins and wattle extract; tannin-based wood adhesives; useful for cooper work; axe- and pick-handles; useful for agro-forestry; posts for fencing; can be used as livestock fodder in certain conditions; edible gum and seed; bark tea

Key Program Components for Commercial Use of Invasive Alien Species

In addition to the natural resource management aspects of an IAS utilisation program, other elements include education and training, secondary industries and community development.

Education and Training. An education and training campaign to generate awareness of the issues related to IAS is needed. Education is one of the keys to the long-term success. Levels of awareness among landowners, nursery wholesalers and retailers and the general public around the threats and impacts posed by IAS need to be enhanced. Responsible land management will stem only from an understanding of the severity of the impacts of invading alien plants. Training focuses on skills needed to make the program successful, for example, through induction basic training skills, such as health and safety, first aid and fire fighting skills; and contractor development training programs.

The training program should also include a large component of life-skills, such as personal finance management, literacy and numeric skills etc. At management level, the training and development programs should encourage staff to start academic programs in the related technical fields.

206

Secondary Industries. The development of viable secondary industries, such as the production of charcoal from invader wood and furniture production, is a critical component a IAS program, and has been shown to offer significant potential for job creation and to generate the funding necessary to ensure that the programs is able to sustain itself over a 15- year period.106

Community Development. Community and enterprise development training should also be considered an essential aspect of any IAS program. In South Africa, for example, the Working for Water program increased women and youth employment by 54% and 26% respectively. 884 contractors emerged from the program, 14% as collectives and 85% as individual entrepreneurs. Of the individual entrepreneurs, the majority were previously unemployed, 33% were women and 10% were youth.

5.6.4 Tourism Related Enterprises

One of the fundamental reasons to consider tourism within the context of PAs is the linkage with communities that are either adjacent to, or within, a PA. An inherent part of tourism development is the creation and maintenance of economic opportunities, enhancement of the quality of life and protection of a cultural, historic and natural heritage107. The fact that PAs attract visitors that support local economies is undoubted. In PAs, local communities can provide many of the needed goods and services to visitors, and can, if integrated with the management of those natural areas, protect the natural resources of PAs108. Tourism in PAs can play an important role for the enhancement of the local prosperity because it can generate supplementary income and expand job opportunities besides being a tool for the conservation of the natural environment. Both tourism and eco-tourism related enterprises have immense potential in all the areas reviewed.

The one critical aspect of tourism related enterprises that must be considered is that though they have the potential to be a high revenue generator for communities and households, this income requires high level of inputs in terms of training and service provision, as well as being highly variable. For tourism to succeed as a community IGA, it must be tied to a series of activities, options and activities within the PAs themselves that place the activity in context, and the ability to deliver a high quality experience that is based on highly trained and skilled managers and service providers. This requires a systemic and site-specific review of the possibilities both within and around PAs to ensure that the best tourism option is selected, and should be preceded by intensive training that will allow communities to make such decisions to their benefit. In the immediate short and medium term, as many communities and household struggle with food security and provision of basic services, such income cannot be considered as a replacement for other IGAs.

106 Dingela and van Staden, 2000 107 Eagles and McCool, 2002 108 Moisey, 2002

207

Tourism related enterprises are closely linked with tourism and agricultural dynamics in the area. Tourism-related job creation often occurs on an ad hoc, or ‘as needed’ basis. Jobs in tourism are often seasonal in nature and can take skilled labour away from other sectors (e.g. agriculture). Unplanned development of tourist-related facilities and infrastructure can adversely affect the natural resource base that local populations depend on for their livelihoods. Tourism facilities can also exacerbate existing resource problems.

The Need to Develop Suitable Ecotourism Products for a Range of Market Segments

Currently, there is little to no ecotourism in Swaziland. What does exist is mostly focused on cultural performances, and on single aspect adventure tourism products. It is, however, clear that nature and culture are the main assets that Swaziland has to offer and the principal reasons that the general leisure visitor, the adventure tourist, as well as, the special interest enthusiast come. Therefore, there is a need to develop and adapt products based on Swaziland’s exceptional nature and culture that do not damage the environment and that provide local communities with opportunities to generate income from different market segments. The following activities could be developed:

 As noted in the Financial Sustainability Report, there is a need to develop a coherent strategy that will allow the development of a robust tourism sector in Swaziland. Some of the options that should be considered in this context and an integral part of the PA and tourism national plan are:  The development of ‘themed’ circuits, such as birding, off-road biking and agro-tourism. In addition, cultural sites, and special biodiversity ‘destination’ sites and circuits should be considered. Each circuit has the potential to generate revenue both within PAs and in the communities that surround them, however, each requires a different set of capacities in order to be fully eventuated. Effective packaging of these tourism activities as an integral part of the PA experience will make it possible to attract tourists for longer periods to Swaziland.  Establishing good quality eco-lodges in areas of natural beauty or of cultural interest aimed at high-end tourists would attract domestic and international visitors109, and this would serve two purposes. First, while professional management would be needed to run the operation, at least during the first few years, the eco-lodges would directly train and employ local people and purchase products and services from the local community, such as guiding services, cultural performances, and food supplies. The emphasis would be on training local staff at the lodge and sending those with potential for additional training. Ultimately, the local community would have enough experience and would be able to manage the lodges themselves. Second, establishing the lodges would encourage the development of ecotourism in the surrounding areas. Marketing the lodges would also market the areas that they are located at.

109 A stricter differentiation of current accommodations and offerings is also required.

208

 Villages located near main centres that already provide some tourism services must be encouraged to adapt their product to capture the general sight-seeing market by organising and offering regular day excursions. This will create regular income for the local communities rather than only relying on income from packages that require overnight stays.  A homestay product needs to be developed. For this to occur, it is important that a financing system be established to assist interested villagers in funding the required improvements.  Areas appropriate for adventure sports, such as mountaineering and rock climbing, should be developed with appropriate facilities, like rescues services and training walls, and be properly marketed.  With its great variety of species, Swaziland can attract visitors interested in botany, birds and other wildlife. Most areas where these can be seen have been identified; however, in many cases, facilities need to be developed  If possible, volunteer tourism should be developed. This would provide local communities with income as well as assistance.

Requirements for the Effective Development of Ecotourism

To develop a vibrant and successful ecotourism product that will bring improvement to the livelihood of communities, without damaging or compromising the environment, a number of concerns need to be addressed:

Building awareness about the nature of ecotourism and its impact on the economy and society of Swaziland: It is imperative that the term is clearly defined and that guidelines are drafted to direct and control tourism activities that take place in nature and involve local communities. This should be set out in a policy document that is formulated with the participation and in consultation with all stakeholders. The policy and the impact of developing ecotourism on the economy and rural society would need to be widely publicised so that all citizens are informed about what ecotourism means, and about their responsibility towards preserving and promoting Swaziland’s ecotourism assets.

Developing ecotourism products suitable for a range of market segments to maximise earning opportunities and developing and improving tourism infrastructure: Appropriate infrastructure to assist tourists must be developed throughout Swaziland to provide them with interpretation and information, directions, as well as, comfort. Some of these improvements include: (i) Establishing interpretation centres at central tourism sites would provide comprehensive background information, and enhance the tourism experience. These centres could also serve as comfort service areas with clean public conveniences, small scale catering facilities, and retail outlets for books and souvenirs, and most importantly for the sale of handicrafts made by the local communities living near the attraction. Guides for the site would be booked at the centre, and other local tourism services such as accommodation, restaurants and entertainment available in the area could be publicised. At the main urban district nodes, orientation centres should be established. (ii) There is a need to expand and upgrade the museums and interpretive centres at areas of interest. These may be

209 separate facilities, extensions of the interpretation centres or specific buildings like traditional model houses. (iii) Selected heritage villages must be improved to make them more ‘tourist friendly.’ The requirements here include signage, facilities to showcase local handicrafts, space to perform cultural performances, improvement of village walkways, etc.

Promoting the ecotourism product and creating market linkages: Marketing is one the main weaknesses of Swaziland’s tourism management. Marketing of both tourism and ecotourism is a vital skill. When expanding to community related activities, it requires a well- thought out and well-financed marketing strategy, with year-on-year budgets that are respected, and that most importantly, implemented through annual operational plans. This strategy must reflect the needs of both the public and private operators.

Waste management and environmental clean-up in tourism areas: Waste management must be established to protect the environment and the assets that are the motive for tourism.

A capacity building program is vital if ecotourism is to be developed successfully. Training programmes must be established for the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, MoA, Forestry, SNTC and other land management entity employees to expose them to the realities of ecotourism development and operations. To ensure that local communities are able to operate their own ecotourism enterprises at a future date, candidates showing strong potential and desire to forge a career in the tourism sector should be identified and sent for training at hospitality and tourism education institutions. A revival of the hospitality school at Bulembu with a focus on managing nature based and ecotourism enterprises is recommended. Communities that want to offer ecotourism services should be sent on exposure visits to successful initiatives to learn from their experiences. In addition, short courses on ecotourism activities and operations could be organised for the private sector operating at the community level.

5.7 Strengthening and Promoting Development Initiatives

One of the biggest obstacles to the development of IGAs in Swaziland is the lack of cooperation and collaboration between the various agencies involved. Collaboration will enable the leveraging from existing schemes and programs, and communities will gain if program activities are included in the plans of local development authorities. Ensuring better horizontal and vertical coordination between different stakeholders will enhance development activities. The activities recommended for the IGAs involve both short- and long-term results.

The support from key stakeholders is, at present, limited and there is an urgent need to improve information flow generated by these activities to strengthen awareness and understanding of the potential achievements. In addition, sustainable IGAs that also support biodiversity require the development of strong partnerships among government sectors, and between the various national authorities, the private sector and local communities. Inter- sectoral coordination and management of activities is also crucial to the sustainable use of the resources, and a mechanism to ensure that all relevant stakeholders’ voices be heard is necessary so that actions are not taken in an isolated way.

210

Improving the capacities and skills of the different stakeholders involved in activities will be essential to bring about a positive impact on conservation and livelihoods. Training on different aspects of conservation, resource planning, micro-credit, development of micro- plans, technologies, enterprise development, marketing, and business management will be vital for success. Training and capacity-building programs that enable the development of business skills should also be developed for both community outreach officers and communities themselves. Understanding the financial pros and cons of certain decisions, and the ability to develop long-term planning for an enterprise is critical to the ability to deal with existing income opportunities, as well as, deal with the vagaries and variability of tourism- based income.

The involvement of local development organisations and cooperatives should be promoted. This can be achieved by educating local CSOs to take an interest in conservation and community development initiatives and by providing them with appropriate tools and options to initiate relevant programs. A network of community development organisations can facilitate information sharing and local action.

Communities should be organised and self-help groups could be formed to inculcate the habit of saving and enhance financial security. There is a potential for securing micro-credit from financial institutions and cooperative banks, though financial and business development training should precede such applications. Micro-credit should be taken as an important input in the entire enterprise and in income-generating activities. As an integral part of this, the concept of village banks and consumer cooperatives should also be explored.

Recommended Year 1 & Year 2 Activities

 IGA provider capacity and service delivery  Revise and re-invigorate the IGA system to ensure the full participation of government (MPED, MoA, SNTC, Forestry, MTEA, SEDCO, MNRE), private sector and local stakeholders, as well as ensuring that projects have adequate support for all activities. Define clear policies and procedures for coordination between agencies and for delivery of services. Improve integration into national planning and key development processes.  Establish master list of IGA resources, existing projects, impact and sustainability indicators, and service providers with clear criteria for participation and related training and financial requirements.  Undertake market assessments, feasibility and economic valuations of existing and proposed IGAs to propose a set of core programs that will form the basis of services; develop path to improve performance; and investigate the potential market, value chain and delivery mechanisms for each.  Build on existing IGA programs (apiculture, edible oil and indigenous poultry), and improve programs and personnel training, information provided and technical support to communities.  Training of Trainers for staff and outreach officers on agroforestry and other selected IGAs for improved land management.  Small scale IGAs and agriculture to improve food security

211

 Develop Training of Community Trainers on agroforestry and other selected IGAs for improved land management and soil fertility. Organise training in problem diagnosis and the menu of relevant solutions.  Conduct assessment of communities in pilot areas.  Develop community capacity to manage IGAs (production and marketing), address financial concerns and develop entrepreneurial skills  Stimulate external stakeholder participation and collaboration in community projects and private-public partnerships  Training of individual farmers and trainers involved in IGAs and support to them will be arranged to facilitate the dissemination of good practice in the communities where the project is working.

