Innovative Biodiversity Financing - Swaziland

INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE
Prepared by Sivumelwano Agreement Nyembe for Africa

Management Development Institute (AMADI) for the Swaziland
Environmental Authority (SEA)
Submitted to SEA on 19 June 2006
Amadi Swaziland
Gwamile Street, Embassy House 1st Floor
P. O. Box 6146, Mbabane H100 – Swaziland
Tel: +268 4050748/5514128
Fax: +268 4050748/5514128
Mobile: +268 6059249/6184712
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Innovative Financing For Biodiversity Conservation And Sustainable Use
Acronyms ............................................................................................................. iii

1. Executive Summary............................................................................................ 1
2. Introduction ................................................................................................ 2
2.1. State of Swaziland’s Biodiversity ............................................................ 2
2.2. Ecosystems ............................................................................................. 2
2.3. Regulatory framework ............................................................................ 4
3. Background ................................................................................................ 5
4. Methodology .............................................................................................. 7
4.1. Literature Review ................................................................................... 7
4.1.1. An Internet Search .................................................................................. 7
4.1.2. Structured Interviews .............................................................................. 7
4.1.3. Semi structured Interviews ...................................................................... 8
4.2. Case Studies............................................................................................ 8
4.2.3. Case 3: Zimbabwe’s Efforts to involve the residents of Communal
areas in conservation pay off ................................................................................ 10
4.3. Bio-piracy issues....................................................................................... 12
5. International Provisions on Biological Diversity ....................................... 13
6. International recognitions for need for innovative Biodiversity financing
mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 15
7. Regional and Continental Approaches....................................................... 16
8. Strategies for Innovative Financing for Biodiversity Conservation in
Swaziland ............................................................................................................. 17
9. Institutional biodiversity funding study ..................................................... 17
9.2. Statistical analysis:.................................................................................... 19
10. Summary of Findings ............................................................................ 19
10.1. Recommendations for Innovative Financing Strategy ........................ 20
1) Polluter pays principle towards financing biodiversity conservation.............. 21
2) Funding from the Global Environmental Fund .............................................. 21
11. Funding from Government Subvention ..................................................... 25
11.1. National and macro-economic policy .................................................... 25
12. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 27
13. Reference .............................................................................................. 29
AMADI Swaziland ii
Acronyms
AA: Appropriate Authority

CAMPFIRE: Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous
Resources
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
CBNRM: Community Based Natural Resources Management
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
CBT: Community Based Tourism
CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Flora and Fauna
COSPE: Italian donor agency
EMA: Environmental Management Act
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation
GEF: Global Environmental Facility
IUCN: World Conservation Union
NBSAP: Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NEF: National Environment Fund
NEPAD: New Partnership for Africa Development
PAs: Protect Areas
SEA: Swaziland Environmental Authority
SEAP: Swaziland Environment Action Plan
SABSP: Southern Africa Biodiversity Support Programme
SCI: Safari Club International
SEF: Swaziland Environmental Fund
STA: Swaziland Environment Authority
TRAFFIC: Trade Related Records in Fauna and Flora in Commerce
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature
AMADI Swaziland iii

1. Executive Summary
The major objective of the study was to identify and quantify innovative biodiversity
financing mechanisms that exist in Swaziland; its findings to be used to inform the
development of innovative biodiversity financing mechanism.
The study was basically conducted by an intensive literature review covering

organisational reports of government, non-governmental and private agencies. It also
encompassed an internet search of Swaziland biodiversity conservation activities and
sources of funding. It also focused on the bilateral, multilateral and philanthropic
organisations that can fund projects in Swaziland. The purpose of the research was to
look at their funding policies.
The study then looked at case studies that applicable lessons can be drawn. Fist the in
Swaziland the Shewula Mountain Camp provided lessons on community based
biodiversity conservation, second the exploitation of Swazi indigenous products for
commercial purposes was examined in the context of the marula project. The focus
was to look at how such a project could be made to fund biodiversity conservation.
Thirdly the Zimbabwe experience in the form of the CAMFIRE project was
presented. This gives lessons on how communities leaving along nature reserves or
inside biodiversity conservation areas can participate in conservation management and
share in the revenue generated. It also demonstrates the biodiversity conservation in
protected areas buffer zones.
The key findings of this study are that biodiversity conservation experts and
parishioners concur that there is a need for sustainable funding for biodiversity
conservation. There is an agreement that funding should be derived from the people
that are directly involved with the extraction of biodiversity resources, through the
application of several methodologies that includes a form of taxation, charging of
penalties and acceptance of grants.
Swaziland needs to make the Swaziland Environmental fund operational so that it can
start to collect revenue from the varies ways suggested in this study. The fund will
also facilitate the distribution of the revenue to the agencies involved in biodiversity
conservation.
AMADI Swaziland 1
2. Introduction
Swaziland is a land locked country with four ecological zones that have a wide variety
of biological species. Swaziland has recently embarked on scientific studies to record
it’s natural heritage. The University of Swaziland (UNISWA) is commissioning
several studies from its zoology, agriculture and botany departments. The Swaziland
National Trust Commission (SNTC) through its ecology department has developed
knowledge about Swaziland’s biodiversity. The several environmental impact
assessment reports are enriching our biodiversity knowledge.
2.1. State of Swaziland’s Biodiversity
Swaziland in spite of its small area is endowed with a range of biological biodiversity.
Braun / Monadgem However, SEA (2003) reports that only 5% of the total area of
Swaziland is legally protected for biodiversity (4% in formally gazetted protected
areas; 1% informally protected) while almost 30% of land has been fully converted
either to commercial agriculture, plantation forestry, or urban development. Most of
the land is used for small scale subsistence agriculture and livestock grazing, with
varying degrees of loss and degradation of biodiversity. Invasive alien plant species
are a major concern in disrupting indigenous species in many areas. Government
policy has in the past focused on increasing investment in commercial agriculture and
related agri-business while issues that pertain to the control of biodiversity destruction
have been overlooked.
2.2. Ecosystems
There are four biodiversity ecosytems recognised in Swaziland. These are Montane
grassland, Savanna-woodland mosaic, forests and aquatic ecosystems. The status of
each ecosystem in terms of its species richness is outlined in Table 2.3 The grassland
and Savanna ecosystems comprise 94% of the country, while the forest and aquatic
ecosystems are highly restricted in distribution. The savanna ecosystem is currently
the best conserved (5%) while the remaining ecosystems have only 2% of their areas
formally protected. Approximately 25% of each of the terrestrial ecosystem has been
converted to some form of other land use. (Table2.4)
AMADI Swaziland 2
Table 2.3 Status of biodiversity by ecosystem.
Grassland Savanna Forest Aquatic Total

1
Flora:
Trees 78 (19%) 261 (63%) 115 (28%) 4 (1%) 412
Grasses 130 (60%) 103 (47%) 3 (1%) 4 (2%) 218
Plant resource species 158 (41%) 256 (66%) 55 (14%) 11 (3%) 387
Exotics 32 (44%) 30 (41%) 2 (3%) 9 (12%) 73
Total 1225 (51%) 1136 (47%) 238 (10%) 98 (4%) 2418
Fauna (vertebrates):2
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
Threatened:
Flora3 161 (70%) 71 (31%) 53 (23%) 6 (3%) 231
Fauna (vertebrates)4 44 (38%) 51 (44%) 15 (13%) 27 (23%) 116
Endemics:
Flora5 13 (72%) 2 (11%) 3 (17%) 0 18

