13.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

particularly true where mitigation plans are implemented by resource-poor farmerassociations who have limited access to costly professional monitors and advice.Stakeholders noted that the SEA routinely fails to monitor project mitigation plans forcompliance allowing measures designed to protect or enhance the environmentalperformance of the project or FA to be overlooked with direct impacts on biodiversity. TheSEA often assume the proponent of the project, i.e. a FA or institution will monitor theimplementation of the plan but in many cases the FA or institution have little capacity to dothis, and with no follow-up or oversight the mitigation plans are rarely implemented asintended.Some stakeholders have identified that the degree of protection of affected naturalvegetation and fauna within the country is inadequate. The Flora Protection Act does providea schedule of protected species but this list is routinely ignored and species designated asthreatened, protected or vulnerable are often removed without adhering to the provisions ofthe Act.Figure 21:Clearance of native vegetation for sugar cane farmingPollutionPollution of water bodies from industrial effluents and from agricultural run-off is adverselyaffecting the biodiversity of the aquatic environment. Recent legislation in the form of theWater Pollution Control Regulations of 2010 should, if implemented, be a useful instrumentto manage pollution of water bodies. The risk will be little or ineffective enforcement.LivestockIncreases in land under cane as a result of NAS support usually results in livestock and theirgrazing areas being displaced. Project level EIAs sometimes consider the impact of grazingland losses and propose mitigation that usually involves movement of livestock toneighbouring areas. This transfer of livestock to unassessed areas results in increased landdegradation and biodiversity losses. The LUSIP and KDDP projects are recent examples ofsignificant livestock displacement.Resource utilisationBiodiversity is an important source of natural resources for communities (fuel, timber,medicinal, cultural). The lack of regulation governing access and utilisation leavesbiodiversity as a free and exploitable asset. In-migration of people to new or developing caneareas adds additional pressure on natural resources.RDMU (<strong>Strategic</strong> Environmental Assessment of the National Adaptation Strategy) - Page 73

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!