Community based empowerment

 Training of community leaders and individual IGA participants will be undertaken in a number of ways and with a wide range of topics in order to empower the community. In most cases government staff or external experts will provide the training. Topics should include conflict management, facilitation skills, multi-stakeholder analysis, Organisational development, financial management and business planning.  Establishment of local networking groups amongst communities in order to discuss and coordinate analysis of issues related to natural resources and economic development.  Develop and conduct training programs on environmental education, interpretive activities, tour guidance, ecotourism natural resource enterprises, financial management and business development to communities.  Improve access to markets and increase the value added by focusing on rural marketing. Facilitate product collection and marketing via access and transportation development programs.  Develop artisan training facilities and processes to support communities in development of rural enterprises and develop capacity to document and maintain heritage skills  Develop a set of infrastructure investments that can easily be deployed to remote rural areas and that will facilitate rural development

Tourism related enterprises

 Develop training programs on environmental education, interpretive activities, tour guidance, ecotourism natural resource enterprises, financial management and business development to communities.  Assess communities for viability of tourism enterprises, in context of PA development plan and other community development initiatives, and define appropriate planning scope to support the ability of communities to develop tourism based IGAs.  Conduct training for communities and individuals on environmental education, interpretive activities, tour guidance, ecotourism, natural resource enterprises, financial management and business development to develop skills and capacities, and develop personnel selection skills in communities.

212

 Support for NTFP production, processing and participatory resource management:  Develop community woodlots to support household and community NTFP (woodlots will start to become viable after 6-years)  Develop access and use agreements between communities and land managing entities regarding community access to PAs in the context of IAS collection and removal  Develop and conduct training for communities on the use and removal of IAS, development of natural resource based enterprises, financial management and business development.  Develop plant nurseries to ensure supply of medicinal and cultural heritage plants for NTFP; and to ensure a supply of native plants to replace IAS removals  Develop a program for long term survival and use viability of kiat and marula trees, including the establishment of community tree nurseries  Develop and conduct training related to the production NTFPs, with activities including support for production, product development, business development, financial management to develop skills and capacities.

Marketing of NTFPs

 Conduct value chain assessment and feasibility/viability for NTFP and other related products. Identify value chain actors and facilitate negotiation between marketing groups and traders. Facilitate linkage through value chain and with other development programs.  Support communities in developing trade links for NTFPs, strengthening existing ones and exploring new links, including the search for niche markets.  Facilitate development of links with funding mechanisms through financial and business development training for individuals and communities.  Establish NTFP product certification to assist in NTFP marketing. Strengthen competitive edge with “fair trade” and “bio-product” experiences.  Develop community marketing groups, raise awareness raising on price/quality relations, local market information and provide technical support

5.7.1 Risk Management

No major risks are anticipated with the implementation of the various activities in light of communities’ strong interest in improved income generation and the Government’s commitment to alleviating poverty. Strategies should be developed by the Project to minimize the risks posed by several constraints that could affect the quality, timeliness and volume of results. Some of these constraints are:

 Actors have different ideas, motives and perceptions concerning the project, and there could be continued lack of coordination between of the various institutions involved in IGA programs  The lack of capacity of the various institutions to follow-up on implementation of the recommended activities, and their provide the needed technical support to various program participants

213

 The non-participation of key stakeholders and its impact on the effectiveness and quality of program implementation.  Inadequate dissemination of information by the various partners.  Inadequate understanding and unreasonable expectations regarding what the Project can provide.

214

References

AfDB. 2012. African Economic Outlook 2012. African Development Bank

Arntzen, J. 2003. An economic view on wildlife management areas in Botswana. CBNRM Support Programme occasional paper, no. 10. Gaborone: IUCN/SNV

Balmford, A. et al. 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Scoping the Science. Cambridge: European Commission.

Bovarnik, A. 2007. Scorecard for Protected Areas Financial Sustainability. UNDP

Deall, G.B, Dobson, L., Masson, P.H., Mlangeni, N.J., Murdoch, G., Roques, K.G. & Shirley, H.O.A. (2000) Assessment of the protection value of remaining indigenous forests and woodlands in Swaziland. Forestry Policy and Legislation Project, Ministry of Agriculture/DANCED, Mbabane, Swaziland.

Dlamini, C.S. and Geldenhuys, C.J. 2011. Quantities and values of selected forest foods harvested by eight villages adjacent to natural woodlands in the four ecological zones of rural Swaziland. African Journal of Food Science 5(13): 717 – 727

Dingela, S. & van Staden, A. Eds. 2000. Workshop: Utilisation of invaders for secondary industries. In G. Preston, G. Brown and E. van Wyk, Eds. Best management practices for preventing and controlling invasive alien species. Pp. 158 - 159. Proceedings of a symposium, Cape Town, South Africa, 22 - 24 February 2000

Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008) Guidelines for Appling Protected Areas Management Categories. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Madden, J., and Spurr, R. 2000. Economic Impacts of Inbound Tourism under Different Assumptions Regarding the Macroeconomy. Current Issues in Tourism 3: 325- 363.

Eagles, P.F. and McCool, S.F. 2002. Tourism, protected areas and local communities. In: Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas. Eagle, et. al. (Ed.) Pp. 187-210. CABI Publishing.

Emerton, L., Bishop, J. and Thomas, L. 2006. Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A global review of challenges and options. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Ervin, J. (2000) WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation Methodology. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. 66pp.

Fisher, R.J. 2000. Creating incentives for conservation: non-timber forest products and poverty alleviation. Asia-Pacific Community Forestry Newsletter (13) 2

215

Geesing, D., Al-Khawlani M., Abba M.L. 2004. Management of introduced Prosopis species: can economic exploitation control an invasive species? Unasylva 55 (217): 36–44

Goetze, T. C. 2005. Empowered co-management: towards power-sharing and indigenous rights in Clayoquot Sound, BC. Anthropologica 47(2):247-265. Grimwood, I. (1973) The Establishment of National Parks: Report to the Government of Swaziland. FAO, Rome.

Hackel, J.D. & Carruthers, E.J (1993) Swaziland’s twentieth century wildlife preservation efforts: the present as a continuation of the past. Environmental Management, 17 (3), pp61- 84.

Hassan R.M., Mbuli, P. and Dlamini C.S. 2002. Natural resource accounts for the state and economic contribution of forests and woodlands resources in Swaziland. CEEPA Discussion Paper No. 4, CEEPA, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 1965–1978.

Huq H. 2001. People’s Organisation and Livelihoods Practices, an anthropological view. DFID Regional Livelihoods Workshop: Reaching the poor in Asia. 8-10 May, 2001.

Kerapeletswe, C. and J. Lovett .2001. The role of common pool resources in economic welfare of rural households. Working paper. York: University of York.

Koch-Weser, M. and Jacobs, W. 2007. Financing the Future: Innovative Funding Mechanisms at Work. Terra Media Verlag: Berlin.

Kotzé I, Sibandze P, Beukes H, van den Berg E, Weepener H & Newby T (2010) Surveying and Mapping the Distribution and Intensity of Infestation of Selected Category 1 Invasive Alien Plant Species in Swaziland, Report Number: GW/A/2010/28. Agricultural Research Council - Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria.

Lepper, C.M. and Schroenn Goebel, J. 2010. Community-based natural resource management, poverty alleviation and livelihood diversification: A case study from northern Botswana. Development Southern Africa 27(5)

Manyatsi, A.M. and Hlophe, E.T. 2010. Contribution of Sale of Firewood Towards Rural Livelihood in Swaziland, and its Environmental Sustainability. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 2(4): 226-232

Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, pp243-253.

Marketing Strategy. 2013. Provision of Assistance to the Swaziland Tourism Authority by the Commonwealth Secretariat.

216

Monadjem, A., Boycott, R., Parker, V. & Culverwell, J. (2003) Threatened Vertebrates of Swaziland. Swaziland Red Data Book: Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals. Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. 2007. The Swaziland Poverty Reduction Strategy and Action Plan (PRSAP). MEPD: Mbabane, Swaziland

Moisey, R. 2002. The economics of tourism in national parks and protected areas. In: Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas. Eagle, et al (Ed.). Pp: 235-253. CABI Publishing.

Mooney H.A. and Hobbs R.J. 2000. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press: Washington, D.C.

Munroe, G. Manual of On-Farm Vermicomposting and Vermiculture. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Neumann, R.P. and E. Hirsch. 2000. Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: review and analysis of research. CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia.

Pimentel D., Zuniga R., Morrison D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien- invasive species in the United States. Morrison 52: 273–288

Rihoy, E. and Maguranyanga, B. 2007. Devolution and democratisation of natural resource management in southern Africa: A comparative analysis of CBNRM policy processes in Botswana and Zimbabwe. CASS/PLAAS occasional paper series No. 18. Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe

Richardson D.M., Pysek P., Rejmánek M., Barbour M.G., Panetta F.D., West C.J. 2000 Naturalisation and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distribution 6: 93–107

Reilly, T.E. (1979) A Survey of Protection Worthy Areas of Swaziland. Swaziland National Trust Commission, Lobamba, Swaziland.

Roe, D. (Ed.). 2010. Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge Review. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Technical Series No. 55.

Roe, D. et al. 2011. Biodiversity and Poverty: Ten Frequently Asked Questions – Ten Policy Implications. Gatekeeper Series 150. London: IIED.

Roques, K. 2002. A preliminary field assessment of protection worthy areas of Swaziland. Final Report. UNDP

217

Roques K.G. (2002) A Rapid Field Assessment of Protection Worthy Areas of Swaziland. Swaziland Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Swaziland Government, Mbabane.

Roques, K.G., Dobson, L., Dlamini, S.D., Monadjem, A., Boycott, R., Mahlaba, T. and Raw, D. (2003) A Field Assessment of Priority Protection Worthy Areas of Swaziland: Makhonjwa, Manzimnyame, Sibebe and Nyonyane. Swaziland Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Swaziland Government, Mbabane.

SEA. 2002. Swaziland's National Report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. SEA: Mbabane, Swaziland

Singwane, S.S. and Shabangu, N. 2012. An Examination of the Utilization and Management of Natural Woodlands in Swaziland - A Case of Ka Bhudla Community. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 14:1 15-31

Stuart, D. and Johnson, C. 2004. Livelihood Options? The Political Economy of Access Opportunity and Diversification. Working Paper 233. ODI: London, UK

Swaziland Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Swaziland.

Tessema, Y.A. 2012. Ecological and Economic Dimensions of the Paradoxical Invasive Species - Prosopis juliflora and Policy Challenges in Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 3(8): 62–70

The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland Budget Estimates for Year from 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2014

The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland Budget Estimates for Year from 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2015,

Turner, S. 2004. A crisis in CBNRM? Affirming the commons in southern Africa. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), Oaxaca, Mexico, 9–13 August.

Turpie, J., Barnes J., Lange, G-M. & Martin, R. 2009. The economic value of Namibia’s protected area system and case for increased investment. Ministry of Environment and Tourism: Windhoek, Namibia.