4
Fauna (vertebrates) 1 (100%) 0 0 0 1
Southern African endemics 26 (50%) 13 (25%) 12 (23%) 1 (2%) 52

(birds)6
1
L. Dobson (in lit.)
2
Monadjem (1997b)
3
from Flora Protection Bill (2000)
4
Monadjem & Boycott (in preparation)
5
from SNTC website
6
Clancey (1986)
Extracted from the State of the Environment of Swaziland March 2001
AMADI Swaziland 3
Lately there has been some interest in biodiversity initiatives especially for tourism
purposes through the establishment of Biodiversity and Tourism Corridors. The
Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Development (BCPD) project has
expanded the protected area network to include other areas with valuable diversity.
The project promotes biodiversity conservation outside designated protection areas,
increases participation of rural communities in conservation activities thus gaining
benefits from biodiversity utilization, and integrates Swaziland into
regional/transfrontier initiatives that include the Malolotja/Songimvelo, Lubombo, the
Lubombo/Nsubane-Pongola and Lubombo/Goba Trans-Frontier Conservation Areas.
SEA (2003) views the best prospect for significant, sustainable, biodiversity-friendly
economic growth in many of the remaining natural areas as likely to be through
nature-based tourism. Therefore, the need to establish how biodiversity use and
conservation can be funded in a sustainable manner is unavoidable.
Swaziland’s biodiversity is seriously threatened by the following: -
• Over harvesting of natural wood forests for both commercial and domestic
use
• Extraction of both animal and plant species for medicinal purpose. Tonnes of
roots, bucks, stems, leaves and wildlife body parts are exported to South
Africa through the Lavumisa, Ngwenya and Matsamo border. The national
market for traditional medicine has been growing over the years due to the
impact of HIV.
• Swaziland development activities characterised by large construction of
buildings, housing estates, roads and the expansion of agricultural lands has
resulted in the depletion of biodiversity resources.
• Pollution of water, land and air is contributing to the decline of biodiversity
resources.
• The recent interest in the exploration of biological resources for commercial
exploitation will result in a rush for bio-prospecting in Swaziland.
• Increasing interest on safari hunting
2.3. Regulatory framework
The Swaziland Environment Authority (SEA) with all the national partners in the
environmental in pursuance of the detects of the Swaziland Environmental Action
Plan has facilitate in the enactment of laws, regulations and policies that have a
bearing in biodiversity conservation. The following is a list of some of country’s
environmental laws: -
• The Water Act, 2003 (Act No. 5 of 2003)

• The Environmental Management Act, 2002
• The Swaziland Tourism Authority Act, 2001
• The Flora Protection Act, 2000
• The Environmental Audit, Assessment and Review Regulations, 2000
• The Waste Regulations, 2000
AMADI Swaziland 4
• The Water Pollution Control Regulations, 1999

• The Air Pollution Control Regulations, 1999
• The Swazi Administration Order, 1998
• Swaziland Environment Authority Act, 1992
• The Human Settlements Authority Act, 1988 as amended in 1992 (Act No. 13
OF 1992)
• The Game Act (Amended), 1991
• The National Trust Commission Act, 1973
• The Town Planning Act, 1961
• The Protection of Fresh Water Fish Act, 1938
• Natural Resources Act, 1951 (No. 71 of 1951
• The Protection of Fresh Water Fish Act, 1938
• The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1914
International agreements that regulate the use and management of biodiversity are
discussed above under the topic “International provisions on biodiversity
conservation.”
The Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) is a statutory body mandated for
biodiversity conservation. It is able to achieve this mandate by conducting research of
the biodiversity that need protection and declaring those areas protected areas.
According to the legislation the private sector and communities can also put areas
aside for protection, there can achieve this by requesting the SNTC to declare them
protection areas.
Swaziland has just completed a study on the protection worthy areas. The full
implementation of these areas will demand a lot financial resources from the
implementing agencies. Environmental economics approaches support the
development of financing mechanism that based on the generation of revenue through
conservation issues.
The Africa Management Development Institute (AMADI) conducted a study on the

possible innovative biodiversity conservation financing mechanism. This is a report
on that study and also the description of AMADI’s recommendations.
3. Background
Swaziland biodiversity conservation activities are primary the responsibility of the
Swaziland National Trust Commission. This has a series of nature reserves
representing all the biological zones of the country. The private sector also has some
areas set aside as biodiversity protection areas. Local communities are also starting to
be involved in the protection biodiversity resources, motivated by the booming
ecotourism activities.
Name of protected area Type of ownership

Malolotja Nature Reserve Government
Mlawula Nature Reserve Government
AMADI Swaziland 5
Hawane Nature Reserve Government

Mantenga Nature Reserve Government
Mlilwane Nature Reserve Private
Phophonyane Nature Private
Reserve
Hlane Nature Reserve Private
Mkhaya Nature Reserve Private
Mhlosinga Nature Reserve Private
Mbuluzi Nature Reserve Private
Shewula mountain Camp Community
The constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland states in section 217 (3) the
government shall ensure a holistic and comprehensive approach to environmental
preservation…. In many government policies, strategies and actions plans the
intentions and desires of the government are articulated clearly. The protection of
biodiversity for the benefit of Swaziland’s current and future generations.
This study was conducted to achieve the following objectives
1. To collect and collate necessary data for the preparation of Swaziland’s

strategy for new and innovative financing mechanism framework
2. To assess and document the extent to which innovative case studies on
Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) has assisted in
mobilizing financial resources for biodiversity in the country
3. To investigate the extent to which government ministries, NGOs, local
authorities and grassroots organizations and the private sector have and can
mobilize funds and implement projects and activities related to the country’s
National Biodiversity Strategy and action plan (NBSAP)
4. To show the funding trends (in figures – nominal and real) from each of the
four sources in (2) or over the last four years. Explain the reasons for any
variance
5. To develop a financing strategy for biodiversity conservation and sustainable
use in the country based on the above
6. To prepare a terminal Report
In order to meet the objectives of this study the following activities were conducted: -
• A desk literature review was conducted. This included the reading of research
reports from the University of Swaziland, Swaziland National Trust
Commission, policy documents, budgets, NGO reports, action plans and
strategies and EIA reports.
• An internet search was also conducted
• Structured questionnaires were developed and administered through telephone
and face to face interviews
• Semi-structured interviews were conducted with biodiversity experts and
students
AMADI Swaziland 6
4. Methodology
4.1. Literature Review
A reading of the research conducted about biodiversity conservation in Swaziland

revealed that in the beginning of the last century, around 1900 Swaziland started to set
aside areas for biodiversity conservation. At that time biodiversity conservation was
thought to be the protection of wildlife for the inclusive purpose of hunting. Many of
those pioneer nature reserve were later broken up just before or immediately after
independence. The Hlatikhulu and Mbabane Nature Reserve no longer exist but new
nature reserves emerged just after independence on the strength of the Swaziland
National Trust Commission Act 1972 amended in 1973.
Swaziland has committed itself to biodiversity by signing the critical international

documents and going further to ratify them and enact laws that operationalized them.
The budgets of government organisations and departs reveal the commitment of the
government of Swaziland even in times of economic down turns.
Scientific research and biodiversity monitoring reports indicate that Swaziland

biodiversity has global importance. Several endemic, rare, threatened and endangered
biodiversity resource are found in Swaziland. Collectively the researches that have
been conducted have just starched the surface; there is still a need for elaborate
research in all biodiversity aspects.
The review revealed clearly that there is no enough funding for research activities.
Research has been tricking to Swaziland through the biodiversity Conservation
strategy and government subvention to the Swaziland National Trust Commission.
The Big Game parks who have in several occasion received research funding from
Philanthropic is of little consequence.
4.1.1. An Internet Search
The internet search revealed that many funding agencies in the world both
governmental and Philanthropic have funds available to Swaziland. The Swaziland
Non-government Organisation community has not fully taken advantage of available
funding. Institutions like the SNTC have also not used funds available to it from
bilateral and multilateral organisations. Even funds available from the Southern Africa
Development Community (SADC) were not fully utilised.
4.1.2. Structured Interviews
A questionnaire was developed that seek to extract understanding on how current and
past biodiversity activities were being funded. The questionnaire was sent to a
selected group of people, who are: -
• Directly working in biodiversity conservation or in activities that directly and

indirectly support biodiversity conservation. (E.g. Park managers, Ecologists,
etc)
AMADI Swaziland 7
• Involved directly in the harvesting of biodiversity resources (Medicinal

