Common Country Assessment - Swaziland, 1997

Contents | Introduction | Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Livelihoods | Advancement/Empowerment of Women | Child Rights/Child Development/Child Protection | Education | Population | Environment | Health | STD/HIV/AIDS | Food Security/Nutrition | Governance and Participation | Institution Building | Summary and Conclusion

Chapter Seven - Environment

Due to the abovementioned six physiographic regions, Swaziland is a country of exceptional biodiversity for its size. For example, it has 490 species of birds - a similar number to all of Botswana. The eastern part of the country, comprising the Lebombo Plateau and part of the Eastern Lowveld, was described in the 1994 IUCN and WWF publication "Centres of Plant Diversity" as being of "exceptional biographic interest"- part of the Maputaland Centre.¹ While Swaziland’s vertebrates have been well documented (821 species),² "only the distribution and status of the kingdom’s birds have been satisfactorily recorded."² 265 families and about 1300 genera of arthropods (insects, spiders, centipedes, crustaceans etc) have been recorded², but this economically, medically, veterinary and ecologically very important group remains generally poorly known: Swaziland’s invertebrates are virtually unknown.

Biodiversity is dependent upon the state and sustainable use of natural resources - air, water and land. Although appearing to be a well-watered country with high rains in the highveld and about 4,500 million cubic metres of water flowing through the five main river basins - the Komati, Usuthu, Lomati, Mbuluzi and Ngwavuma³ - in fact water is a scarce resource, with its scarcity being the overwhelming concern of the poor. Much of the water flowing through the country is committed elsewhere by treaties, the irrigated sugar plantations require the vast majority of reticulated water, little infrastructure exists on SNL to retain water resources through the dry season, and the complexity of the water-bearing strata makes the determination of sustainable levels of groundwater offtake difficult. One estimate is a potential groundwater rate of 20,000 litres per second, with only six percent of that potential being used. A more recent estimate is that the sustainable rate is not much more than double the present abstraction rate, that is, no more than 3,500 l/s.⁵ There is also a qualitative challenge to the water resource on top of this quantitative shortage, with pollution levels rising with increasing population densities, unsanitary practices and industrialisation.

The other two main natural resources - land and air - are also under threat. Because of the growth in population, Swaziland's wealth per capita in natural resources is much less that one-tenth what it was a century ago. It is also less in absolute terms: asbestos is an environmental and economic pariah worldwide, other mineral resources have been exhausted or their exploitation is uneconomic (mining now accounts for less than five percent of the nation's exports), and inadequate land management in general and the combination of sandy soils, irregular rainfalls and overgrazing in particular has left over half the nation's stock of grazing land either seriously or very seriously eroded. Even air quality is being challenged by the dumping of pollutants by individuals and companies into that common resource, at times causing serious hazards to health.

The Swaziland Environmental Action Plan, which has just been adopted by cabinet, contains a wide array of proposals. The objectives are as follows:

• "Provide a state-of-knowledge overview of the environmental conditions in the country; Identify, prioritise and where possible quantify environmental problems;
• Propose solutions to immediate environmental problems in the form of programmes and projects, and institutional and legislative reforms, together with details of their funding requirements and their human resource/capacity-building needs;
• Establish a clear indication of government's priority areas with respect to the environment so as to guide and give proper orientation to donor intervention in this field; Establish a framework which provides coherent direction for the process of environmental monitoring and action planning in the future; and
• Provide a framework for continuous development and environmental policy dialogue within the country and with donor partners."³

These objectives reflect the fact that many of the indicators relevant to the assessment of the state of the environment have not yet been prepared. There are preparations under way to establish standards of environmental quality, including permissible levels for industrial effluents, emissions and solid waste disposal, and develop and strengthen technical capacity for their enforcement.