World Bank. 2001. World Development Report 200/2001: Attacking poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Bank. 2011. Swaziland Rural Sector Review: Priorities for the Development of Smallholder Agriculture in Swaziland. Report No. 70200-SZ Agricultural and Rural Development Unit (AFTAR), Country Department AFCS1, Africa Region, the World Bank

218

WTTC. 2013. Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2013, Swaziland. World Travel & Tourism Council

219

Appendices

Appendix 1: PWA Importance and Threat Assessment

Scores for the importance and threat calculations for Swaziland’s Protection Worthy Areas.110

PWA Bio Bio Bio SE SE SE SE Overall Overall Import Repres Persist Import Touris Resour Cultur Import degree threat Big Bend 29 11 18 21 4 8 0 50 108 Conservancy Bulembu 27 22 5 16 4 6 6 43 96 Dwaleni hills 15 7 8 18 4 10 3 33 113 Gebeni 26 12 14 34 8 14 6 60 145 Hele hele 15 5 10 18 4 5 1 33 115 Hlane west 34 16 18 30 2 16 6 64 126 IYSIS 34 16 18 30 6 11 3 64 112 Jilobi 40 24 16 29 8 14 5 69 127 Libetse 10 5 5 7 1 3 1 17 110 Luhlokohlo 1 1 0 6 0 5 4 7 145 Maguga 27 19 8 32 6 12 10 59 176 Mahamba 37 23 14 25 8 4 6 62 139 Mahlangatsha 32 18 14 22 6 12 3 54 130 Mahhuku 41 21 20 33 8 9 6 74 128 Makhonjwa 32 23 9 37 10 18 6 69 103 Mananga 32 21 11 20 5 9 4 52 92 Manzimyame 48 28 20 21 8 10 3 69 109 Matsapha vlei 17 8 9 16 1 8 3 33 165 Mbuluzi 27 11 16 30 8 9 0 57 91 Mdzimba 41 23 18 45 10 20 10 86 162 Mhlumeni 32 18 14 28 8 14 3 60 107 Mjoli 28 14 14 26 4 16 5 54 148 Mkhondvo 22 12 10 24 10 10 3 46 140 Mliba 1 1 0 7 1 3 6 8 163 Muti muti 40 24 16 25 8 4 0 65 83 Ndlotane 46 26 20 30 10 16 3 76 145 Ndzeleni 2 2 0 11 4 6 5 13 183 Ngudzeni 22 12 10 27 6 18 5 49 186 Nisela 16 9 7 21 3 5 0 37 88 Nkhalashane 24 15 9 10 2 5 3 34 108

110 Roques 2002

220

PWA Bio Bio Bio SE SE SE SE Overall Overall Import Repres Persist Import Touris Resour Cultur Import degree threat Nsongweni 28 18 10 24 10 10 5 52 122 Ngwempisi 46 26 20 36 10 16 6 82 162 Nyonyane 50 30 20 35 10 18 6 85 123 Panata 22 8 14 35 8 9 3 57 97 Phophonyane 21 9 12 28 10 2 3 49 78 Pongola 30 12 18 22 8 5 0 52 112 Shewula 38 24 14 39 6 18 5 77 107 Shonalanga 5 4 1 5 0 1 0 10 137 Sibebe 30 20 10 33 10 7 8 63 163 Sinceni 26 12 14 37 10 16 5 63 128 Sondeza 28 21 7 24 6 14 6 52 102 Tulwane 18 13 5 18 4 12 5 36 174 Usutu gorge 34 20 14 20 10 6 4 54 104 (Bio = biological, Import = importance, Repres = representativeness, Persist = persistence, SE = socio-economic, Touris = tourism potential, Resour = resource value, Cultur = cultural value)

221

Appendix 2: The IUCN Protected Area Matrix

Adopted from Borrini Feyerabend, G. (2008)

Appendix 3: Governance Principles for Protected Areas

PA governance principles & the United Related governance responsibilities that can be Nations Principles on which they are based taken on by the people in charge and fostered by various other actors Do No Harm! Universal Declaration of Conservation with decency: no humiliation or Human Rights Millennium harm to people Development Goals UN If a new protected area is established, the legal Declaration of the Rights of and customary rights of indigenous peoples, local Indigenous Peoples communities and other stakeholders are fully respected Legitimacy Participation: all women and Free expression of views, no discrimination and Voice men have a voice in decision- related to gender, ethnicity, social class making, directly or through Social dialogue and collective agreements on PA legitimate representation management objectives, strategy, activities and

222

PA governance principles & the United Related governance responsibilities that can be Nations Principles on which they are based taken on by the people in charge and fostered by various other actors Freedom of association and tools speech Social trust is promoted, society “owns” the PA rules, citizens associated to dealing with PA Consensus orientation: issues are respected, the role of independent mediating interests to reach media is secured consensus decisions Subsidiarity (EU): Decisions are taken at the level closest to the issues at stake compatibly with capacities. Equity Fairness of opportunity: all Participatory mechanisms for decision-making men and women have about the protected area opportunities to improve or Fair avenues for conflict management, non- maintain their well-being discriminatory recourse to justice, including about past injustices resulting from the establishment of Rule of law: legal protected areas frameworks are fair and Equitable distribution of costs and benefits of enforced impartially, conservation particularly the laws on Fair Management practices of protected area staff human rights Consistency and impartiality in enforcing PA regulations Direction Strategic Vision: leaders and Listening to people, understanding their concerns, public have long-term fostering the generation and support of innovative perspectives on good ideas and processes governance and human Providing effective leadership by fostering and development, and a sense of maintaining an inspiring and consistent vision for what is needed for it the protected area in the long-term, mobilizing support for this vision, and garnering the Embracing complexities: the necessary resources to reach it historical, cultural and social Clarifying PA objectives, partnerships, adaptive complexities in which the initiatives, links between traditional and “modern” long-term perspective is best practices grounded are understood and Ensuring consistency with international and effectively taken into account national legislation and agreements PA governance provides a model of good conduct, including consistency about what is said and done Performance Responsiveness: institutions Ensuring capacity to carry out roles and assume and processes try to serve all responsibilities stakeholders. Competent administration, cost-effectiveness in achieving objectives Effectiveness and Efficiency: Robust and resilient management structure processes and institutions Dealing with complaints and criticism in a produce results that meet responsive and constructive manner needs while making the best Regular monitoring and evaluation as part of an use of resources. adaptive management strategy

223

PA governance principles & the United Related governance responsibilities that can be Nations Principles on which they are based taken on by the people in charge and fostered by various other actors Accountability Accountability: Decision The public possesses adequate quantity and makers are accountable to the quality of knowledge about the PAs, and related public at large responsibilities and performance The media is allowed to carry out rule-based Transparency: free flow of investigative reporting information, access to inf. To Mechanisms for accountability exist, are effective understand and monitor PA and accessible to all Institutions and their decision- Performance is linked to appropriate sanctions making processes and rewards Adopted from Borrini Feyerabend, G. (2008)

Appendix 4: Acts and Bills relevant to Biodiversity Management

The Crimes Act No.6/1889

Although this Act has very little relevance to the subject of biodiversity, it officially seeks to outlaw traditional healers in the country, including the importation of traditional muti into the country for medicinal purposes. Whilst the Act does this, perpetrators of indigenous knowledge systems feel this is marginalization of traditional knowledge of the use of the country’s biological resources that is the plants and animal products used in such traditional practices.

The Forest Preservation Act No.14/1910

This Act makes provision for the preservation of trees and forests growing on government land and on Swazi Nation Land (SNL).

The Safeguarding of Swazi Areas Act No.39/1910

This is an Act to make provision for the protection of the rights of the Swazi people to areas set apart under the Concessions Partition Act 28/1907 for their sole and exclusive use and occupation. Whilst the purpose of this Act is to protect the rights of the Swazi people to areas set apart for their exclusive use and occupation, it criminalizes unauthorized hunting of game on any Swazi area. The definition of the words “hunt” and “game” is referred to such definition as may be found in the Game Act, 1953.

The Wild Birds Protection Act No.45/1914

The general purpose of this Act is to prohibit any form of dealing in wild birds unless in possession of a permit from the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives. A person is not allowed capture and sells, expose for sale and export wild birds, keep or confine any bird without a permit from the Ministry of Agriculture.

224

The Definition of Swazi Areas Act No.41/1916

This Act is to record the description of the areas set apart under the Concessions Partition Act 28/1907, and to declare and determine the conditions and restrictions subject to which the Swazi people are entitled to the sole and exclusive use and occupation of such areas.

The Protection of Fresh Water Fish Act No.75/1936

This Act provides protection to indigenous species of fish by stipulating a close season during which time fishing is not permitted and also by prohibiting the capture of fish by certain destructive means. The Act prohibits the stocking or removal, cultivation, recreational fishing or dealing in fresh water fish without a permit. It provides for open and close seasons for catchments of fish and specific devices to catch fish in a sustainable manner. The Act further regulates the introduction of alien fish into the country’s water bodies.

The Fresh Water Fish Regulations of 1936

These regulations have been amended 1952 and replaced 1973. The regulations provide for the cultivation and any dealing in fish through a permit system. As such it criminalizes acts of persons who; stock water with fish, remove fish from one water body to another, cultivate fish, sell, exchange, barter and deal in any way commercially on fish without a valid permit obtained in accordance with the Act.

The Swaziland Settlement Act No.1/1946

This Act provides for the establishment control and development of land settlement scheme for the Swazi Nation. It prohibits the touring of fire in a manner that destroys grass, trees or any vegetation in commonage. It further empowers the Principal Secretary Indvuna of a settlement area to order able- bodied man to assist in the eradication of noxious weeds on commonage. A person who has been so ordered and fail to obey such order without a reasonable excuse can be guilty of an offence.

The Private Forests Act No.3/1951

This is an Act to provide for the better regulation and protection of private forests in Swaziland. It gives private forests owners’ exclusive rights over their forests and their produce. It specifically excludes forests from Swazi Nation Land as it deals in particular with the rights of the owners of such forests.

The Natural Resources Act No.71/1951

This Act is to provide for the conservation and improvements of the natural resources and for other matters incidental thereto.

The Natural Resources (Public Stream Banks) Regulations of 1951

These regulations deal with the disturbance of banks of rivers and public streams. They provide for the extent to which one can undertake agricultural activities near such places. One

225 is only allowed to cultivate only one hundred feet from the bank of a river or a verge of a public stream.

The Game Act No.51/1953

The purpose of this Act is to provide for the preservation of game and any other types of wildlife in Swaziland. It begins by placing open and close hunting seasons. It further classifies game into royal specially protected and common game and regulates their protection through a permit system. The Act controls trafficking in game or their products by imposing stringent sentences. It provides for sustainable exploitation of game and wildlife by providing for hunting methods and devices. The Act is administered by Big Game Parks as delegated by the King’s Office. The Game Act was amended in 1991 and again slightly amended in 1993. This Act focuses mainly on game protection and sustainable use through a defined hunting season and a permit system, and provides for the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the sustainable utilisation.The Grass Fires Act No.44/1955

The purpose of this Act is to control grass fires in the country. It prohibits property owners and occupiers to burn grass at intervals shorter than 24 months and further stipulate control periods for such fire settings. It further provides prior authorization before the burning of grass and lays specifications on how to burn grass. Interestingly the Act mandates a passer- by to ensure that wild fires are extinguished before he proceeds within his trip otherwise if one fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence.

The Wattle Bark Control Act No.38/1960

This Act is meant to control the production, sale, grading and processing of wattle bark. It provides prohibition against stripping of immature bark, and stripping of wattle trees less than eight years old.

The Dairy Act No. 28/1968

The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives administers the Act. It is an act that provides for the control and improvement of the dairy industry and its products.

The Control of Tree Planting Act No.7/1972

This is an Act to provide for the control of the planting of certain trees grown for commercial purposes in specified areas, and for matters incidental thereto.