gatherers, wild fruit collectors, firewood collectors for commercial purposes,
flower gatherers, bio-prospectors etc)
• End users of biodiversity products (Herbalists, wood sculptures, etc)
In the administration of the questionnaire, AMADI field researchers visit the people
who were targeted in their own setting. Some that there were not able to visit
telephone interviews were conducted.
4.1.3. Semi structured Interviews
A focused group interview was also conducted with a group of environmental

education students studying on the Swaziland Environmental Justice Agenda Course
in Environmental education at Big Bend. The questionnaire was used as a guide for
the interview.
The questionnaire was also sent by e-mail to list of environmentalist and

conservationist in Swaziland, who may be interested in contributing to the study.
4.2. Case Studies
4.2.1. Case Study 1 LESSONS LEARNT FROM COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT IN SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION
OF SWAZI INDIGENOUS PRODUCTS
The people of Swaziland use a variety of wildlife products both for commercial and
domestic purposes. The recent introduction of the Swazi Secrets project, which is to
harvest in the wild Marula fruits for processing in a modern manufacturing factory to
a variety of products is welcomed.
This project demonstrates how biodiversity conservation can be enhanced by

economic activities. Since the community is deriving a direct economic benefit from
the harvesting the marula fruits. The conservation of this species is of their great
concern.
In the project there are currently 14 producer communities (comprising 2 500

individual suppliers) from the low veld who are currently selling marula kernels to
Swazi Indigenous Products Pty Ltd. The vast majority of the communities are within a
50 kilometres from the factory complex. Further communities transport their own
produce to the factory. The project has a strong environmental education component
that trains the harvesters on the appropriate skills of harvesting.
AMADI Swaziland 8
The revenue generated by this projected is expected to increase. If the project is able
to realised meaningful projects it may be charged a severance fees that will contribute
to the Swaziland environmental Fund. The purpose of which is facilitate biodiversity
conservation in general.
Lessons learnt from the Swazi Indigenous Products is that if you give biodiversity its
true value you will entice the beneficiaries (in this case rural communities) together
with big companies to conserve it. Also, the very use of biodiversity to sustain our
livelihoods entails the need for sustainable exploitation of biodiversity, bringing an
opportunity to attract donor funding or to plough back a certain percentage of business
profits towards biodiversity conservation.
4.2.2. Case 2: COMMUNITY BASED TOURISM PROJECTS
The fact that the greatest percentage of the country’s biodiversity (over 70 %) is
outside protected areas largely in rural areas creates an opportunity for Swaziland to
involve rural communities in conservation and development initiatives that attract
funding for biodiversity conservation.
This is the approach that the country should take when seeking long term, new,
innovative and sustainable mechanism to finance the conservation of its rich
biodiversity and to promote sustainable development. A good case in point of a rural
development initiative that directly or indirectly attracted development funding that in
turn created an incentive to conserve biodiversity in rural Swaziland is the European
Union funded Community Tourism Project that was implemented through the
Swaziland Environment Authority (STA).
The European Union recently bankrolled the establishment of seven Community

Based Tourism projects in Swaziland to the tune of around E5 million. This initiative
demonstrates great potential that Swaziland has in linking development projects with
conservation so that it can attract funds to finance biodiversity and most importantly
so that it can use the benefits from the developments to entice rural communities to
conserve biodiversity. The innovation is therefore to mainstream biodiversity
conservation into all development projects taking place in Swaziland. The benefits
that we gain from unlocking the true value of biodiversity are enough to make any
business community in both urban and rural areas to realize that if they do not
conserve biodiversity, their benefits they get from it will soon end if they do not use
and manage it sustainably.
Throughout southern Africa and most recently, Swaziland, Community Based

Tourism (CBT) evolved because of the need to help rural communities to lift
themselves out poverty through unlocking natural wealth. CBT is not only about
unlocking natural wealth but it is also about making communities realize the need to
conserve their natural wealth. Some of the revenue generated from tourism projects
should be ploughed back into conservation. Linking conservation with development
and giving the community a sense of ownership of their natural resources whose
benefits they should share equitable are some of the pillars of community tourism.
One of the biggest lessons learnt from community tourist is that without the
abovementioned pillars of strength, community tourism cannot succeed, with it the
failure to use benefits from tourism to entice communities to conserve biodiversity.
AMADI Swaziland 9
The recent introduction of eight community tourism projects in Swaziland through the
assistance of donors, largely the European Union which funded seven of the eight
CBT projects in the country, with one (the Shewula Mountain Camp) being funded by
COSPE, an Italian donor agency and other donors such as the Swaziland Tourism
Authority and other donors is a welcome development.
The European Union Private Sector Support Programme financed the establishment of
the following seven CBT projects in Swaziland, assisted by Swaziland Tourism
Authority: Mahamba Gorge Lodge, Maguga Dam Community Panoramic Viewing
Point and Handicrafts Centre, Nsangwini Rock Paintings, Lonhlupheko Crafts Centre
and Ngempisi Camp.
Shewula Camp was the first CBT tourism project established through funding from an
Italian donor agency, COSPE. The Swaziland Tourism Authority later supported the
developments at Shewula by building a well-equipped conference hall with modern
conference facilities. With the ‘face’ of community tourism having changed
dramatically in Swaziland, the biggest challenge is to further unlock the true value of
these tourism projects by marketing these new and exciting destinations to the
touring public locally, regionally and internationally.
4.2.3. Case 3: Zimbabwe’s Efforts to involve the residents of

Communal areas in conservation pay off
Devolution of the responsibility to manage and benefit from wildlife from the State to
communal areas has been through giving Appropriate Authority (AA) to the RDC
through the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
(Campfire). The development allowed communities to: (i) have “ownership” over
wildlife, (ii) have the power to make decisions on how to manage their wildlife, (iii)
market their wildlife to best advantage and (iv) retain the benefits from marketing
their wildlife. The user and management rights over biodiversity management
granted under the CAMPFIRE programme through the blessings of the amended
Parks and Wildlife Act brought a lot of benefits towards the promotion of biodiversity
in rural Zimbabwe. A few years after the introduction of the CAMPFIRE programme,
rural communities’ perception of wildlife as being a resource enjoyed by outsiders
whose benefits are enjoyed by the Central Government changed dramatically.
Communities ownership and management of wildlife meant that they were for the
first time earning revenue from wildlife through sport hunting and the commercial
exploitation of wild products such as mopane worm, masawi (an indigenous fruit that
is used for making jam), beekeeping, fishing and run community tourism projects that
involve photographic safaris. The involvement of communities in conservation also
attracted donor funding from the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) which funded conservation and development initiatives under the
CAMPFIRE programme for over 10 years from 1989 to August 2001.
Community benefits from sustainable use of biodiversity under the CAMPFIRE

programme created an incentive to conserve biodiversity, reducing poaching to less
than 3% or even 0.5% in communities that were notorious for poaching of both big
and small game before the introduction of the CAMPFIRE programme. CAMPFIRE
AMADI Swaziland 10
not only brought conservation but economic gains as communities which for a long
time had been waiting for the Government to respond to their development wish lists
under which they wanted clinics, ambulances and tractors bought for them and roads
constructed for them soon became able to do so. From then on, the CAMPFIRE
programme became known through its benefits and conservation success as an
African solution to African problem.
To date, there are some 37 District under the Campfire programme out of a total of 56
Districts. This shows the success of the Campfire programme.
The Forestry Commission has relaxed the enforcement of the Forest Act and the
Communal Lands Forest Produce Act to allow the introduction and promotion of the
“social forestry programme”. Mafungabusi is a typical example. This has resulted in
the following changes:
• Some communities neighbouring demarcated forests are allowed to benefit from a

