5.3.4 Options to address the key aspectDifferent options are available to address the impacts affecting the vulnerability, and hencesustainability, of the small- and medium-cane growers, with some issues being investigated,if not addressed, by the sugar industry. Based on this study it is recommended that emphasisbe given to an evaluation of the management models for small cane growers currentlypromoted by developers (e.g. SWADE). As stated above, this is regarded as the basic coreissue to potential high levels of risk.An evaluation would comprise a SWOT analysis of current models, and comparing themodels with other options (such as co-operatives). Particular consideration need to be givento outsourcing the management of the FAs, employing an outside private company tomanage all the FAs in one development, such as in LUSIP and KDDP, and thus taking directmanagement responsibility away from the farmers themselves. Already this happens, tosome degree, where the Millers ‘manage’ outgrowers.The evaluation process would involve intense public participation at all levels, andparticularly with the farmers themselves. It would require a supplementary educationprocess, to ensure that the different options are presented before informed decisions aremade.Once there is agreement on an acceptable and workable management system, activitiescould then be directed towards strengthening the operation of the small cane growers, suchas through infrastructure development (including local road networks), extension serviceprovision, training in irrigation agriculture, assistance with HIV/AIDS-related concerns; andsecuring land tenure.Within the current situation, if there is no change to the management model, the main focuswould be towards the capacity building and training of farmers, particularly in skills relating tomanaging farms, individually and as part of a FA. Concern around the lack of managementskills was raised continuously, by emerging farmers, farmers already in FAs, and otherbodies consulted.In any event, although it is recognised that training programmes are in place, they seem tobe offered by numerous organisations (the MOA, SHIP, the SSA, SWADE and Millers, forexample), provided ad hoc with little coordination. One body need be designated the task ofmanaging training across-the-board, ensuring that the training offered is appropriate to therequirements of farmers, is of a high level, is standardised across the country, and is beingimplemented, reaching all those in need.Co-ordination will be the primary task of such an organisation. Other responsibilities willinclude: a review of the training/support needs of FAs through a needs assessment; settingup a database of existing and potential training organisations, who will need to register andqualify as trainers; developing criteria to standardise the training programmes offered;disseminating information on what training is being provided, by whom and when; andmonitoring and evaluating the content and implementation of the process.Other issues are regarded as relevant, requiring consideration. In order to address concernsaround a ‘safety net”, an option of high priority is ensuring social safeguards against potentialfailure of sugar cane farming through allocating portions of land to alternative crops andlivestock farming.Studies have been conducted into the possible diversification of farming into cash cropsother than sugar, and consideration around this is ongoing. However, for those farmers withsugar cane as their primary cash crop, on a farm level there is a need to allocate portions ofland to grow subsistence crops and to keep livestock. It seems that the allocation of land forfood is being considered, and in some cases implemented, by LUSIP and KDDP. Having thisRDMU (<strong>Strategic</strong> Environmental Assessment of the National Adaptation Strategy) - Page 64