The Swaziland National Trust Commission Act No.9/1972

The Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) is a body corporate established by the SNTC Act of 1972. The SNTC’s key objectives are both to preserve the cultural heritage and to conserve the natural heritage of the Kingdom of Swaziland. It emphasizes to the public the irreplaceable value of the national heritage. The Commission is charged with the general supervision and control of the Swaziland Centre and other declared institutions, national parks, nature reserves, monuments, relics and antiques. This Act has been amended K.O-I-C 22/1973.

226

The Plant Control Act No.8/1981

This Act is concerned with the prevention of plant disease, the regulation of the import and export of plants and the control of the mushroom industry. The Act also controls the spread of noxious weeds, insects in timber and brown and red locusts.

The National Agricultural Marketing Board Act No.13/1985

The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives administers this Act. The Act establishes the National Agricultural Marketing Board (NAMBOARD) a body corporate whose functions include inter alia the registration of wholesale distributors, importers and exporters of scheduled products; facilitating the production, processing storage, transportation, distribution and sale of scheduled products.

The Human Settlements Authority Act No.13/1992

This Act will apply to such human settlements, housing schemes and private housing schemes in such areas as the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be subject to the provisions of the Act, but shall not, without the written approval of the King either generally, or in any particular case, apply to any land vested in the Ngwenyama in trust for the Swazi Nation or to a Swazi Area as defined in the Safeguarding of Swazi Areas Act 1910 and the Definition of Swazi Areas Act 1917.

The Swaziland Environment Authority Act No.15/1992

This Act makes provision for the establishment of the Swaziland Environment Authority, its functions, powers and composition. Important Regulations have been added in 2000. This Act has been replaced by the Environment Management Act of 2002.

The Animal Diseases No. Act 17/1995

It is an Act designed to control the spread of animal disease like foot and mouth and others and as such it gives the Ministry the powers to cordon off certain areas suspected to be either infected or a source of infection for animal diseases. The Act also imposes standards on the on the control of the spread of animal diseases.

The Patents, Utility Models and Industrial Designs Act No.?/1997

This act seeks to protect inventions excluding those that are contrary to public order and morality through patents. It does not address patenting of genes and life forms.

The Swaziland Investment Promotion Act No.1/1998

This is an Act to provide for the promotion of investment in Swaziland and the establishment of an Investment Promotion Authority and for matters incidental thereto.

The Swazi Administration Order 6/1998

227

This is an Order –in Council to provide for the administration of Swazi Affairs, including the appointment, removal and functions of chiefs and Indvunas. Section 25 of the Order provides for the Ngwenyama to issue among the others; orders regulating the following, orders as long as they do not conflict with any other law in force in Swaziland. It repeals the 1950 Act.

The Plant Health Bill, 1999

The bill seeks to provide the promotion of public health and to provide measures directed at preventing, suppressing and treating diseases and conditions as well maintaining a healthy environment that is safe for human habitation and other forms of life. It places emphasis on the manufacture, preparation, packaging, labelling and sale of food. It is however silent on GMOs and products derived from them.

The Public Health Bill, 1999

The Bill is designed to improve the health status of the people. It seeks to repeal the Public Health Act of 1969 and to maintain all regulations made under that Act.

One of the objectives of the Bill is “ the provision of the promotion of public health within the country and in this regard to provide for measures directed on preventing, suppressing and treating diseases and conditions as well as maintaining a healthy environment that is safe for human habitation and other forms of life”.

The Environment Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations 31/2000

These regulations concern the systematic examination of the environmental impact of proposed projects to determine whether or not the activity will have any adverse impacts on the environment and prepares for a mitigation plan to manage the resulting impacts.

The Food, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Bill of 2001

This Bill is designed to control the sale, manufacture and importation of foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants. It covers inter alia, the labelling of foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants; prohibition of sale, manufacture or importation of certain articles.

The Flora Protection Act No.10/2001

This is an Act to protect indigenous flora and to provide for matters incidental thereto. It prohibits any person from plucking, gathering, cutting, uprooting, injuring, breaking or destroying a plant of any species that is listed in the Schedule to the Act. This Act repealed the Flora Protection Act of 1952.

The Seed and Plant Varieties Act No.7/2000

This Act controls the introduction of new seed varieties and imposes phytosanitary procedures to prevent the spread of diseases. It does not address directly, varieties produced by modern biotechnology.

The Waste Regulations of 2000

228

These regulations provide for the management of solid waste and liquid waste disposed of on land.

The Environment Management Act No.5/2002

This Act is to provide and promote the enhancement, protection and conservation of the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources. It also turned the Swaziland Environment Authority (SEA) into a body corporate and established the National Environment Fund. In terms of this Act, the SEA has the power to halt any and all developments that have not been adequately scrutinised for their environmental impact. Any policy, bill, regulation, programme or plan requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment.

The Water Act No.7/2003

This is an Act to harmonise the management of water resources in the country. Its provisions include the establishment of a National Water Authority and of a Water Resources Master Plan. This plan will contain an inventory of the total water resources of Swaziland, and a comprehensive programme of action in which the maximum value can be obtained from this resource for the benefit of the people of Swaziland.

The Kingdom Of Swaziland Constitution Act No.1/2005

This Constitution Act is the supreme law in Swaziland. Section 210 (2) provides that the state shall protect and make rational use of its land, mineral, water resources as well as its fauna and flora, and shall take appropriate measure to conserve and improve the environment for the present and future generation.

The National Disaster Management Act No.?/2006

This is an Act for the integrated and co-ordinated disaster management that focuses on risk reduction, the establishment of a Disaster Management Fund and other matters incidental thereto. The Act principally addresses issues such as management structures and functions, and the conditions of classification and declaration of disasters.

The Access and Benefit Sharing Bill of 2006

This Bill tries to capture as much as it can issues on the access and use of biological diversity. Although not made in terms of the Environment Management Act of 2002, it recognises its supremacy. It tries as much as it can to fill the gaps that lack with the environment management Act. It deals with such issues as community rights, including plant breeders’ rights. It proposes institutional arrangements for the management of ABS issues. It recognises the Environment Management Board to be top of the hierarchy in its administration and implementation. It also tries to supplement the Seed Varieties Act. It further protects the country’s indigenous knowledge system and establishes a certification system.

Appendix 5: General Guiding and Operational Principles for CBNRM

Principle A: Public participation and mobilisation.

229

Effective participation which should empower citizens and raise knowledge levels is integral to all forms of CBNRM. It will directly impact public trust, confidence, and legitimisation while seeking diversity of stakeholders to include citizens, NGOs, local and regional governments, private sector and those with programmatic, operational, scientific, and legal knowledge. Stakeholders participation will take place at all stages i.e. information gathering, consultation, visioning and goal setting, decision making, initiating action, participating in projects, and evaluation.

Principle B: Social Capital and Collaborative Partnerships

Networks and partnerships are integral to building social capital and serve as a catalyst to finding innovative strategies and solutions. Collaborative partnerships are key to leveraging resources and supporting implementation while stakeholder trainings, workshops and other learning opportunities can build social capital and commitment. Furthermore, collaborative partnerships seek agreement among key NGOs, governments, and private sector to work collaboratively and to share resources and responsibilities. Ownership by community members and other stakeholders enhances design, implementation and operation, support cohesion and encourages long-term commitment.

Principle C: Resources and Equity

Environmental justice is a social imperative that includes recognising local values, seeks to improve the local economy and recognises the need for linkages between conservation and the local economy based upon equity, local needs, financial and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, environmental justice seeks equitable and fair distribution of local benefits, potentially including compensation for protecting resources.

Principle D: Communication and Information Dissemination

Well-designed communication systems provide information sharing that support multiple social networks and raises level of knowledge and awareness; and linkages are provided between information and knowledge systems to support learning, decision making, and change. Effective communication supports openness and transparency, promotes information sharing between experts and non-experts through multiple approaches to include seminars and workshops; printed, electronic and mass media; and projects while expectations and limits are explicitly stated.

Principle E: Research and Information Development

There is a common information base that is accessible and useful in decision making, which includes technical, scientific, social, quality-of-life, economic and other forms of local knowledge. On-going research will be necessary to improve upon existing solutions including a role for community members in the collection of scientific information.

Principle F: Devolution and Empowerment

230

Devolution of authority and responsibility between government authorities, community groups and the wider community with enhanced local decision making improves outcomes. Devolution of control and decision making significantly changes the relationship between central governments and rural/regional areas and if done effectively can engage and build commitment of local community members. Establishing clear rules, procedures, and regulations can empower the local community.

Principle G: Public Trust and Legitimacy

Work must be viewed by the community as legitimate to build community trust while local leaders are integral to efforts in establishing trust and credibility. Participatory approaches to problem solving and decision making are critical to building legitimacy while transparency in activities, including decision making enhances the building of trust.

Principle H: Monitoring, Feedback and Accountability

Tight feedback loops are supported by openness, transparency, monitoring, mutual accountability, collaboration and power sharing between the stakeholders and partners. Effective feedback systems (including feedback from social networks) allow for opportunities to learn from mistakes, uncertainty, and crises. The performance of those who make decisions should be periodically reviewed by those that are affected by the decisions while the social and technical capacity for monitoring, evaluating, responding, and enforcement is necessary for effective and dynamic systems.

Principle I: Adaptive Leadership and Co-management

A robust social-ecological organisation is designed and supported to be a learning organisation that supports adaptive capacity to cope with external shocks and rapid change. Adaptive co-management and adaptive leadership are dynamic and focused on processes rather than static structures. Adaptive co-management approaches include roles for local government, local community members, NGOs, and private institutions and decision making inclusive of people affected by and knowledgeable of the issues. An effective co- management approach engages, trains, and mobilises community members in the work of the organisation.

Principle J: Participatory Decision Making

Effective participatory problem solving and decision making is enabled by a well-structured and facilitated dialogue involving scientists, policy makers, resource users, practitioners, and community members. Decision making is informed by analysis of key information about environmental and human-environmental systems including the aspirations of local people in the process, creating a shared holistic vision/plan that anticipates probable environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Policy development process should include a wide range of key expert and non-expert constituency/community groups at the table and participatory problem solving should provide opportunities for the sharing of knowledge and collaborative learning about social-ecological systems.

231

Principle K: Enabling Environment – Optimal Pre or Early Conditions

Community has a homogenous social structure, common interest, and shared norms and a local structure in which divisions are not too serious or disruptive of cooperation. There are clearly defined boundaries of the resource system. Stakeholders are willing to participate due to high sense of community and/or dependency on the local natural resource and there is adequate support and investment of financial and other resources to support transitional costs.

Principle L: Conflict Resolution and Cooperation

Difficult realities and conflicts are inherent in community-based social-ecological systems such that there is a need to plan for and develop capacity and strategies for conflict management and resolution right from the beginning of the CBNRM initiative. Recognition should be given to the role of institution outside the CBO in mediation of environment- society conflicts. Efforts should be made to transcend organisational rivalry and competition between organisations or stakeholder groups and participatory decision making processes that promote dialogue and reduce factionalism should be designed.