range of products and services in forest areas through shared forest management
schemes.
• Some communal area inhabitants are allowed to economically benefit from forest
resources in their areas through CBNRM initiatives.
This scheme has provided the community with: (i) the opportunity to make decisions
on forest management and utilisation, and (ii) a broadened base for house hold
income.
The Forestry Commission is also working closely with an NGO called the Southern
African Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFRE) that is focused on developing
enterprises based on veldt products. There has been considerable success in the area.
Successes include the development and marketing of masawi sweets, masawi cakes,
masawi powder, honey production, the production and marketing of macimbi
(mopane worms). Communities are the major beneficiaries and this enhances their
appreciation of the value of forests. There has been a significant reduction in the
incidence of forest fires and other causes of deforestation, following increased
community sensitivity.
Presently, the CAMPFIRE development model has brought a lot of good lessons that
highlight the need to involve communities in conservation and development
initiatives. The CAMPFIRE concept has since spread to several countries through out
southern Africa, namely Botswana, Zambia, Namibia and most recently Malawi and
Mozambique.
In communities where timber and wildlife poachers used to enjoy cooperation from
the villagers while national or game park managers battled to stamp out poaching, the
situation has changed. It is now the villagers and park managers working together to
flush out poachers.
This has significantly reduced the rate of poaching and environmental degradation.
Also, communities that once had unmet needs on their development wish-list – have
now assumed some degree of self-determination. They are using money from
CBNRM projects to implement projects that their governments had either failed or
AMADI Swaziland 11
delayed to implement. These projects include building roads, schools and clinics, look
after local HIV/AIDS orphans and even buy community ambulances.
What this shows is that their standard of living is improving, while the natural
resources which they continue to benefit from, including wildlife are becoming better
conserved. The net effect of these conservation and development dynamics in rural
southern African countries implementing CBNRM is sustainable development. The
CAMPFIRE conservation and development model has often been described as “An
African solution to an African problem.”
Swaziland can therefore learn a lot from the CAMPFIRE programme as it explores its
new and innovative financing mechanism for biodiversity conservation.
4.3. Bio-piracy issues
Evidence points out that a lot of the plant species of medicinal, nutritional and
cosmetic value are endangered because they are being pirated from our borders into
other countries, for example the African potato which is being smuggled into
countries such as South Africa and others. This is an area that requires biodiversity
conservation funds to raise community awareness to flush out bio-pirates and also
requires the use of enforceable legal instruments to prevent unsustainable commercial
exploitation of biodiversity.
Swaziland apparently does not have provisions, regulations or laws that allow or
enable companies interested in the importation of biodiversity to do so. The absence
of an enabling mechanism to import plants such as the African potato is making the
country suffer a potential loss economically and environmentally as the products
continue to be smuggled out of the country.
Pitted against the value of biodiversity medicinally, nutritionally and cosmetically,

the need to prevent bio-piracy in order to conserve and protect biodiversity is an area
that can potentially attract donor funding. Again, this makes it clear that incentivising
the conservation of biodiversity through community involvement and clearly
quantifying the potential losses (environmentally and socio-economically) constitute
the new and innovative conservation of biodiversity that Swaziland should consider
seriously in the future.
The following are some of the socioeconomic activities that Swaziland needs to start
placing greater emphasis on because they constitute innovative approaches towards
financing the conservation of biodiversity: community tourism, characterized by
lodge investment, establishment of privately run conservancies, investment into
marula and other veldt products of nutritional and medicinal value products, crafts,
sport hunting and photographic tourism. The entry point of rural communities into the
tourism sector represents an opportunity to give them incentives to conserve natural
resources on which the tourism industry depends. Accordingly, the Swazi
Government should start promoting CBNRM and community private sector
partnerships as a firm commitment towards promoting innovative financing for
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
AMADI Swaziland 12
While a lot of countries worldwide continue to lose their wealth through bio-piracy
(the theft of biological resources) largely committed by high-flying scientists working
with multinational pharmaceutical companies, Swaziland should introduce laws that
allow for bio-prospecting so that it can begin to share benefits from the scientific
exploitation of its biodiversity. The CBD promotes benefit sharing mechanisms and
recommends that some of the revenue accrued from the commercial exploitation of
biodiversity should be ploughed back into biodiversity conservation, wherein lies the
opportunity for Swaziland to use bio-prospecting an innovative financing mechanism
for biodiversity conservation.
Respondents to the AMADI survey agreed that the following taxes could be also be
used as innovative financing mechanisms for biodiversity conservation: carbon tax to
mitigate air pollution, water pollution tax, nitrogen fertilizer tax, vehicle emission tax
for tourists, taxation on sport hunted trophies, taxation on game sold at auctions, entry
fees in tourism industry and taxation for tourism businesses.
As donor funds continue to shrink and while countries such as Swaziland are facing
stiff competition to secure them, the future scenario of funding in Swaziland is
projected to largely depend on government’s environmental budgets funded by tax
payer’s money.
The Swaziland Environmental Authority, through the Swaziland Environmental Fund

should solicit funding from philanthropist international organisations. There is a need
for a strategy that ensures that the country take full advantage of funding that
Swaziland has a right too from bilateral agreement and multinational organisations.
5. International Provisions on Biological Diversity
Goals and principles of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

(UNCBD) from the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 are an important aspect of analyzing biodiversity use
and conservation in a sustainable manner.
Swaziland signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, and ratified the
Convention in 1994. The CBD is the major global comprehensive agreement that
addresses every aspect of biodiversity. In particular the CBD provides a global
framework for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the sharing of
benefits from genetic resource utilization. Thus Swaziland is bound by the
convention’s obligations on biodiversity use and conservation which, implies that
even the access and benefit sharing obligations that have a bearing on the funding of
biodiversity are a key reference for any funding strategy.
Swaziland is a developing country and as provided in Articles 20 and 21 of the CBD

stands to benefit from funding (and technology transfer) provided by developed
countries through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels to realize the
NBSAP. The funding provision also states that parties to the CBD that would provide
funding would have to take into account that economic and social development and
eradication of poverty are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country
Parties. This implies that funding from this source would not be entirely targeted
toward funding biodiversity per ser but would be committed to life issues for instance
AMADI Swaziland 13
in Swaziland’s case poverty, diseases, and illiteracy among other issues. Therefore the
effectiveness of the funding may not be sustainable in the long-term because poverty
issues are increasing yet they are tied to adverse biodiversity utilization.
Poverty issues have been addressed through the establishment of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). These were a result of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 held in Johannesburg, South Africa. The
MDGs include obligations related to biodiversity especially the control of species
extinction, fisheries’ restoration, and access to environmentally-sound alternatives to
ozone depleting substances (ozone depletion results in climate change and
consequently biological species reduction).
The WSSD endorsed a part of the CBD strategic plan that was adopted by the
Conference of the Parties (COP) as a biodiversity commitment to achieve the CBD
objectives. The target is “To achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current
rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to
poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth.” The 2010 biodiversity target
involves seven focal areas which include “mobilizing financial and technical
resources, especially for developing countries, in particular least developed countries
and Small Island developing States among them, and countries with economies in
transition, for implementing the Convention and the Strategic Plan.” Therefore the
GEF has been established as one of the global funding mechanisms that are available
as source of funding for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
GEF, through World Bank (WB) implementation is a major source of international
funding available for the capitalization of environment trust funds. According to
Crepin (2002) In Africa GEF had allocated a total of $25.6 million to trust fund
capital and additional $17.0 million was expected once trust funds that were under
development had met agreed performance benchmarks. Swaziland can benefit from
this source because as a signatory to the CBD it meets the criteria set for beneficiaries
since the NBSAP conservation objectives are consistent with the GEF strategies to
‘protect globally significant biodiversity resources’.
GEF funds can be used for capacity building and operationalising the country’s
institutional, policy and regulatory framework for biodiversity management and
conservation initiatives. The funds can also be used to finance recurrent costs of the
management of protected areas (PAs) and to keep established conservation efforts and
initiatives running through the national environment fund. However, it should be
carefully evaluated whether this type of a fund would be the most viable option to
continue financing biodiversity initiatives, taking into consideration GEF prerequisites
formulated for successful trust fund operation. Therefore project proposals for GEF
support in Swaziland must be relative to the amount of GEF funding required taking
into account prospects for leveraging co-funding and project impact for biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use at regional level and on the ground.
The Environmental Management Act (EMA) 2002 of Swaziland establishes the