safety net would alleviate fears around food (in) security, and of spiralling into the cycle ofpoverty if cane farming does not succeed, and needs to be standardised across all projectdevelopments involving small cane growers.An additional option for consideration is to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the socioeconomicimpacts of mechanisation on the sugar industry.Many financial aspects affecting cane growers have been addressed, primarily as part of theSSAs Smallholder Assistance Action Programme and implementation of the NAS.Complementary to this, and filling in a gap that has been identified during this StrEA, couldbe research into the impact of mechanisation on income and hence cash flow. Mechanisationwill have both positive and negative affects; it may reduce labour requirements (thusindirectly related to HIV/AIDS) and labour costs, yet result in higher investment in equipmentand energy costs, and cause the loss of jobs and potentially increase levels of poverty.Research into mechanisation would thus link in with broader socio-economic impacts.Recommendations for intervention are based on the above options, giving priority toinvestigating alternate management models for small cane growers. The other issuesidentified can be supportive to this, running parallel to the process, namely strengtheningcapacity building and training, assurance of a safety net through allocation of parcels of landto alternate (subsistence) crop production, and research into the socio-economic implicationsof increased mechanisation of the sugar industry.5.4 Key aspect 3: Loss of biodiversity due tol and- take for sugar cane expansion (HighPriority)5.4.1 Current stateVarious components of <strong>Swaziland</strong>’s biodiversity have been inventoried and researched overthe past few decades. Most of this work has been aimed at producing checklists and atlases,which document presence and distribution of species, respectively. Recently work has alsobeen conducted on mapping ecosystems and vegetation types.5.4.1.1 EcosystemsDuring the development of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), theimportance of taking an ecosystem approach for the successful conservation of biodiversitywas recognised and an ecosystem map for <strong>Swaziland</strong> was drafted. This map showsecosystems as opposed to geographical regions or vegetation types. The four ecosystemsare (see Figure 15): (1) montane grasslands; (2) savanna-woodland mosaic; (3) forests; and(4) aquatic systems.RDMU (<strong>Strategic</strong> Environmental Assessment of the National Adaptation Strategy) - Page 65
- Page 1 and 2:
Restructuring and DiversificationMa
- Page 3 and 4:
DISCLAIMERThe contents of this repo
- Page 5 and 6:
5.7.2 Expected impacts in absence o
- Page 7 and 8:
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
- Page 9 and 10:
HIVHPIIAIAIDIPCCIPPISOITFIWRMJWCKDD
- Page 11 and 12:
PSIRBARDMUREASWARMFRPDPRSARSSCSS&MS
- Page 13 and 14:
UNEPUNFCCCUNICEFUNISWAUSUS$VACVCTWF
- Page 15 and 16:
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSwaziland has be
- Page 17 and 18:
- In spite of the above water-stora
- Page 19 and 20:
to keep the same quality), destruct
- Page 21 and 22:
ooooMust be based on a basin-wide h
- Page 23 and 24:
ooooMust address the socio-economic
- Page 25 and 26:
- Optimal use should be made of thi
- Page 27 and 28: 2 BACKGROUND2.1 The EU sugar reform
- Page 29 and 30: eing implemented directly by the in
- Page 31 and 32: for implementation. For future StrE
- Page 33 and 34: operating in Swaziland, one in Simu
- Page 35 and 36: 4.2 Climate and climate changeSwazi
- Page 37 and 38: 4.4 Land and land tenureLand tenure
- Page 39 and 40: Most of the water in Swaziland (96%
- Page 41 and 42: −−−Decline in biodiversity (m
- Page 43 and 44: Figure 6: Cause-effect relationship
- Page 45 and 46: Figure 8:Cause-effect relationships
- Page 47 and 48: Figure 10:Cause-effect relationship
- Page 49 and 50: economic and social welfare in an e
- Page 51 and 52: 5.2.1.3 Water usage and demand in S
- Page 53 and 54: Table 7:Capacity, use, types and ch
- Page 55 and 56: 5.2.1.5 The Komati Downstream Devel
- Page 57 and 58: Table 8: Industry area (ha) by irri
- Page 59 and 60: 5.2.2 Expected impacts in absence o
- Page 61 and 62: ipening period. Presence of pests a
- Page 63 and 64: 5.2.2.5 Effects of future water sho
- Page 65 and 66: As was noted in the scoping report,
- Page 67 and 68: contribute to poverty alleviation.