(Adopted from Gruber 2010)

232

Appendix 6: Key Protected Areas Financing Related Problems and Solutions

Problem Solutions and Opportunities SNTC Forestry Private Communit Decision PAs y PAs Capacity A) Diversify sources of income 1) There is a lack of skills, Provide information on additional potential sources of H H H H CG / PAs experience and knowledge international funds and provide training on international within many PAs regarding fund proposal writing. Good examples of funding proposals identifying and accessing should be made available. Training on how to best write potential international sources and target fund applications should be provided, in of funds particular highlighting how to put forward a business case for the funding (e.g., relating the benefits to ecosystem services and socio-economic benefits). 2) There are numerous Facilitate generation of ideas for implementing innovative H M L L PAs buildings and features in some and creative use of buildings and other features within the PAs that are in a state of PAs. This requires initially undertaking an audit of key disrepair, and other features that features in each PA, generating ideas, screening them and could be used to generate developing a park management plan that includes park additional incomes. planning and implementation strategy. 3) IAS are causing extensive Seek commercial uses for, and understand associated H H H H CG / PAs damage to the PAs. legislation. There may be possible commercial uses for certain invasive plants (e.g., as biofuels or feedstock). 4) Some PAs are providing Explore the potential for PES schemes in relation to flood M/H M/H L/M M/H CG / PAs valuable ‘regulatory services’ control, water quality improvements, and provision of water such as whose value is not for drinking and carbon sequestration. These opportunities understood or appreciated. For will require careful analysis to assess the relative magnitude example, Malolotja provides an of the benefit, the perceptions of the regulatory service, the extremely valuable watershed relevant stakeholders and most importantly, potential function. The trees and plants in economically viable mechanisms for introducing PAs also contribute to carbon appropriate charges. Problem Solutions and Opportunities SNTC Forestry Private Communit Decision PAs y PAs Capacity sequestration and pollination. 5) There are numerous other An assessment is needed at a national and site level with H M M H CG / PAs mechanisms for raising respect to improving the diversity and effectiveness of revenues that are not currently revenue raising opportunities. This should be done in being adopted, or whose conjunction with a PA planning and management plan. operation could be improved. B) Visitor entrance fees 6) Sites that charge entrance The PAs should regularly review their pricing policies to M L M L/M PAs fees are not necessarily analyse the overall effectiveness in terms of price maximising or optimising differentiation strategies to optimise revenues. This is a revenues. complex issue with many factors at play. The success of the strategies should be discussed each year amongst the different PAs to exchange ideas and refine the strategies over time.

7) There is scope for charging Each PA should consider additional visitor charging H M H L/M PAs visitors for additional activities. mechanisms for undertaking activities that incur additional Although this already occurs at management costs. A balance is required in that it is not some sites, there is scope for always appropriate to charge for all activities as extras – introducing increased charges sometimes such costs should be covered by the general for certain additional activities admission fee, to encourage visitors to do the activity rather that visitors undertake, than put them off with an additional charge. particularly where such activities incur additional management costs. 8) The PAs suffer from low Develop a broad range of ideas and offerings for extending H M H M CG / PAs visitation seasons to get more visitors and a greater spread of visitors during the year. Greater coordination is also required with

234

Problem Solutions and Opportunities SNTC Forestry Private Communit Decision PAs y PAs Capacity Tourism entities

C) Concessions 9) At many PAs there is a lack Guidance and advice is needed on best practice for H M H H CG / PAs of experience in developing developing visitor activity related service concessions. This tourism concessions. This could be the topic for a specialist workshop and results in many lost development of best practice guidelines. opportunities. 10) In some locations, there are Guidance and advice is needed on how to attract operators H L/M L H CG / PAs not yet enough operators with a view to agreeing to service concessions in the future. providing services to tourists. This should also be addressed a part of the park For example, in PAs such as management and planning plan. Mlawula, there is a need to attract providers of accommodation and facilities. Rather than put new operators off, a strategy is needed to attract new operators and develop a service concession approach for the longer term. D) Government management and contributions 11) Not enough money is going PAs need to be defined by international, national and local H M L H CG / PAs to PAs from central budgets and importance, with national funds being made available for from the general public, despite the internationally and nationally important sites. the potentially significant non- use values. An inadequate amount of funds are spent on PAs in Swaziland. This is

235

Problem Solutions and Opportunities SNTC Forestry Private Communit Decision PAs y PAs Capacity particularly the case for SNTC and CCAs. The latter have very limited resources to undertake their basic PA management needs. The PAs are not really differentiated in terms of whether they are internationally, nationally or locally important. 12) Government departments do There is a need to engage with and change the legislation so H H H H CG not work together for benefit of that some of the planning controls and associated finances PAs (see also legal conflicts). are better aligned for PAs. A review of conflicting interests should be undertaken and options identified that could be put in place for mutual benefit. E) Partnerships for co-financing 13) PAs may benefit from Create more consistency and cooperation amongst all PAs H H H H PAs improved coordination between in terms of sharing resources, ideas, promotional materials themselves. This in terms of and promoting of other PAs. A review of potential linkages sharing ideas, legal advice, is required to assess where value can be added. training, marketing approaches and materials, etc. 14) There is scope and need for Greater efforts should be made to promote and explore H M L H CG / PAs greater linkages with tourism as integrated sustainable agriculture/eco-tourism practices and an agriculture businesses (e.g., linkages (especially by the SNTC and CCAs). Best practice agro-eco-tourism) to develop from the region and elsewhere should be explored and more integrated sustainable disseminated. development opportunities. There is a serious need to support and work together with

236

Problem Solutions and Opportunities SNTC Forestry Private Communit Decision PAs y PAs Capacity farmers and agricultural related organisations to foster traditional and sustainable agricultural practices. 15) There is scope for A review of potential NGO and voluntary based H H H H CG / PAs partnering with NGOs and partnerships should be sought and facilitated at all levels. volunteers to tap into a whole However, this could be a relatively long slow process to new dimension of reducing PA find the right match and mechanisms to work effectively, management costs. There are although a few quick wins could arise. increasing numbers of students and the public who want to help out with scientific research and conservation. F) Business administration 16) There is little accountability The scope for introducing ‘activity based costing’ and/or H L H M CG / PAs for PA services, such as separate budgets/accounts for accommodations, restaurants accommodations and and other major activities should be considered. However, it restaurants, because the should be noted that the accounting approach needs to be accounts are not adequately modified in a consistent manner and applied to all PA types. separate and transparent. This means that there is no idea at some sites how economically viable certain services are. 17) There appears to be a There is a need to facilitate drawing upon professional H H H H CG / PAs general lack of business, marketing and business administration expertise within the economics and finance skills Government agencies and the PAs. This could be through that are applied to sustainable internal cooperation (e.g., hiring the skills into the agency financing of the PAs. These and sharing the expertise) and/or through external

237

Problem Solutions and Opportunities SNTC Forestry Private Communit Decision PAs y PAs Capacity skills are essential for ensuring assistance (e.g., using jointly commissioned consultancy overall sustainable financing of assignments for marketing and businesses). The ideal skills PAs. required include environmental economics and business management (e.g., finance/ marketing/ planning/ operations/ strategy) studies. 18) It appears there are few, if Provide guidance and assistance on developing business H H H H CG / PAs any, business plans in use either plans for PA in general. This should include aspects such as for PAs or for proposed market segmentation, competition, collaboration, offerings, investments. There were no pricing strategies and budgeting etc. However, it is business plans identifying important that an overall national strategy for PA sustainable financing strategy at management is agreed and broadly in line with the business any of the PAs visited. plans. 19) There is scope to improve Promotion of PAs at the national and site level should be H H H H CG / PAs the promotion of PAs in improved. Swaziland. The PAs seem to develop their own material that is inconsistent with each other, and does not draw upon shared skills. 20) The effectiveness of There is a need to assess the effectiveness of PA H H H H CG / PAs existing funding provided for management to make financing and management more cost- PA management is not clear. effective.

G) Legal issues 21) Several protected area laws A review should then be undertaken to determine what H H H H CG apparently contradict other changes if any are required to the legislation, or whether the national laws. This includes issues can be resolved within the existing legislation, but roles and responsibilities over through diplomacy with the relevant parties.

238

Problem Solutions and Opportunities SNTC Forestry Private Communit Decision PAs y PAs Capacity managing resources and obtaining authority to undertake certain activities in PAs. 22) It is often difficult for PAs A review of the fining system is needed together with a H H H L CG / PAs to enforce legislation within pragmatic approach that PAs can apply to better enforce the PAs, as they lack the capacity laws to collect fines. This review and generation of advice and authority to act effectively might best be undertaken in a workshop format with the when laws are being broken. In right mix of experienced PA staff, law enforcing police and addition, the legal system is lawyers. slow and ineffective in following up and charging violators. Notes: H = High; M = Medium and L = Low relevance. CG = Central Government; PAs = Protected areas.

Appendix 7: Financial Scorecard – Part II – Assessing Elements of the Financing System

Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks Element 1 – Legal policy and regulatory None (0) A few (1) Several (2) Fully (3) Comments support for revenue generation by PAs (i) Laws or policies are in place that 1 User fee regulations for PAs exist. Different acts facilitate PA revenue mechanism apply to different PAs. (ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on 1 No PES exists. tourism and water or tax breaks exist to promote PA financing Elements 2 – Legal, policy and regulatory No (0) Under Yes, but needs Yes, support for revenue retention and sharing Development Improvement satisfactory

239 within the PA system (1) (2) (3)

(i) Laws or policies are in place for PA 2 Laws exist for the retaining of revenue —Executing revenue to be retained by the PA system agencies are able to retain some of the fees collected (central and site levels) Revenue collected within PAs is retained. Of the game license fees (collected at the system level) collected by the BGP, none are issued back into the system for management (ii) Laws and policies are in place for PA 2 Some PAs collect fees which are used within the revenue to be retained at the PA site level area; however some areas have not defined revenue generation activities (iii) Laws and policies are in place for 0 None exist. Local groups may ask for contributions revenue sharing at the PA site level with from the SNTC, BGP or other private PAs and it may local stakeholders be issued Element 3 – Legal and regulatory No (0) Established (1) Established with Established conditions for establishing funds limited capital with (endowment, sinking or revolving) (1) (2) adequate capital (3) (i) A fund has been established and 0 capitalised to finance the PA system None (0) A few (1) Several (2) Sufficient (3) (ii) Funds have been created to finance 0 specific PAs None (0) Partially (1) Quite well (2) Fully (3) (iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with 0 natural resources management Element 4 – Legal, policy and regulatory None (0) Under Yes, but needs Yes, support for alternative institutional Development Improvement satisfactory

240 arrangements for PA management to (1) (2) (3) reduce cost burden to government (i) There are laws or policies which allow 2 and regulate concessions for PA services ii) There are laws or policies which allow 0 Entities providing co-management do not have the and regulate co-management of PAs capacity to seek sufficient funds (iii) There are laws or policies which allow 0 None exists—but there is nothing against this. and regulate local government management of PAs

(iv) There are laws which allow, promote Other acts allow for private use and regulate private reserves Element 5 – National PA financing policies No (0) Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory and strategies Improvement (3) (1) (i) There are key PA financing policies for: Comprehensive, standardised and 0 System exists for disaggregating of figures, but not a coordinated cost accounting systems (both requirement input and activity) Revenue generation and fee levels across 1 Fees are managed by each agency separately. PAs Safeguards to ensure that revenue 0 generation does not adversely affect conservation objectives Not In progress (1) Completed (3) Under begun (0) Implementati on (5) (ii) Degree of formulation, adoption and 0 implementation of a national financing

241 strategy Element 6 – Economic valuation of None (0) Partial (1) Satisfactory (3) Full (4) protected area systems (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc.) (i) Economic valuation studies on the 0 contribution of protected areas to local and national development are available (ii) PA economic valuation influences 0 (e.g., in the Allows for policies to be developed government decision makers STA) Element 7 – Improved government No (0) Partially (1) Yes (3) budgeting for PA systems (i) Government policy promotes budgeting 0 for PAs based on financial need as determined by PA management plans ii) PA budgeting includes funds to financial 0 threat reduction strategies in buffer zones (e.g. livelihoods of communities living around the PA) (iii) Administrative (e.g. procurement) 0 procedures facilitate budget to be spent, reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates (iv) Ministry of Finance plans to increase 0 budget, over the long term, to reduce the PA financing gap Element 8 – Clearly defined institutional None (0) Partially (1) Improving (3) Full (3) responsibilities for financial management of PAs Mandates of public institutions regarding 1 Existing policies are not sufficient PA finances are clear and agreed