Swaziland Environment Fund (SEF) in Article 20. This fund has three main
objectives;
1) To aggregate funds from different sources (including GEF) to ensure

sustainable funding for programmes, projects and activities that provide for
AMADI Swaziland 14
and promotes the protection, conservation, and enhancement of the

environment and the sustainable management of natural resources.
2) To provide financial support for activities aimed at the enhancement,

protection, conservation and enhancement of the environment and the
sustainable management of natural resources and supporting community
participation in these activities; and
3) To enhance and restore the environment of Swaziland.
The objects of the fund are all encompassing and biodiversity activity funding is but a
part of the overall environmental conservation and sustainability funding provided for
at national level.
The SEF is an available source of funding biodiversity conservation and sustainable

use. EMA propounds that the fund shall source its fees from Swaziland’s national
budget; donations, grants, gifts, or subscriptions; international, regional, bilateral,
multilateral or local funds; interest on loans and investments done by the fund, as well
as fines, penalties, or costs imposed by the EMA. These costs are further defined
through regulations that prescribe what constitutes environmental offences and the
type of charges that should be borne by offenders. These charges include pollution,
use, permit, and service fees. The Act, other Acts in other ministries, and the
regulations all revolve around the polluter/user pays principle.
6. International recognitions for need for innovative Biodiversity

financing mechanisms
There is a clear international recognition for the need for innovative biodiversity
financing mechanisms. The Convention on Biological Diversity which was signed
ratified by most countries in the world, including Swaziland which ratified it in 1994
supports the need for innovative biodiversity financing mechanisms through among
other things, unlocking the true value of biodiversity and equitable distribution or
sharing of those benefits. The CBD also supports mainstreaming biodiversity
conservation in business activities which thrive on commercial exploitation of
biodiversity in order to guarantee sustainable use and the continued existence of
biological resources.
Additionally, the Agenda 21 Agreement made by world governments at the Rio
Summit in 1992, recognizes the need for additional biodiversity funding through
international facilities such as the GEF, multilateral, bilateral donations and private
funding and outlined an array of possible mechanisms involving innovative financing.
However, the Global Biodiversity Fund (GBF) noted in 1998 that GEF financing for
biodiversity is problematic because of the need to justify incremental costs and the
fact that most biodiversity projects have local benefits and unquantifiable global
benefits thus cannot meet GEF criteria. The locality of the benefits requires that local
financing solutions be identified and designed to be sustainable. GBF (2006) states
that developing countries require to move beyond traditional financing models and
mechanisms as well as expand from protected areas to broader landscapes. Therefore
economic policy instruments or market-based measures that include taxes and other
AMADI Swaziland 15
fiscal policy at national level can contribute to innovative and sustainable financing
for biodiversity from local levels while improving national budgetary constraints.
7. Regional and Continental Approaches
The New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) is aware of and recognizes
the need to mainstream biodiversity conservation. This was demonstrated by its joint
initiative with all World Conservation Union (IUCN) regional offices in Africa to
hold consultative workshops on greening development. The last workshop to green
African development initiatives was held at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on
Sustainable Develop when it held a workshop to come up with a document to promote
sustainable utilization of biodiversity as Africa embarks on aggressive economic
development initiatives.
Southern African countries have long decided to link conservation and development
through an approach popularly referred to as Community Based Natural Resources
Management (CBNRM), in order to attract funds to conserve biodiversity as well as
incentivising the conservation of biodiversity through benefits that communities
derive from it.
Under this development and conservation concept, local communities are given user
and management rights over natural resources that are found in their area. This
conservation and development approach recently attracted the interest of the United
States International Development Agency (USAID) to fund CBNRM initiatives in
Zimbabwe under the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous
Resources (CAMPFIRE), in Botswana under the Botswana Natural Resources
Management Programme (BNRMP), in Zambia under the Administrative
Management Design (ADMADE) and in Namibia under the Living in a Finite
Environment Programme (LIFE). The conservation and development gains of these
initiatives are there for all to see.
In communities where timber and wildlife poachers used to enjoy cooperation from
the villagers while national or game park managers battled to stamp out poaching, the
situation has changed. It is now the villagers and park managers working together to
flush out poachers. This has significantly reduced the rate of poaching and
environmental degradation. Also, communities that once had unmet needs on their
development wish-list – have now assumed some degree of self-determination. They
are using money from CBNRM projects to implement projects that their governments
had either failed or delayed to implement. These projects include building roads,
schools and clinics, look after local HIV/AIDS orphans and even buy community
ambulances.
What this shows is that their standard of living is improving, while the natural
resources which they continue to benefit from, including wildlife are becoming better
conserved. The net effect of these conservation and development dynamics in rural
southern African countries implementing CBNRM is sustainable development. This is
what the SEA is seeking to achieve through innovative and sustainable funding
mechanisms for the conservation of biodiversity and promotion of sustainable
development across different sectors of the Swazi economy.
AMADI Swaziland 16
All it took for other southern African countries to attract USAID funding for over 10
years from 1990-2000 was the political will at national level to either introduce a
policy
or law that allows community involvement in the management of natural resources
and also giving them benefits from the resources through running tourism projects
such as tourism lodges, sport hunting and bird watching as well as harvesting natural
products such as marula, mopani worm, ilala for making crafts and other related
tourism projects.
A thriving industry has been created out of this initiative, all that remains is to ensure
that as people continue to exploit the resources, the products are well marketed and
that biodiversity continues to pay its way through market-based taxes.
8. Strategies for Innovative Financing for Biodiversity Conservation in
Swaziland
Swaziland needs to fins ways of financing its biodiversity conservation activities, and
this activities have to bear in mind that donor funding will continue to dwindle and
government ability to subvert quasi government institution will diminish further with
time. Dependence on donor funding and governmental subvention has proven not
sustainable in many countries and thus we can not strongly recommend it. Although it
important that in the mean time the government of Swaziland will need to continue
with subvention especially to government agencies, until such time that revenue
generation activities prove to be profitable.
The National Environment Fund will be the agency that will receive any revenue
derived from the various strategies for financing biodiversity conservation. The
agency will also need to be responsible for the disbursement of the funds to the
governmental, Non-governmental and private agencies that are involved with
biodiversity conservation
9. Institutional biodiversity funding study
Data on institutions’ biodiversity activity funding mobilisation approaches and their

ability to mobilise funds was collected using a structured questionnaire that was
administered as part of interviews by the consultants to private sector, non-
governmental, governmental, and local government/grassroots organisation
stakeholders. The institutions were sampled and data Analysis was done using the
Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). In addition to the questionnaire
instrument summary monthly and yearly records of finances for the past four years
were acquired from studied institutions to test biodiversity funding trends.
The June 2006 survey conducted by the African Management Development Institute
through interviews and questionnaires circulated to NGOs, local authorities and
grassroots organizations as well as the Swazi Government’s Ministry of Economic
Planning and Development showed that these agencies have and can mobilize funds
and implement projects related to Swaziland’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(NBSAP). These institutions’ sources of funding included donors, grants and national
AMADI Swaziland 17
budget. Historical financial records at the Ministry of Economic Planning and