However, the SEAP identifies several areas of high priority for both quantification and high priority action. A sample includes:

• Extensive soil erosion, particularly of the SNL rangelands;
• Soil, air and water contamination from inadequate waste disposal and management practices; for example, the asbestos mine once so important to Swaziland's GDP is leaching tailings laden with serpentine (quasi fibrous magnesium silicate) downstream; other mines have not rehabilitated their areas after closing down. DDT and Dieldrin are still being used in agriculture, and agricultural fertilisers are causing environmental problems.
• Wood is becoming increasingly scarce and deforestation and land degradation are ominously visible across Swaziland. The total annual wood consumption (mainly for fuel) exceeds the total sustainable wood supply by about 30 percent. Woodfuel use is expected to increase by 50 percent by the year 2010.
• There is a general lack of environmental awareness, and the consequences of pollution to health in particular.
• Swaziland's fuel and energy requirements are met from the following main sources:
  • electricity (6 percent)
  • coal (16 percent)
  • fuelwood, biomass waste and other renewable sources (56 percent)
  • petroleum products (22 percent)
• At present, more than 90 percent of the residential electricity is consumed by urban households.
• There are instances of serious health consequences being attributed to air and water-borne industrial pollution.
• There are significant incursions of invasive species into native flora areas.
• Major revisions are required to the legislative and administrative framework for environmental management.

The use of natural resources by the housing sector includes the following:

Source: 1995 SHIES, pp. 40-41

The dependence of the rural poor in particular upon fuelwood is evident from the above. Although over one-third of the country is said to be covered with forests - 6,240 sq. km., with 1,350 sq. km. being commercial forests, 250 sq. km. being wattle forests and the remaining 4,640 sq. km. being indigenous forests and woodland - much of the latter is sparsely forested grazing land, not dense, ‘true’ forest. A significant proportion of woodland has invasive species as a component. Whether invasive or not, the removal of a tree can have negative environmental consequences, not the least of which is erosion.

Much of the planted forest area of 110,000 ha. - about six percent of Swaziland’s total area - was on land which was previously grassland. Wattle plantations of about 25,000 ha. have not been properly managed and have become scrublands.⁵ The region in general has no more than one percent cover of true forest, which estimate is a more realistic one for true forests in Swaziland, many of which remain in the more inaccessible valleys and ravines.¹ A 1990 survey of indigenous woodlands estimated closed canopy stands covered only some 3,000 ha. There are an additional 460,000 ha. upon which some form of woodland has historically been the climax vegetation.⁵ Less than two percent of the highveld was naturally covered in trees and shrubs, but instead contained at least 104 different species of grasses out of Swaziland’s total of over 233, making it the richest in grass species diversity.⁴

Although unmanaged exploitation of forests for fuelwood is a matter of serious concern, the SEAP identifies erosion of cattle grazing rangelands as of the highest environmental priority. 25-30% of the area of the country has been classified as seriously eroded. The problem has been identified and debated for decades, but involving as it does a host of social, political and economic considerations as well as the environmental concerns, an implementable solution has not been found. Moreover, overstocking is economically rational for an individual, although destructive for the community in the long term.

The economic rationality or otherwise is not the only reason for the overstocking, however. For example, a recent survey⁶ indicated that only one beast in three is slaughtered, with less than eight percent of respondents quoting sale of any kind of large livestock as a source of income. Older but more widespread surveys indicate a cattle slaughter rate of between one in two and one in three, the others dying of natural causes - not an economically rational strategy. One reason given in that survey was the lack of accessibility to markets for the cattle - one of a number of remedial measures which may be required to reduce erosion. This form of erosion arguably requires a holistic approach for its remediation, part of a larger strategy of social and economic empowerment rather than a focus on the issue in isolation. It is an instance where a process approach holds promise where all task - centred approaches up to now to deal with the problem have failed.

1. De Vletter, R. 1997. (Draft). Swaziland: Sustainable Natural Resource Strategies for the 21^st Century.
2. Monadjem, A. & Nkosi, B.S. 1997. Swaziland Biodiversity Inventory - Zoological Perspectives.
3. MTEC. 1997. The Swaziland Environmental Action Plan (Draft). Two Vols. Mbabane. Vol. 1, p.2.
4. Kunene, I.S. & Nkosi, B.S. 1997. Swaziland Biodiversity Inventory - Botanical Perspectives.
5. MNRE/Knight Piesold. 1997. Water Section Situation Report. pp. A4-22 & B5-7 (as annotated by G. Murdoch).
6. MOAC/FAO, 1997. Refer Dlamini, P.M. 1997. Draft Report of a Socio-economic Study on Community Resources and Attitudes Survey.

Environmental Indicators

Suggestions or comments. This page was last updated on 06 May 2003