242

Element 9 – Well-defined staffing None (0) Partial (1) Almost there (3) Full (3) requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level (i) There is an organisational structure with 1 SNTC has staffed positions; but there are insufficient a sufficient number of economists and resources to fully develop and address needs. Other financial planners in the PA authorities agencies need to develop capacity. (central, regional and site levels) and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system (ii) PA site manager responsibilities 1 It is expected, however performance and include, financial management, cost- accountability is lacking effectiveness and revenue generation (iii) Budgetary incentives motivate PA 1 managers to promote site level financial sustainability (e.g. sites generating revenue do not experience budget cuts) (iv) Performance assessment of PA site 0 It should be considered managers includes assessment of sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective management (v) There is auditing capacity for PA 1 SNTC and Forestry both have internal audit facilities. finances Auditor General exists and audits public entities (vi) PA managers have the capacity to 0 budget and plan for the long term (e.g. over 5 years) Total Score for Component 1 14%

243

Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective management

Element 1 – PA site-level business Not begun Early Stages Near Completed (3) Comments planning (0) (1) Completed (2)

(i) PA management plans include 0 conservation objectives, management needs and costs based on cost-effective analysis

(ii) PA management plans used at 0 PA sites across the PA system

(iii) Business plans, based on 0 Need recognised standard formats and linked to PA management plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system

(iv) Business plans are 0 implemented across the PA system (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives

(v) Business plans for PAs 0 contribute to system level planning and budgeting

244

Element 2 – Operational, None (0) Partial (1) Near Fully transparent and useful accounting completed (2) completed (3) and auditing systems

(i) There is a transparent and 0 Useful, but not yet in place coordinated cost (operational and investment) accounting system functioning for the PA system

(ii) Revenue tracking system for 0 each PA in place and operational

(iii) There is a system so that the 0 accounting data contributes to system level planning and budgeting

Element 3 – Systems for None (0) Partial (1) Near Fully monitoring and reporting on completed (2) completed (3) financial management

(i) All PA revenue and expenditure 1 Only SNTC reporting is transparent. In all other are fully and accurately reported by PAs, data provision depends on managing entity. PA authorities to stakeholders

(ii) Financial returns on tourism 0 related investments are measured and reported where possible (e.g.

245 track increase in visitor revenues before and after establishment of a visitor centre)

(iii) A monitoring and reporting 0 system in place to show how and why funds are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority

(iv) A reporting and evaluation 0 system is in place to show how effectively PAs use their available finances (i.e. disbursement rate and cost- effectiveness) to achieve management objectives

Element 4 – Methods for allocating No (0) Yes (1) funds across individual PA sites

(i) National PA budget is allocated 0 Will probably develop as the PAS takes shape. to sites based on agreed and appropriate criteria (e.g., size, threats, needs, performance)

(ii) Funds raised by co-managed 0 Note: this should be a positive as the entity PAs do not reduce government would not be relying on the government to fund budget allocations where funding gaps still exist

246

Element 5 – Training and support Absent (0) Partially done Almost done Fully (3) networks to enable PA managers to (1) (2) operate more cost-effective PAs

(i) Guidance on cost-effective 0 management developed and being used by PA managers

(ii) Inter-PA site level network 0 exists for PA managers to share information with each other on their costs, practices and impact

(iii) Operational, and investment 0 cost comparisons between PA sites complete, available and being used to track PA manager performance

(iv) Monitoring and learning 0 systems of cost-effectiveness are in place and feed into system management policy and planning

(v) PA site managers are trained in 0 financial management and cost- effective management vi) PA financing system facilitates 0 PAs to share costs of common practices with each other and with

247

PA headquarters

Total Score for Component 2 1.6%

Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation by PAs

Element 1 – Number and variety of revenue None (0) Partially (1) A fair amount (2) Optimal (3) Comments sources used across the PA system

(i) Up-to-date analysis of revenue options for 0 the country complete and available including feasibility studies ii) There is a diverse set of sources and 1 User fees exist within all land mechanisms generating funds for the PA system management entities

(iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that 0 No one is doing this at the moment generate positive net revenues (greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial investment cost)

(iv) PAs enable local communities to generate 0 . revenues, resulting in reduced threats to the PAs

Element 2 – Setting and establishment of user No (0) Partially (1) Satisfactory (2) Fully (3) fees across the PA system

248

(i) A system-wide strategy and action plan for 0 user fees is complete and adopted by government

(ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry 0 are supportive and are partners in the PA user fee system and programs

(iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is 0 proposed and developed for PA sites across the network, based on analysis of revenue potential and return on investment

(iv) Where tourism is promoted, PA managers 0 can demonstrate maximum revenue whilst not threatening PA conservation objectives

(v) Non-tourism user fees are applied and 1 Exists in some areas—such as generate additional revenues revenue from timber

Element 3 – Effective fee collection systems None (0) Partial (1) Completed (2) Operational (3)

(i) System-wide guidelines for fee collection are 0 Only SNTC reporting is complete and approved by PA authorities transparent. In all other PAs, it depends on managing entity.

(ii) Fee collection systems are being 1

249 implemented at PA sites in a cost-effective manner

(iii) Fee collection systems are monitored, 0 evaluated and acted upon

(iv) PA visitors are satisfied with the 1 SNTC does not have on-going professionalism of fee collection and the evaluation, but is assessed by repeat services provided visitors. Fees are low and nominal

Element 4 – Marketing and communication No (0) Partially (1) Satisfactory (2) Fully (3) strategies for revenue generation mechanisms

(i) Communication campaigns and marketing 0 for the public about tourism fees, conservation taxes etc. are widespread and high profile at national level

(ii) Communication campaigns and marketing 0 for the public about PA fees are in place at PA site level

Element 5 – Operational PES scheme for PAs Absent Partially (1) Progressing (2) Fully (3) (0)

(i) A system-wide strategy and action plan for 0 PES is complete and adopted by government

250

(ii) Pilot PES schemes at select PA sites 0 developed

(iii) Operational performance of pilots is 0 monitored, evaluated and reported

(iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is 0 under way

Element 6 – Concessions operating within PAs Absent Partially (1) Progressing (2) Fully (3) (0)

(i) A system-wide strategy and implementation 0 action plan is complete and adopted by the government for concessions

(ii) Concession opportunities are operational at 0 pilot PA sites

(iii) Operational performance (environmental 0 and financial) of pilots is monitored, evaluated, reported and acted upon

(iv) Scale up of concessions across the PA 0 system is under way

Element 7 – PA training programs on revenue None (0) Limited (1) Satisfactory (2) Extensive (3) generation mechanisms

251

(i) Training courses run by the government and 0 other competent organisations for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration

Total Score for Component 3 7%

252

Appendix 8: Financial Scorecard for the Protected Area System

The qualitative part of the scorecard tool considers the following three fundamental components for a fully functioning financial system at the site and system level:

Component 1: Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks;

Component 2: Business planning and tools for cost-effective management; and

Component 3: Tools for revenue generation.

Figure 6 presents the aggregate outcome of the Scorecard exercise. Of the three components, the best performance, with 14% of achievement, is the one related to the legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks. On the opposite side, the component related to the existence of business planning tools for cost effective management achieved the lowest score (1.6%). This is because only few PAs can account for suitable site based management, and none possess current management plans.

The Scorecard information also suggests that although a number of mechanisms and tools are applied and implemented at the PA level, they are not necessarily integrated into a broader planning and cost effective approach for PA financial sustainability. This calls for a greater articulation of both institutional framework and conservation planning tools, in order to facilitate the shift from individual PA management into a PA system that can be managed cohesively. Further, in the absence of strong institutional capacities, as well as, clear legal and policy frameworks, it is difficult to envision both planning and revenue generating tools being implemented properly at both system and site levels. For this reason the Scorecard’s first component should be given heightened consideration as a catalyst for other systemic changes.

Component 1: Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Frameworks

In reviewing each of the scorecard’s components, the first—the legal, regulatory and institutional framework—is a catalyst of systemic change favouring PA financial sustainability. The legal, policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks affecting PA financing systems need to be clearly defined and supportive of effective financial planning, revenue generation and improved PA management. Appropriate measures and stressing the priority elements identified as part of this Project should bring the score up in the coming years.

253

Figure 42: Component 1: Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Frameworks The first two elements under this component of the Scorecard (support for revenue generation and revenue retention) are considered key success factors for this component. They deal with the necessary legal and policy framework to facilitate: (i) the existence of adequate revenue mechanisms; and (ii) to ensure that the additional resources that are being generated can be reinvested in the system. As shown in Figure 10 these two scores are still below a 50% achievement level, reflecting recognition that there is not enough support to facilitate revenue generation, although there is no major problem in retaining self-generated resources within the system for improved biodiversity conservation.

It appears that in Swaziland, there are no legal or policy restrictions to allow certain economic activities, additional charges, and new mechanisms, but mostly there are not enough policies and regulations that facilitate the overall implementation of the existing ones. In addition, no specific fiscal instruments are identified to finance PA conservation in Swaziland as a part of this report, as there are multiple policy and accountability related issues that need to be resolved prior to implementation of any such tool. Financial capacity building and technical training go hand-in-hand with the need to attract, retain and train human resources that will engage in the implementation of this and other plans, as well as,

254

the development and implementation of business plans and specific site based new financial mechanisms.

The fact that there are no legal and policy participation mechanisms in place for PA co- management in Swaziland is reflected in the 17% score for this particular element. Given the importance of this type of community-based management arrangements to multiple goals in the National Development Startegy, it is critical that adjustments and specific incentives be designed to facilitate the funding opportunities that might be available for co-management of PAs.

The worst scores in this component, with no points at all, are related to some of the most important tools to elevate the profile of PAs and communicate its benefits to society—the needs for economic valuation studies and the conditions under which alternative mechanisms could be developed. No economic valuation studies related to PAs have been identified, so far, and as a result this aspect is not yet being used to influence decision-making or to lobby additional resources for PA conservation. In reviewing the objectives of this Project, it is very clear that the funding constraints imposed by the Government have made funding for many programs, including environmental protection, scarce to non-existent. This makes it all the more important to begin to build the economic case for PAs by promoting their importance and contribution to Swaziland’s economy.

Another area of priority presenting a zero score refers to government budgeting for the PAS. Contributory factors include lack of funds and a need to improve planning and budgeting practices in order to better reflect cost-effective management. A first step in this direction is consideration of the FNA as guidance for systemic resource allocation as an integral part of institutional governance structures—to enable and require the use of effective, transparent mechanisms for allocation, management and accounting of revenues and expenditures.

Component 2: Business Planning and Tools for Cost-Effective Management

Financial planning, accounting and business planning are important tools for cost-effective management when undertaken on a regular and systematic basis. In the case of Swaziland this is particularly difficult to achieve in the absence of basic conservation planning tools, and within the context of a limited PA planning culture that is reflected in the low overall score of 1.6 % (Figure 6). In the analysis of this component, only one element scored above zero.

255

Figure 43: Component II – Business Planning and Tools for Cost-Effective Management It is worth mentioning that Swaziland has recognised the deficiencies in the current system, and this Project is part of the transition process from an individual PA to a PAS approach, and therefore a certain amount of time should be considered in order to adjust, design, and adopt the most appropriate planning tools to respond to a new management paradigm. An integral part of this process is the generation of a PA visitor services development plan, the generation of site level management plans, business plans and comprehensive management effectiveness assessments—all of which are relatively new tools for the consideration and use by the conservation sector in Swaziland. Their implementation and further adoption will require some time, and they represent an important effort towards capacity building among the agencies in charge of the PAS.