Development shows that the Ministry has been able to raise funds for the
Environment Fund from 1998 onwards, while funds for biodiversity conservation
were issued annually from 2003 up to the present day. The biodiversity grant was
initially funded by the World Bank but is now being funded locally through tax
payers’ revenue. The biodiversity fund is use to finance biodiversity hot spots from
the eastern to the southern part of Swaziland. Our research established that the
Environment Fund (a quasi environmental disaster management fund) budget is
currently not being utilized exhaustively. The Environment Fund allows it to conserve
its biodiversity by responding to pollution-related situations that companies might be
ignoring or are failing to correct on time and later charge them exactly the same
amount that the Swaziland Environment Authority would have spent to remedy a
pollution problem on their behalf. The in exhaustive expenditure of the Environment
Fund could be due to the fact that Swazi companies are not delaying in taking
corrective environmental measures. This scenario would mean that there is no need to
spend much money from the Environment Fund Budget. The fund has a projected
annual cost of E4.5 million but only E500 000 is being spent annually and in some
cases the E500 000 can go without being spent for the whole year. The Ministry of
Economic Planning and Development said that it would be in a position to allocate
more funds towards biodiversity conservation is current allocated budgets were being
exhausted and if the implementing Ministry or agency for biodiversity conservation
continued to request for more funds. Currently, there have not been any requests for
more funds to finance biodiversity conservation by the implementing agencies. The
challenge to win more resources for biodiversity conservation is to exhaust current
budgets and ask for more to do more biodiversity conservation.
In terms of the need to use company funds to fund biodiversity conservation, one
institution involved in the commercial exploitation of biodiversity said that in the
future they would like to consider using profits from their own budget to finance
biodiversity.
The institution also said that it would continue working towards benefit sharing
arrangements of wealth created from biodiversity as donors were attracted towards
financing biodiversity conservation initiatives that were linked to community
development. Other donors such as the International Monetary Fund which finances
the conservation of biodiversity through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF)
would only commit their funds (US$5 million) if the beneficiary country also chipped
in with US$6.5 million to finance its own biodiversity. After having qualified for GEF
funding in 2004/2005, Swaziland as a beneficiary country for GEF funding failed to
raise the US$6.5 million and GEF would not fund biodiversity conservation in
Swaziland. These are some of the challenges that Swaziland is facing towards raising
funding for biodiversity.
The opportunity to source funds from GEF will last for as long as Swaziland is
willing to resubmit its proposal and also able to raise the US$6.5 million so that GEF
can chip in with the US$5 million to co-finance biodiversity conservation.
This leaves the country with an option of raising its biodiversity conservation funds
from the tax payer’s money. About E1 million raised from the Swazi citizens’ tax is
AMADI Swaziland 18
currently being used to conserve biodiversity annually. This money is spent by the
Swaziland Environmental Authority on the Biodiversity Participatory Project.
9.1. Use of tax to finance biodiversity conservation
Respondents to the AMADI survey agreed that the following market-based options
could be charged to fund the implementation of project and activities that relate to
Swaziland’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan that include carbon tax to mitigate
air pollution, water pollution tax, nitrogen fertilizer tax, vehicle emission tax for
tourists, taxation on sport hunted trophies, taxation on game sold at auctions, entry
fees in tourism industry and taxation for tourism businesses. However, some
respondents found it difficult to give the percentages for the abovementioned taxes as
they really did not have the rationale to come up with a figure for each one of the
taxes.
In face to face interviews conducted with respondents from the Ministry of Economic
Planning and Development, it was said that the Swaziland Environmental Authority
and the Ministry of Finance which is responsible for revenue collection could be
better positioned to advise on how taxes would be charged on ecosystem goods and
services. It was stressed that when taxes eventually get charged on these goods and
service, there was need to ensure that the money was used for its intended purpose. In
order for agencies such as the Swaziland Environmental Authority to have full control
of such resources, the Ministry of Finance would need to create a fund or account was
such funds would be deposited as soon as they were collected.
9.2. Statistical analysis:
The funding trends from donors, organization budget, grants, national budget show
that international donors and the government of Swaziland are the major financiers of
biodiversity. While businesses that are directly benefiting from the commercial
exploitation of biodiversity in the manufacturing and tourism industry are currently
not directly financing biodiversity conservation, the benefits that they share from
biodiversity use are helping to cultivate and maintain a community-wide incentive to
conserve biodiversity. Also, these businesses plan to use revenue generated from
future profits to fund research that is aimed at further promoting natural resources
inventory, monitoring and conservation.
Currently, the Government of Swaziland is the major financier of major biodiversity

conservation projects nationally.
10. Summary of Findings
In pursuance of the above stated objective the study revealed the following: -
1. There is very little evidence of the existence of meaningful community based

Resource management projects. That can be looked at as community
participation in biodiversity conservation. The Shewula Mountain Camp
AMADI Swaziland 19
project is the only example that exists in earnest so far, but the financial and
technical support given by the Swaziland Tourism Authority for the
establishment of community tourism projects is good start.
2. There are private conservancies in Swaziland that are not adequately

supervised by a government agency. At the moment there is contributing to
biodiversity conservation, but this may not be for ever. Most of these
conservancies are not declared protected areas as per the SNTC Act that
means there conversion to other use can be done quickly. The funding of these
conservancies in depended on the goodwill of the owners of the land, which in
the majority of cases are the large sugar can plantations.
3. Outside formally protected areas there are no controls of bio piracy activities
that are seriously threatening specific biodiversity resources. This is due to the
absences of both legislative and institutional responsibility to monitor and
prevent these activities from accruing.
4. Swaziland has no clear policy on accessing funding for biodiversity

conservation from international organisations. In spite of the existence of
several national strategy documents. The SEA has been successful in getting
funding to pursue it’s direct mandate while the other parties in biodiversity
conservation, particularly the SNTC has made efforts to access funds.
5. The people of Swaziland are willing to contribute to biodiversity conservation

through their tax or in any way suggested. All our respondents concur that
there is a need to set up mechanism for the contribution to biodiversity
conservation.
10.1. Recommendations for Innovative Financing Strategy
A strategy for sustainable financing of biodiversity conservation and its sustainable

use was developed after pooling the results of the above analyses. The NBSAP of
Swaziland highlights three main sources of funding that are adopted from the SEAP
of 1997. The sources are as follows;
a) External sources and most notably the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as
well as bilateral grants and loans
b) Internal sources being mainly government and other sectors (Non-government
organizations and private sector)
c) Swaziland Environment Fund (NEF) with initial investment by government
then the donor community. These sources are all dependent on money injected
externally which then causes the planned biodiversity funding to be less
sustainable as there is no guarantee for a continue flow of these funds to
Swaziland.
AMADI Swaziland 20
Following are the recommendations that are developed with compliance to the SEAP
recommendations.
1) Polluter pays principle towards financing biodiversity conservation
Pollution is one factor that may cause the degradation of biodiversity resources. The
companies that are responsible for problems for biodiversity will be charged a form
of penalty that were be credit to the Swaziland Environmental fund, so that it can
finance corrective measures. This is based on the polluter pays principle.
The overriding principle is that pollutions of any nature should be eradicated; the
reality is that it is not possible in many situations. The legislation of Swaziland
mandates the SEA to take up the cleaning process if the responsible company fails.
The charging of charges will give the SEA the financial capacity to comply with its
mandate. SEA can be able to achieve this by instructing other agencies to take up the
task on it’s behalf and providing the financial and technical support.
This approach towards protecting biodiversity and human health is important.

