Service Contract No 2007 / 147-446 Strategic ... - Swaziland

Thanks to the promotion of co-generation of electricity using tops and trash, and theopportunities opened for PPAs, a shift is taking place in the sugar mill estates towards GCH.Apart from the reduction in POPs and the agronomic advantages of GCH (see Table 15),increased co-generation will also have positive effects on reducing energy dependency,reduced use of coal and reduced atmospheric emissions.BCH will most likely be substituted by manual GCH in the case of RSSC, and mechanisedchoppers in the case of Ubombo Sugar. These alternatives will have different socioeconomiceffects. In the case of RSSC cane cutters will be offered a premium for cuttinggreen cane, whilst in the case of Ubombo Sugar there will be a reduction in the need forcane cutters (i.e. loss of employment opportunities).On the other hand, expansion of areas under sugar cane due to new schemes under LUSIPand KDDP will imply more cane burning, and thus an increase in the generation of POPs,offsetting the reductions at the mill estates. For the time being mill estates have notexpressed an interest in buying the tops and trash from small cane growers. The practice ofGCH is not economically attractive for small cane growers, as it represents more labour forcane cutting and increased cost of transport. The advantages of GCH will not offset thedisadvantages.The following measures should be explored to address the environmental and socioeconomicimpacts of cane burning:- Ensure that premiums offered to manual cane cutters are agreed with them, andadequate mechanisms set up to ensure these are transferred to the cane cutters bythe outsourcing companies.- Carry out an assessment of the economic value of GCH for small cane growers,taking into account savings in agrochemicals (due to weed control provided bymulching), higher sucrose content in cane delivered to mills (due to reduced KTM),and water and energy (irrigation) savings (considering also the future cost of water),as well as the increases in cost of transport and cane cutting. Such a study wouldprovide the basis either to encourage GCH (if there are cost savings), or identify theincentives that would be required for small cane growers to shift to GCH (e.g.transport subsidies) in the context of efforts to reduce generation of POPs.- Linked to the study above, carry out an assessment of the economic value of topsand trash for power generation, as a basis to negotiate a price at which tops andtrash could be purchased from small cane growers for its use in co-generation at themills.5.7 Key aspect 6: Water pollution fromagricultural run- off / monitoring of waterquality (Medium Priority)5.7.1 Current stateSugar cane farming, as most intensive agricultural practices, makes use of a series ofagrochemical products which serve different functions, e.g. fertilisers, ripeners, herbicides,insecticides, fungicides. These products may eventually find their way into water bodies andaquifers, where they take the form of pollutants. There are two main mechanisms throughwhich agrochemical products may end up in water systems: run-off and leaching.The main polluting agents are nutrients (mainly nitrates and phosphates derived fromfertilisers), agrochemical products (e.g. pesticides, herbicides), and sediments from soilerosion.RDMU (Strategic Environmental Assessment of the National Adaptation Strategy) - Page 92