It should also be noted that in this component there are four elements without scores that require urgent action and priority attention. The first is related to site level planning which is a basic requirement for establishing the potential and needs of each unit in the system; the second to operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems that could inform decision-making and resource allocation across the PAS. The third element relates to budget allocation methods and the need to determine consistent criteria and parameters for allocation across the entire system. A first step in this direction was taken during the workshop. The fourth element refers to the lack of specific training and support networks to enable PA managers to operate more cost-effectively. No private business manager could expect an enterprise to thrive without information on costs, cash flow, investment strategies and potential sources of funds. PA managers need a similarly detailed understanding of the financial implications of managing their site or system. Effective financial planning requires accurate knowledge not only of revenues, but also of expenditure levels, patterns and investment requirements. This type of planning should be focused on both the system and site level capacity building to improve financial and managerial skills for cost-effective management. It also speaks to a shift that reflects broader management responsibilities in 256

terms of accounting, revenues and expenditures at the site level. This is a key step in the process of strengthening agencies for system level management, since so far, the existing accounting systems do not allow a proper financial monitoring, follow-up and control for the PAS. This also explains why the score for financial monitoring and reporting systems achieved less than 2%. For instance, there is no system in place generating information about the current expenditure in specific PAs, there are only rough estimates based on aggregate information from each managing entity.

Good financial planning enables PA managers to make strategic financial decisions, such as allocating spending to match management priorities, and identifying appropriate cost reductions and potential cash flow problems. Improved planning may also help raise funds from international donors, as there will be more assurance that funds will be more effectively invested. This is particularly important in order to attract, and retain, new or non-traditional funding partners, especially key private sector stakeholders. The national PAS must be in a position to have enough capacity to invite potential donors to track their investments at any time, as a measure for excellent cost-effective expenditures, reputation and transparency.

Component 3: Tools for Revenue Generation

A national PAS must be able to attract and take advantage of all existing and potential revenue mechanisms within the context of the overall management priorities of its constituent protected areas. Diversification of revenue sources is a powerful strategy to reduce vulnerability to external shocks and dependency on limited government budgets. This component has achieved a score of 7%, suggesting the existence of the rudiments of information and approaches towards the supply side of financial sustainability equation (Figure 6).

The element covering the number and variety of sources of revenue includes traditional funding sources—tourism entrance fees—along with innovative ones such as debt swaps, tourism concession arrangements, payments for water and carbon services, and in some cases, carefully controlled levels of resource extraction. This element scored 7% because although a number of mechanisms are in place, several major problems remain. The first being implementation, and the second is that tourism services might be undervalued. A third is an inconsistent application of service approaches, and a lack of tourism infrastructure from which revenues for individual PAs and the national PAS can be leveraged.

257

Figure 44: Component III – Tools for Revenue Generation by the National Protected Area System Effective fee collection systems achieved 17%. While this is a relatively high score within this component, it also reflects the difficulties many entities, especially CCA managers, face in order to enforce fee collection, as well as the transition SNTC is going through. As part of their revamping of business approaches SNTC has started installing fee collection systems, and expects to capture all visitors to PAs within the next several months. The low score also reflects the fact that there is no consistent approach to fee collection across the various PAs, nor is there an option to share revenues through annual or multi-site passes.

Marketing and communication strategies scored zero, this suggests an interesting area for future development and priority. Another issue in this regard corresponds to the need to create public awareness and a clear positioning of the PAS as a key economic engine in Swaziland. The element involving service concessions also scored zero. However, the SNTC is the only agency currently implementing these, at this point, and they are in the process of revamping their approach so this number should be looked at as in interim one. The element reflecting PES scored zero. The potential of PES has already been recognised by both SNTC and Forestry as a future priority mechanism contributing to PA financial sustainability, though no action has been taken in regard to its promotion.

Tourism is a key growth sector that has an important impact not only in economic aggregates but also in employment creation and poverty alleviation. Most visitors to Swaziland are attracted to resource-based recreation, and there is a growing trend for excursions to experience Swaziland’s culture, rural communities and natural beauty. The development of a strong business approach to PAs management can result in a significant increase in the number of visitors who are searching for a more diverse vacation experience. There is a need to link any such activities to PA partnerships with private tour operators and to the 258

development of a centralised tour system that allows visitors a single outlet for information and tour bookings, as well as a unified approach to marketing. This is issue has also been recognised by Swaziland Tourism Authority and they have recently completed a strategic tourism plan for implementation in the coming years.

Scorecard Based Assessments of Management Entities Capacities

Though the Scorecard is not intended as a comparative tool between different management entities within the same PAS, given the low starting scores for the network as a whole, such an assessment was conducted for the five types of management entities that are a part of the Swaziland PAS (SNTC, BGP, private conservancies, private PAs and CCAs). In this review, Scorecard components 2 and 3 were applied to individual managing entities within the PAS, regardless of the number of PA units they manage.

The Scorecard components were not applied in their entirety, rather adjustments were made to allow for the differences between the management mandates, and some the elements, especially those reflective of system wide needs were dropped. The intent of this review is to identify ‘best practice’ elements within each managing entity and use those as learning centres for the other managing entities to promote both the application of best management practices across the PAS and the development of synergistic cost-efficiencies. It is important to note, that complete parity between the different management entities is not possible to achieve due to their different managing and operational mandates and differing managing structures. Further, though this information is not reflective of all the PAs in the system, the analysis provides some indications for possible best practice examples.

Component 2: Business Planning and Tools for Cost-Effective Management focuses on financial planning, accounting and business planning are important tools for cost-effective management when undertaken on a regular and systematic basis. At a system level this aggregate component scored 1.6%, and of its various elements, only one (systems for monitoring) scored above zero.

In reviewing the elements of this component at managing entity levels, the individual land managers show much greater financial planning robustness. In only one element can zero scores be seen, and this due to the fact that those land managers manage a single PA unit rather than a reflection of a lack of capacity.

259

Figure 45: Component II – Business Planning and Tools for Cost-Effective Management by Managing Entity In all aspects related to business planning (operational transparency, monitoring systems and actual site level business planning and fund allocation across PAs) SNTC and BGP show operational best practices. For SNTC, this is partially a reflection of the fact that as a public entity they are subject to more stringent accounting and review standards, and partially a reflection of recent efforts they have put into strengthening this capacity as a first step to improving their ability to generate revenue. For BGP this is a reflection of the stringent accounting that typically accompanies private enterprises.

Private PAs, which depend on their owner mandate, tend to work on individual requirements level and not necessarily based on a plan for the PA as a revenue generation source. The Private Conservancies and CCAs that submitted information are still in early stages of formation and operation, an aspect that is reflected in their score. For CCAs, consideration should be given to encompassing some or all of the systemic monitoring and auditing within the SNTC system—for cost efficiency and consistency purposes, assuming that the revenue collection process can be standardised and ‘ring fenced’—or in conjunction with another unit to improve their ability to create cost efficiencies.

For all the PAs reviewed, establishment of management plans will enable the linking business plans to resource and visitor management requirements and will improve internal processes. Training on business and financial planning should also be improved across the board, and consideration should be given to incorporating such training into other training activities that are being recommended.

Component 3: Tools for Revenue Generation focuses on the ability to attract and take advantage of all existing and potential revenue mechanisms within the context of the overall management priorities of its constituent protected areas. At a system level this aggregate

260

component scored 7%, and four of its elements scored zero, while the other three were below 20%. In reviewing the elements of this component at managing entity levels, once again the individual land managers show much greater robustness within their individual systems. The element for PES schemes is not shown in Figure 46, as none of the land managing entities have started addressing its potential as a revenue source.

Figure 46: Component III – Tools for Revenue Generation by Managing Entity The analysis indicates that with the exception of BGP PAs, there is a relatively equal level of knowledge about use of different revenue sources in the various PAs. In the context of improving the financial sustainability of the PAS, this indicates a priority need for identification of additional revenue sources based on specific site level planning. Though not assessed, this is also an indicator of the low level of coherence within the system in supplying the needs for visitor infrastructure and experiences.

When reviewed individually, it is also evident that SNTC, BGP and private PAs have effective fee collection system for use in ‘their’ PAs. The caveat on this being that SNTC fee collection system is brand new and in the first months of its operations (though the initial results are extremely positive). It is also evident that a majority of PAs do not inform their visitors on the reason behind the various fees they collect, nor their intended use.

261

Appendix 9: Immediate Investment Projections

Swaziland National Trust Commission

At present, 72% of SNTCs budget is financed through Government’s resources. Funding to SNTC has fallen of dramatically in the past several years (Figure 3), it is, however, somewhat difficult to ascertain what the true funding gap is, as SNTC requests just what they know they might receive. Of the current budget, almost 70% is used for the administration, 25% for operational needs, and less than 5% used for construction, maintenance and equipment relating to visitor services and infrastructure. This low level of investment is also reflected in the declining visitation trends.

SNTC Expenditure Break-down by Program Areas (2012/2013 Budget, in Lilangeni)

Expenditure Categories Regulation Culture Nature Corporate & Service Conservation Affairs & Administration Site Level Human Resources 4,094,790 4,013,432 7,966,763 1,230,755 Operational Costs 2,401,852 1,326,255 1,780,672 811,800 Equipment 45,000 369,000 188,123 522,836 Infrastructure, Major 0 0 0 0 Equipment and Vehicles Professional Services 0 0 0 0 Systemic Level Professional Services 190,000 0 0 0 6,731,642 5,708,687 9,935,558 2,565,391 Source: SNTC, 2013

Figure 47: SNTC Expenditure Break-down by Program Area (2012/2013 Budget) Source: SNTC, 2013 262

Without PA planning and management plans that detail both proposed tourism related development and resource management activities, it is virtually impossible to determine what SNTCs actual needs are, what its projected costs are, and whether there may be built-in inefficiencies that need to be addressed. Nor is it possible to ascertain whether their investments are sufficient to generate the required revenue in a consistent manner. Much of SNTCs problems are caused by the combined reduction in funding and the organisational changes that SNTC has gone through over the past decade. Though well intentioned, these previous efforts have severely hampered SNTCs ability to meet its mandated requirements. They have also impacted maintenance of infrastructure, visitor services, and staffing levels, and created a vicious cycle of declining return on investment and profitability. Funding uncertainty is making long-term planning extremely difficult.

Despite its current constraints, SNTC has already put together a set of very reasonable capital improvement program that are projected to boost revenues. On completion, these improvements are projected to substantially increase SNTC revenues. When combined with IAS revenue generation projects, the preliminary indications show that SNTC can achieve financial sustainability within 5 years. These are, however, only a first step and additional work is required.

Preliminary SNTC 6-Yr Financial Plan, based on Planned Capital Expenditures and their Projected Revenue Generation (in Lilangeni)

Expenditure Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Categories Human Resources 17,923,740 20,323,740 22,105,740 22,105,740 22,105,740 22,105,740 Operational Costs 18,604,899 19,187,087 19,452,868 18,769,430 18,085,993 18,085,993 Equipment 1,124,959 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Infrastructure, Major 4,020,000 3,262,000 11,344,000 200,000 200,000 3,000,000 Equipment and Vehicles Professional Services 690,000 250,000 250,000 150,000 150,000 250,000 42,363,598 43,222,827 53,352,608 41,425,170 40,741,733 44,441,733 Government Funding 17,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 Revenues 12,089,013 14,667,726 28,760,861 28,905,301 29,064,184 29,064,184 29,089,013 34,667,726 48,760,861 48,905,301 49,064,184 49,064,184 13,274,585 8,555,101 4,591,747 7,480,131 8,322,451 4,622,451 Source: SNTC, 2013

Note: The table is a plan for expenses and revenues, and not a profit and loss or cash flow budget.

The budget numbers listed above are preliminary numbers only, and reflect certain assumptions in regard to human resource and operational costs. Achievement of financial sustainability will require review as part of a comprehensive assessment of future PA development plans, as SNTC feels it is premature to completely project its costs for both 263

natural resource management and visitor services at this point, without the ability to determine long-term commitments that will allow it to maintain the required level of visitor services and facilities that can ensure long-term viability, beyond the immediate short-term. A commitment to increased government funding, beyond the numbers noted above, is needed to enable SNTC to carry out its mandated mission in terms of natural resource management and to develop the required visitor infrastructure. In the short term, as SNTC builds its internal capacities and improves on it service delivery, additional government funding is a requirement.