Through this process the Swaziland Environmental Authority is proactively helping
local companies to install waste management technologies at their industrial
complexes, in order to mitigate air and water pollution or other environmentally
degrading processes or activities. The fact that affected companies are later invoiced
to pay for corrections done on their behalf by the Swaziland Environmental Authority
will in the long-term force these companies to have waste management budgets so
that they can begin to manage waste as and when it is necessary.
Study extent of contribution of the user/polluter pays principle in financing

biodiversity conservation: this principle has a major contribution to a country’s
environmental management costs by providing for the remedy of pollution,
degradation and productive/profitable use of environmental resources. Thus its role as
part of and its future contribution to a national financing plan was examined.
2) Funding from the Global Environmental Fund
After having qualified for GEF funding recently, Swaziland as a beneficiary country
for GEF funding failed to raise the US$6 million and GEF would not fund
biodiversity conservation in Swaziland. These are some of the challenges that
Swaziland is facing towards raising funding for biodiversity. The SEF will need to
actively find means to qualify for the GEF funding or lobby for better conditions for
Swaziland and other countries in the similar context.
Below is a matrix of our recommendations for methods to raise funds for biodiversity
conservation. The recommendations are based on the reality that several and unique
conditions may exist and that each may need a method that fits its circumstances. The
fundamental principle is that the methods should not make economic activities based
on the extraction of biodiversity resources is not over burden financially.
AMADI Swaziland 21
10.1.1. The Matrix of Strategies
Method Receipt Advantage Disadvantaged

Royalties The government of Swaziland This proposal will create It may give room for the
should establish a system whereby synergies with other departments government to permit over
individuals and corporations that that issue permits for the exploitation biodiversity
extract biodiversity resources for extraction of natural resources. resources.
economic gain are issued a permit
and charged ad valorem royalty
Severance Fees Small companies that are This will establish market This will put an operational stress
harvesting biodiversity products at mechanism to control the on the implementing agency
a large scale will need to charge harvesting of biodiversity (SEF). It is also possible that this
them severance fees. This is a resources used for medicinal, wild will create tension as organized
levy based on the unit of foods, hand crafts and other institutions like the Traditional
extraction of the particular applications. Healers Organisation (THO) may
biodiversity resource. E.g. If a try to resist the proposal.
muti-manufacturing company will
harvest the African potato to
produce a commercial product.
Profit Related Tax A large corporation that extracts a This proposal will assist in find a The likely problem is that it may
great scale of biodiversity practical balance between increase the financial expectations
resources will be taxed. The tax harvesting of biodiversity of the various actors in the
will be based on profit level that resources and conservation, conservation of biodiversity in
will be calculated as per the between the need for short-term Swaziland. This if not managed
industry. E.g. The Swazi Secret economic and the need for long- by clear policies may result in
project, if it is able to make a term sustainable development. political tensions between
profit of about E200 000 it should governmental, quasi governmental
be tax, but less than that there is and the NGO community.
AMADI Swaziland 22

no tax
Sales Tax Consumer products that are made The cost of biodiversity There may be legislative problems
from the extraction of natural conservation needs to be shared in the collection of the tax. This
resource will be tax. This is between the people extracting the may need legislative reform
products like handicraft, which in resource of the end users. This which takes a long time. Also on
essence are luxury goods. Tax is to ensure that consumers how the revenue will eventually
share the cost. get to the SEF
Services Related Tariffs In business where by there is a In recognition of the reality that The SEF activities may be
need to completely or temporality project proponents care more overwhelmed by administration of
destroy biodiversity resources. about their projects than projects supported by this fund.
The government through the NEF mitigating biodiversity loss. This That is supervising the NGO’s or
(SEA) will charge service related put the responsibility on those departments responsible for the
tariffs, this are to compensate for care, but fully financed by those mitigation process.
the introduction and maintenance who cause the damage.
of such a resource in another
location.
Lease bonuses In a situation where the It will assist in the establishment There may be no more than one
government agency is not able to of the economic value of the corporation interested in a
determine the value of a resource resource.
biodiversity resource and there
several contenders for that
resource. It must auction the
resource in order to determine the
market value of the resource.
Fines, penalties, guarantees A regime of fines, penalties and Swaziland needs to develop The administration of this will be
guarantees must be established to acceptable biodiversity cumbersome
deal with performance bonds. conservation behaviour. Which
This is to ensure that the must be expressed in the
AMADI Swaziland 23

biodiversity user comply with conditions attached to the various

acceptable behaviour. permits issued for biodiversity
harvesting
Grants The NEF will have to mobilize for There will be an institution that is This may cause tension among the
the international donor funds. It dedicated in putting forward organisations that will be
must ensure that Swaziland takes funding request to all the
full advantage of all grants, organisations that fund
sponsorship available to it from biodiversity conservation.
the international community.
Foreign Debt credit Swaziland has foreign debt with We need to find banks and The process may be to long and
countries that may be willing to countries that will be willing swap political. It may involve
trade some of the debt for our debt for conservation credits. institutions outside the
biodiversity conservation credits. The SEF will the ideal biodiversity fraternity
organisation to follow this
through
Government subventions The government of Swaziland The commitment of the It will increase dependency on the
will need to continue to fund the government will continue to be government.
activities of governmental expressed in its budgetary
organizations that are directly allocation for biodiversity
involved with biodiversity conservation to the SNTC, SEF
conservation. That is the etc
Swaziland National Trust
commission (SNTC), Big Game
Parks
AMADI Swaziland 24

11. Funding from Government Subvention
11.1. National and macro-economic policy
Gripped by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, Swaziland’s budget allocations are largely

going towards health, next on the priority list of expenditure are budgets for
socioeconomic activities such as education, economic development and biodiversity
conservation has a tiny budget. This trend presents a great challenge to agencies
involved in biodiversity conservation. However, agencies such as the Swaziland
Environment Authority and Swaziland National Trust Commission should in the long-
term be able to create opportunities for raising funds for biodiversity conservation.
This agencies needs to continually lobby and advocate that biodiversity conservation
is at the centre of government’s economic development strategies. This agencies will
need to clarify the role biodiversity conservation have in the achievement UN
Millennium Development Goals basically the environmental sustainability, provision
of clean drinking water and alleviation of poverty goals.
There is a need to better position the SNTC so that it can have the capacity to play a
major role on biodiversity conservation and thus increase budgetary allocation from
the government. The annual E4.5 million funding for the Swaziland Environment
Fund should be increased as per the value of activities under taken by the
implementing agencies.
Also, the Government of Swaziland will have to mainstream biodiversity conservation

into development projects. Most development projects in the pharmaceutical,
cosmetic, tourism and agricultural industries thrive on commercial exploitation of
biodiversity. These businesses whether they are at community level or being run by
multinational companies know that their continued existence in business is guaranteed
by sustainable exploitation of biodiversity and they need to conserve it. However, the
Government cannot leave these companies to raise biodiversity conservation funds on
their own, police and regulate themselves.
It is therefore strategic for the Government of Swaziland to charge levies or taxes that
are aimed at ensuring sustainable exploitation of its ecosystem goods and services.
The proposed market-based taxes to finance the implementation of projects or
activities that relate to Swaziland’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan will only
work if the taxes are determined through a very broad consultative process that
genuinely allows for adequate stakeholder in-put and buy-in.
The above constitute a bundle of innovative financing mechanisms that the

Government of Swaziland urgently needs to implement concurrently in order to
guarantee the conservation of its biodiversity and the welfare of its people. An
environmentally bankrupt country is also financially bankrupt, unleashing social and
economic ills which are out of step with the need for sustainable development.
Another suggested strategy to raise funds for the conservation of biodiversity is to

innovatively, advertise a few trophies the sport hunters could come and hunt along
side with King Mswati III during the Butimba (Royal sanctioned national wild life
culling) and use the revenue for the trophies to finance the conservation of
biodiversity. Quite a number of hunters internationally would be attracted to pay
AMADI Swaziland 25
trophy fees so that they have the owner to relive the experience of traditional hunting
in Swaziland along side His Majesty, King Mswati III.
Swaziland is still in a good position to attract international donor funds in the future,
especially for projects that involve community tourism and community involvement
and benefit sharing from the commercial exploitation of biodiversity. Accordingly,
the Swaziland Environment Authority should form strategic alliances with
Community Based Tourism projects and Community Based businesses that are
exploiting biodiversity, in order to come up with joint project proposals.
The Swaziland Environmental Authority should also come up with a strategy that
attracts the setting up of offices in Swaziland by international conservation agencies
such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Safari Club International (SCI),
Trade Related Records in Fauna and Flora in Commerce (TRAFFIC) and others. The
existence of these conservation agencies in Swaziland will create an opportunity for
the Swaziland Environment Authority to work on joint biodiversity funding proposals
with these agencies. Alternatively, these agencies can source their own biodiversity
conservation funds to fund projects that are of national conservation interests. This
approach should be seriously considered in Swaziland as part of its new and
innovative initiatives towards raising funds for conservation of biodiversity. As things
stand, Swaziland does not have an international conservation agency office operating
within its borders. This is a missed opportunity.
Swaziland’s botanical gardens, museums and herbaria can be promoted as tourist

attractions as they have rich biodiversity. Researchers, television news crews and
tourists can be made to pay in order to do research, film and recreate in these places,
respectively. The money paid by researchers, television news crews who shoot
documentaries on Swazi botanical gardens, museums and herbaria and that paid by
tourists to see the botanical gardens and herbaria should be ploughed back into the
conservation of biodiversity. The fact that botanical gardens, museums and herbaria
are rich sources of Swazi biodiversity and their international attraction, should be
continue to attract tourists, researchers and foreign TV news crews to continue paying
to use the Swazi botanical gardens for research and filming, wherein lies the potential
of herbaria, botanical gardens and museums to be used as innovative financing
mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. In terms of museums, Swazi plant and
animal species of international interest could also from time to time be sold to foreign
country museum, creating the opportunity for Swaziland to raise more funds for
biodiversity conservation through the sale of its plant and animal species to museums
in foreign countries. A good example is the Namibian Elephant, which was recently
sold to Washington Natural Museum.
The future of biodiversity conservation could also be brighten is the Swaziland

