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

Many of the lands where sugar cane cultivation is taking place were previously natural bush;in a specific case land was exchanged from the Hlane National Park to accommodate anRSSC expansion need.Natural vegetation keeps being removed for sugar cane expansion associated with theLUSIP and KDDP schemes thus disrupting natural ecosystem functions and services.Pressure is increasing on areas of high biological diversity for conversion to agriculture andirrigated sugar in particular. Long term environmental benefits and services are beingforfeited for short term economic benefits. Increased availability of water for expansionpurposes will increase the threat to areas of high biological diversity.Although EIAs are carried out for specific irrigated cane developments, no systematicassessment of cumulative impacts has taken place. The environmental implications of thisare aggravated by the absence of effective protection of biodiversity (e.g. network ofprotected areas with representation of native, threatened and endangered species).The NAS provides no specific support for biodiversity management or conservation nor doesthe NAS measures explicitly describe requirements for investigating biodiversity impacts andmitigating for any losses.Stakeholders identified several areas of concern:Land ConversionsAll cane farms were once natural habitats that have been converted to cane. NAS support foran additional 15,000 ha of new development will significantly increase the loss of or impacton biodiversity. The conversion of natural bush, livestock grazing areas, arable land andriverine areas to cane production for LUSIP and KDDP have been subjected to variousenvironmental impact assessments (SWADE, 2005; SWADE, 2006; Vakakis International,2000; SWADE, 2003) and these have been reviewed and approved by the SwazilandEnvironment Authority.Concerns have arisen that many of these assessments did not specifically look at thebiodiversity impacts in sufficient detail, particularly the cumulative impacts of the biodiversitylosses across all the various projects. It is not that uncommon for the assessment reports tosuggest that the removal of certain species associated with the project site can be justified asthe same species can be found elsewhere in the country. As true as this maybe, the concernis that each land conversion is cumulatively decreasing the distribution and composition ofthe given species until, logically, there may only be one place left where it occurs naturally –probably within a protected area.Current practices to systematically assess and protect biodiversity is said to be inadequate inidentifying important components of biodiversity and there are concerns that during landpreparation such measures are not implemented in their entirety or at all, resulting in theunnecessary loss of biodiversity.In addition to land conversion to cane, conversions are also taking place for settlements,afforestation and other forms of farming and these are heavily affecting biodiversity and areoften outside the ambit of the EIA.Little attention is given to sustainable land use planning at a national scale and certainly atproject level often resulting in inappropriate land uses and loss of biodiversity.ComplianceConcerns have also arisen around the country’s capacity and commitment to independentlymonitor the implementation of the various mitigation plans. Some stakeholders have notedthat once the EIA has been approved, land clearing and other impacts are carried out in amanner that bears little resemblance to the provisions of the mitigation plan. This isRDMU (Strategic Environmental Assessment of the National Adaptation Strategy) - Page 72