Big Game Parks

A cursory review of BGPs budgets for the years 2012 and 2013 (excluding managerial costs) shows relatively low levels of investment in construction, maintenance and equipment relating to visitor services and infrastructure. These numbers may reflect: higher investment levels in previous years leading to currently reduced maintenance levels, or a future deterioration in the quality of vistor services and related infrastructure due to lack of investment or reduced vistation. A more comprehensive review of the accounts and planned PA activities is required before any conclusions can be drawn.

BGP Expenditure Break-down by Program Areas (2012/2013 Budget, in Lilangeni)

Expenditure Categories 2012 2013 Human Resources 3,569,892 3,789,023

Operational Costs 5,477,300 6,174,784

Equipment 40,824 33,399

Infrastructure, Major Equipment and Vehicles 636,814 656,595

Professional Services 405,496 573,266

10,130,326 11,227,067

Source: BGP, 2013

The required tourism related infrastructure investments are not listed, as BGP is currently undergoing an internal review process to determine their needs

The Lubombo Conservancy

In the absence of the completed FNA and its application to the Basic and Ideal Management Scenarios, the following are the identified high- and medium-priority investments in two of the Lubombo Conservancy’s PAs: the Shewula CCA and the Mbuluzi Game Reserve:

264

Lubombo Conservancy – Required High and Medium Priority Investments (in Lilangeni)

Expenditure Categories Shewula Mbuluzi Site Level Human Resources Capacity Building & Training 150,000 20,000 Ranger Training 50,000 Operational Costs Natural Resource Management 860,000 912,000 IAS Management 300,000 340,000 Native Plant Nursery 10,000 Game Introduction 250,000 600,000 Enforcement 22,500 Uniforms & Equipment 30,000 Administrative / Utility Costs 15,000 Equipment Infrastructure, Major Equipment and Vehicles Major Equipment 25,000 Visitor Infrastructure 860,000 Professional Services Marketing 20,000 Unit Planning Consultancies 260,000 2,780,000 1,944,500 Source: Shewula CCA and Mbuluzi Game Reserve, 2013

Private Conservancies

In the absence of the completed FNA and its application to the Basic and Ideal Management Scenarios, the following are the identified required high- and medium-priority investments for the Phophonyane and Muti-Muti Conservancies:

Private Conservancies –Required High and Medium Priority Investments (in Lilangeni)

Expenditure Categories Phophonayane Muti-Muti Site Level Human Resources Operational Costs Natural Resource 1,146,000 1,989,800 Management IAS Management 310,000 Game Introduction 240,000 250,000 Enforcement 12,000 160,000

265

Uniforms & Equipment 20,000 Equipment Infrastructure, Major Equipment and Vehicles Major Equipment 20,000 Visitor Infrastructure 265,200 84,000 Road Infrastructure 700,000 60,000 Professional Services 2,780,000 2,543,800 Source: Phophonyane and Muti-Muti Conservancies, 2013

Appendix 10: Selection Criteria for Income Generation Activities

The specific agrarian profile of Swaziland and the areas surrounding the PAs, as well as, the absence of an existing trade and service market led to a pre-selection of mostly agriculture and livestock activities. At present, Swazi agriculture is largely subsistence-oriented but it could be leveraged in such a way as to facilitate both significant economic growth and small and micro-enterprise development. With this in mind, a set of criteria was applied to each of the possible activities reviewed.

Programmatic Strategy:

Long-Term Adequacy: Does the activity fit into the long-term vision for biodiversity in Swaziland?

Short-Term Adequacy: Is the implementation possible within this Project’s 5-year timeframe?

Implementation:

Skills Required: Does the activity require realistic skills from beneficiaries?

Technical Feasibility: Is the activity technically feasible in the defined time span?

Resilience to Weather Conditions or Land: Could the activity be developed in the current rain-fed conditions?

Impact Assessment:

Ecological Impact: Is the activity in-line with a sound natural resource management?

Social Acceptability: Is the activity likely to be accepted by local populations?

266

Input Cost: Are the activities’ input, fixed and variable costs in-line with the projected bracket of 200 USD per beneficiary on average111

Income Generation: Does the activity have the potential to generate satisfactory short- and long-run incomes for the household at more than 30 per cent?

Self, Sufficiency: Would the beneficiary be able to autonomously develop the activity at year+1 or year+5?

Marketability: Is the activity likely to contribute to the development of a more developed and complex economic life?

Overall Sustainability: Does this activity enhance the long-term ecologic, social, and economic development of the area through income generation, diversification, etc.?

Appendix 11: Key Program Requirements for Commercial Use of Invasive Alien Species

To successfully address removal and use of IAS the following programmatic components must be addressed. The following is not intended to be an all-inclusive list but rather a starting point for discussions by all parties involved:

Location — utilisation efforts are generally straightforward and should be targeted in cooperation with the existing products and industries, where possible.

Inventories — IAS inventories provide long-term, on-going data for utilisation of ‘baseline’ IAS removals. Inventories of potential users and their need types are important and can play a valuable role in implementing utilisation programs. Inventories of natural plant species and nurseries that can supply them are also needed.

Existing markets — Single species utilisation programs are more difficult to implement since the number of potential users and markets is limited.

Scale — Management and utilisation infrastructure has to be developed to allow for IAS to be collected, sorted, and merchandised as efficiently as possible from a variety of public and private ownerships.

Timeline — Utilisation programs have the best chance of success if much of the early groundwork (finding industry partners, organising collection and transportation, conducting inventories, etc.) is completed as much in advance as possible.

111 The 200 USD per beneficiary is the assumed bracket. The MoA did not provide information that would allow confirmation.

267

Expense — The removal, disposal, and replanting associated with an IAS program create huge economic burdens for affected partners and communities unless addressed appropriately.

Transportation — If not addressed appropriately, transportation can become a major barrier.

Local industry support — Smaller enterprises are often more successful in developing and supporting an IAS program due to lower overheads. It is important to survey many different types (and sizes) of local industries to find successful partnerships.

Appendix 12: Success stories in Access and Benefit Sharing of Resources in Swaziland by BGP

Local communities and the nation at large gain a variety of benefits from the conservation of natural resources in PAs. These include:

Thatch grass, Timber and Firewood harvesting: Thatch grass harvesting for use as roofing materials and timber and firewood harvesting in PAs allow for the sharing of benefits of conservation as the PAs provide a harvest source with local communities providing labour for harvesting these resources and the benefits shared equally between the local communities and the PA management.

Sustainable plant and animal harvesting: This is available for medicinal and other purposes where harvesting of these resources has been deemed sustainable, with limited quotas put in place.

Game products: Carcasses of wild animals, especially impala, are put on sale at prices lower than that of beef (approximately half the price of beef); providing a more affordable source of meat for local communities. Game and Nguni skins and other game products provide for traditional and cultural needs.

Cultural benefits: Accessibility to PAs for cultural purposes provides benefits to the local communities. For example, Hlane Royal National Park hosts the annual Butimba traditional hunt on the wildlife dispersal areas adjoining the PA, under the rules laid down by the Ngwenyama. BGP acts as a host as well a s providing security and law enforcement for this event. The cultural benefits extend to also enhancing tourist appreciation of Swazi culture

Educational benefits: School children are able to access PAs at subsidised rates, enhancing environmental awareness and education for young learners and encouraging conservation education.

Job opportunities and supporting entrepreneurship: BGP supports entrepreneurial endeavours such as establishing taxi services and cultural guide services as well as providing jobs within the PAs.

Economic contribution: PAs developed by BGP attract foreign revenue through tourism activities in its PAs. BGP also contributes to the State through taxes and levies. These 268

benefits are self-sustaining as they result entirely from self-generated park revenues, which are not subsidised by the government or other outside sources.

Appendix 13: Non Timber Forest Products as a Market Sector

The literature is full of research into the problems facing the poor and their use of the natural resource base and many conclude that alternative livelihoods112 are the solution to unsustainable levels of natural resource use. Agencies that initiate alternative livelihoods programs tend to select from an ever expanding global list of ‘ideas’ that may or may not have any relevance to the needs or capacities of the people concerned or of the markets that they have access to. There is also growing recognition that outside support has tried to move people into new livelihood activities, which represents a risky strategy that is unlikely to result in the desired change—the literature indicates that the poor, because of their circumstances are often risk averse.

For livelihood diversification to be successful it should also be linked to economic transformation as there is no evidence to suggest that alternative livelihoods on their own will bring about the needed change.113 NTFPs offer a potentially valuable source of economic activity and yet, as a rule, the sector is marginalised to mainstream economic activity due to a range of constraints and challenges. To effectively capture their contribution to national sustainable development, and particularly for rural livelihoods, NTFP economic activity needs to be harnessed and managed. It is also clear that it cannot be taken for granted that NTFP enterprise development will coincidentally meet both developmental and conservation interests.

For the NTFP sector to be developed, it has to be analysed beyond the narrow confines of biodiversity conservation and framed within the broader context of economic sectors, poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods. Within this context, the needs of the sector to be addressed should include policy and institutional arrangements, resource management and access, marketing, finance and training because sustainable livelihoods can only be achieved through governance arrangements that allow effective management of natural resources (i.e. NTFPs) while empowering those dependent on such resources. Based on the cursory analysis of the three review sites, the following table frames the context for the development of the NTFP sector, and identifies requirements and emerging opportunities that should be exploited.

112 In the context of describing livelihoods we can therefore interpret ‘alternative livelihoods’ to mean either allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more livelihood activities, or as a way of describing livelihoods that exist outside of the traditional or established systems for a given area. Important to note here is that neither of these in themselves will necessarily bring about the change.

113 Stuart and Johnson, 2004

269

Sustainable Resource Finance Marketing Policy and Public awareness and Training livelihoods sustainability institutions information What NTFP resources Inventories of Establish how Determine Examine existing Increased public Training in NTFP are being used by NTFP NTFP approaches to fair laws and policies that education and management, stakeholders resources and entrepreneurs pricing for NTFPs support or constrain awareness about manufacture and assess habitat currently obtain development of NTFPs and the value marketing to be requirements finance NTFP sector of NTFP products. (To conducted at the be tailored for a range national and local level of stakeholders) through skills based exchanges Determine which Assess Determine what Determine market Examine institutions, Community Training in application groups of individuals quantities of avenues for constraints to (formal and development initiatives of suitable technology are involved NTFP traded financial locally produced informal) that exist to encourage education for harvesting, drying in markets and assistance are crafts for production and on NTFPs and and other aspects of sources of raw potentially marketing emphasise sustainable NTFP manufacture materials available management of (e.g. solar dryers, resources kilns) What services are Inventory What levels of Research Determine Establishment of a Increased opportunities available and used by current financing and risk domestic and implications of network on the NTFP to build skills through NTFP producers practices that are involved with regional and regional and sector national and regional degrade the different products international, international trade exchange of artisans NTFP NTFP markets agreements (e.g. resources and examine CITES) on the income development of distribution from NTFP markets NTFP markets Institutional Determine Determine Examine legislative Training in NTFP arrangements suitable NTFP harvest effective or regulatory systems management,

270

Sustainable Resource Finance Marketing Policy and Public awareness and Training livelihoods sustainability institutions information for NTFP producers systems, marketing (e.g. seasonal permit manufacture and (e.g. management applied mechanisms and regimes, extraction marketing to be agreements) and technology, arrangements, limits, resource conducted at the management agencies processing and including for management plans) national level through manufacture of cultural value to ensure resource skills based exchanges products sustainability and frameworks for certification of sustainable production Determine Develop Identification of institutional support participatory potential high required for NTFP alternatives to value niche sector from damaging markets, Government or private exploitation particularly for sector (e.g. market products which research, technology, can be cultivated product development) commercially Formation of NTFP partnerships (industry based, cooperative or association type) at local and national level

271