Environment Authority in its capacity as the lead agency that promotes conservation
of biodiversity embarks of a public relations campaign that is aimed at making local
banks consider funding biodiversity conservation initiatives. As long as the banks are
convinced that an environmentally bankrupt nation is a financially bankrupt one and
also given a clear opportunity to get mileage from financing biodiversity conservation
initiatives, they will be attracted to come on board. The above scenarios of funding
biodiversity in Swaziland are quite viable but should be presented for stakeholder
input, before being finalised into a national report.
AMADI Swaziland 26
12. Conclusion
The bundle of viable options for new and innovative financing mechanism for
biodiversity conservation presented in this report still need the buy-in and collective
input of different stakeholders in Swaziland before a national strategy can be
produced and implemented.
The experts and non-experts that were consulted in this study concur that Swaziland
needs to implement creative methods to raise funds for biodiversity conservation. The
core values of which is to ensure that the parties in society that are involved in the
degradation and extraction of biodiversity of resources are contributing to corrective
and compensation activities. It also becomes clear that the people do desire that the
government of Swaziland through budgetary allocation to lead agencies like the SEA
and SNTC continue funding biodiversity conservation. Swaziland needs to improve
its capacity to solicit international grants from bilateral, multilateral and Philatrophic
organisations.
The Swaziland Environmental Fund operating under the auspices of SEA will be the
institution responsible for receiving and disbursing of biodiversity finances. The
recommendations which includes the introduction of : -
• Royalties
• Severance Fees
• Profit Related Tax
• Sales Tax
• Services Related Tariffs
• Lease bonuses
• Fines, penalties, guarantees
• Grants
• Foreign Debt credit
• Government subventions
AMADI Swaziland 27
Elephant and Rhino Conservation Project, Hlane National Park and Mkhaya Game
Reserve-Swaziland. In partnership with The Kingdom of Swaziland’s Big Game Parks,
Swaziland. FWS: $57,444. Leveraged funds: $123,424. Protection and monitoring
activities for the populations of elephants in the Big Game Parks of the Kingdom of
Swaziland, including procurement and operation of two four-wheel drive vehicles for use
by rangers in management operations.
DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION
AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION FUND
SUMMARY OF GRANTS 2001
AMADI Swaziland 28
13. Reference
1. Crepin, C. (2002). The Role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in

funding conservation trust funds and perspectives for the future. A paper
presented at the Conference on Sustainable Finance for Conservation in Africa:
Arusha, Tanzania.
2. (CAMPFIRE) (2004): Communal Areas Management Programme for
Indigenous Resources– CAMPFIRE Annual Report
3. (CITES) (2006): Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species
CITES research reports published on CITES website
4. Hanson C. and Sandalow D. (2006). Greening the Tax Code. Tax reform, energy
and the environment policy brief series. The Brookings Institution and World
Resources Institute: Washington DC
5. Miles, K. (2005): Innovative Financing: Filling in the Gaps on the Road to
Sustainable Environmental Funding, RECIEL 14.202-211
6. SEA (2003): Project Information document for the Biodiversity Conservation and
Participatory Development Project 19pp
7. STA (2006) Booklet on Community Tourism Grants
8. Swazi Indigenous Products (2006) – Project Brochure on Community
Involvement in sustainable use of veldt products
9. Swaziland Ministry of Economic Planning and Development Financial Records
(1998-2005)
10. UN Convention on Biological Diversity (2006) CBD research reports published
on CBD website
AMADI Swaziland 29

Innovative Biodiversity Financing - Swaziland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovative Biodiversity Financing - Swaziland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Prepared by Sivumelwano Agreement Nyembe for Africa

Submitted to SEA on 19 June 2006

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Acronyms ............................................................................................................. iii

AA: Appropriate Authority

AMADI Swaziland iii

The study was basically conducted by an intensive literature review covering

2.1. State of Swaziland’s Biodiversity

Table 2.3 Status of biodiversity by ecosystem.

Grassland Savanna Forest Aquatic Total

Trees 78 (19%) 261 (63%) 115 (28%) 4 (1%) 412

Grasses 130 (60%) 103 (47%) 3 (1%) 4 (2%) 218

Exotics 32 (44%) 30 (41%) 2 (3%) 9 (12%) 73

Total 1225 (51%) 1136 (47%) 238 (10%) 98 (4%) 2418

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

Flora3 161 (70%) 71 (31%) 53 (23%) 6 (3%) 231

Fauna (vertebrates)4 44 (38%) 51 (44%) 15 (13%) 27 (23%) 116

Flora5 13 (72%) 2 (11%) 3 (17%) 0 18

Southern African endemics 26 (50%) 13 (25%) 12 (23%) 1 (2%) 52

Extracted from the State of the Environment of Swaziland March 2001

Swaziland’s biodiversity is seriously threatened by the following: -

2.3. Regulatory framework

• The Water Act, 2003 (Act No. 5 of 2003)

• The Water Pollution Control Regulations, 1999

The Africa Management Development Institute (AMADI) conducted a study on the

Name of protected area Type of ownership

Hawane Nature Reserve Government

This study was conducted to achieve the following objectives

1. To collect and collate necessary data for the preparation of Swaziland’s

4.1. Literature Review

A reading of the research conducted about biodiversity conservation in Swaziland

Swaziland has committed itself to biodiversity by signing the critical international

Scientific research and biodiversity monitoring reports indicate that Swaziland

4.1.1. An Internet Search

4.1.2. Structured Interviews

• Directly working in biodiversity conservation or in activities that directly and

• Involved directly in the harvesting of biodiversity resources (Medicinal

4.1.3. Semi structured Interviews

A focused group interview was also conducted with a group of environmental

The questionnaire was also sent by e-mail to list of environmentalist and

4.2. Case Studies

4.2.1. Case Study 1 LESSONS LEARNT FROM COMMUNITY

This project demonstrates how biodiversity conservation can be enhanced by

In the project there are currently 14 producer communities (comprising 2 500

4.2.2. Case 2: COMMUNITY BASED TOURISM PROJECTS

The European Union recently bankrolled the establishment of seven Community

Throughout southern Africa and most recently, Swaziland, Community Based

4.2.3. Case 3: Zimbabwe’s Efforts to involve the residents of

Community benefits from sustainable use of biodiversity under the CAMPFIRE

• Some communities neighbouring demarcated forests are allowed to benefit from a

4.3. Bio-piracy issues

Pitted against the value of biodiversity medicinally, nutritionally and cosmetically,

The Swaziland Environmental Authority, through the Swaziland Environmental Fund

5. International Provisions on Biological Diversity

Goals and principles of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

Swaziland is a developing country and as provided in Articles 20 and 21 of the CBD

The Environmental Management Act (EMA) 2002 of Swaziland establishes the

1) To aggregate funds from different sources (including GEF) to ensure