- Page 69 and 70: sufficient to cover all the farmers
- Page 71 and 72: which revealed that 66% of the popu
- Page 73 and 74: funds, and they then have to mark u
- Page 75 and 76: contracts; in practical terms there
- Page 77: The United Nations Conference on Tr
- Page 81 and 82: Table 11:Species diversity by ecosy
- Page 83 and 84: Figure 19:Distribution of endemic p
- Page 85 and 86: mostly on paper, are not cross-sect
- Page 87 and 88: particularly true where mitigation
- Page 89 and 90: Enforcement of legislation is key t
- Page 91 and 92: In general, however, the HIV preval
- Page 93 and 94: The HAPAC Programme applied two imp
- Page 95 and 96: The company implements an HIV/AIDS
- Page 97 and 98: improving co-ordination; to have a
- Page 99 and 100: measures of the NAS, the RDMU indic
- Page 101 and 102: sustainable business. Based on ISO
- Page 103 and 104: Table 15:Synthesis of advantages an
- Page 105 and 106: Considering an approximate total of
- Page 107 and 108: Many factors intervene in determini
- Page 109 and 110: The legal responsibilities for the
- Page 111 and 112: 5.8 Key aspect 7: Regulation of eff
- Page 113 and 114: effluent standards. Otherwise there
- Page 115 and 116: 5.9.4 Options to address the key as
- Page 117 and 118: Table 17:NAS logframe indicators ne
- Page 119 and 120: IndicatorObjective 1a: Positive and
- Page 121 and 122: IndicatorObjective 1a: Positive and
- Page 123 and 124: 6.2 Proposed StrEA performance indi
- Page 125 and 126: Indicator Measurement ObservationsL
- Page 127 and 128: Indicator Measurement ObservationsR
- Page 129 and 130:
7.1 Addressing High Priority aspect
- Page 131 and 132:
RECOMMENDATION INVOLVED INSTITUTION
- Page 133 and 134:
RECOMMENDATION INVOLVED INSTITUTION
- Page 135 and 136:
RECOMMENDATION INVOLVED INSTITUTION
- Page 137 and 138:
H. REGULATION OF ATMOSPHERIC EMISSI
- Page 139 and 140:
RECOMMENDATION INVOLVED INSTITUTION
- Page 141 and 142:
NAS Area Description Proposed measu
- Page 143 and 144:
NAS Area Description Proposed measu
- Page 145 and 146:
NAS Area Description Proposed measu
- Page 147 and 148:
NAS Area Description Proposed measu
- Page 149 and 150:
Figure 29:Environmental and socio-e
- Page 151 and 152:
NAS ACTIONSWater balanceCont. of gr
- Page 153 and 154:
NAS ACTIONSWater balanceCont. of gr
- Page 155 and 156:
Annex 3: Key stakeholdersTable 19:M
- Page 157 and 158:
Institutional ActorMinistry of Natu
- Page 159 and 160:
Institutional ActorSwaziland SugarA
- Page 161 and 162:
Institutional ActorDepartment of Wa
- Page 163 and 164:
Table 20:Other key stakeholders rel
- Page 165 and 166:
StakeholderRiver BasinAuthorities (
- Page 167 and 168:
StakeholderWorld VisionWorld FoodPr
- Page 169 and 170:
Annex 4: Main policy documents and
- Page 171 and 172:
Policy, Plan orProgrammeNational Re
- Page 173 and 174:
Policy, Plan orProgrammeComprehensi
- Page 175 and 176:
Policy, Plan orProgrammeNational En
- Page 177 and 178:
Policy, Plan orProgrammeDraft Natio
- Page 179 and 180:
Piece of legislationNational TrustC
- Page 181 and 182:
Piece of legislationThe Public Heal
- Page 183 and 184:
Piece of legislationTreaty on devel
- Page 185 and 186:
Piece of legislationUnited NationsF
- Page 187 and 188:
Annex 5: Stakeholder engagement met
- Page 189 and 190:
Date Time Place Name Organisation P
- Page 191 and 192:
StrEA STUDY PHASEDate Time Place Na
- Page 193 and 194:
Annex 7: List of participants to th
- Page 195 and 196:
Annex 8: Agenda for the stakeholder
- Page 197 and 198:
Cortez, LAB and Brossard Pérez, LE
- Page 199 and 200:
Matsebula, M (2009) EC Accompanying
- Page 201 and 202:
Seebaluck, V.; Leal, MRLV; Rosillo-
- Page 203 and 204:
Annex 10: Terms of ReferenceTERMS O
- Page 205 and 206:
2.2. Requested services for the fir
- Page 207 and 208:
under consideration. The consultant
- Page 209 and 210:
2.5.4. Analysis of performance indi
- Page 211 and 212:
• Fluency in both written and spo