Eswatini has made incremental progress in establishing biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning frameworks through the following key actions: 1. Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation of 2022, which provides provisions for identifying and mapping environmentally sensitive sites, representing a foundational policy framework for biodiversity protection in development planning. 2. Expansion of the Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECM) Framework, which has increased these areas to 1.04%, demonstrating practical application of spatial conservation planning outside formal protected areas. 3. Development of catchment management plans for the Ngwavuma and Mbuluzi River Basins by Joint River Basin Authorities - Piggs Peak Board (JRBA-PB), demonstrating integrated landscape approaches combining water resource management with biodiversity conservation. 4. Integration of biodiversity considerations into municipal planning processes as guided by the National Development Plan 2023-2028, with 63 out of 336 Chiefdoms now having Development Plans that incorporate biodiversity considerations (18.75% coverage).

The extent of natural ecosystems in Eswatini shows a sustained decline (Table 1) relative to the historical baseline. The original natural cover was estimated at 17,364 km², dominated by grassland (7,990 km²; 46%) and savanna (8,327 km²; 48%), with smaller forest (870 km²; 5%) and aquatic systems (213 km²; 1.22%). By 2013, grassland had declined to 5,992 km² (34%) and savanna to 6,245 km² (36%), while forest cover reduced to 644 km² (4%). The most recent assessment in 2022 indicates further contraction, with grassland reduced to 4,265 km² (24%) and savanna to 5,018 km² (29%). Aquatic ecosystems showed a smaller reduction, from 213 km² to 189 km² (1.09%). 

Table 1. Extent of natural ecosystems in Eswatini.

Table 2. Proportion of land area in 2013[1].

Table 3. Proportion of land area in 2022[2].

Figure 1. Comparison of land area in 2013 and 2022.

Policy Framework Achievements: The EIA Regulation 2022 now mandates biodiversity considerations in development planning. The OECM Framework provides a mechanism for expanding conservation coverage outside protected areas. However, implementation remains limited with only 63 of 336 chiefdoms (18.75%) shown in Figure 2 having completed Development Plans.

Figure 2. Tinkhundla with Chiefdom Development Plans. area

[1] MTEA, Forest Reference Level of Kingdom of Eswatini (Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, 2024).

[2] MTEA, Forest Reference Level of Kingdom of Eswatini.

• Rapid urbanization overwhelming planning capacity, particularly in rural areas lying close to urban (peri-urban) areas where informal settlements expand without adequate environmental safeguards
• Land tenure complexities on Swazi Nation Land presenting persistent obstacles to implementing comprehensive spatial plans
• Absence of comprehensive ecosystem baseline data hindering evidence-based planning and monitoring
• Limited capacity for biodiversity mainstreaming and weak intersectoral coordination across government ministries
• Species distribution data gaps, particularly in urban areas, limiting ability to identify areas of high ecological importance
• Chiefdom boundaries are difficult to ascertain, hindering effective planning.

Case Study 1: Ngwavuma River Basin Management Plan: The Ngwavuma catchment management plan developed by JRBA-PB demonstrates an integrated landscape approach combining water resource management, biodiversity conservation, and community livelihoods. The plan identifies critical biodiversity areas, ecological corridors, and sustainable land use zones across 85,000 hectares. Key features include spatial mapping of high-value ecosystems, buffer zones for riparian corridors, and participatory planning with traditional authorities and communities.

Case Study 2: Ezulwini Municipal Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAPS) Management Strategy: Ezulwini Municipality's IAPS Management Strategy (2025) shows successful integration of biodiversity considerations into urban planning. The strategy includes spatial mapping of invasion hotspots, prioritized control zones based on ecological sensitivity, and coordination with the OECM Framework to protect peri-urban (rural areas lying close to urban areas) biodiversity. This demonstrates how municipalities can mainstream biodiversity into spatial development planning and frameworks.

Target 1.1 contributes to multiple Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Integration of biodiversity into urban planning supports sustainable urbanization and resilient human settlements. SDG 15 (Life on Land): Spatial planning that minimizes habitat loss directly supports the protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems and halts biodiversity loss. SDG 13 (Climate Action): Ecosystem-based spatial planning enhances climate resilience through maintenance of ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, water regulation, and disaster risk reduction. It further contributes directly to SDG 14 (Life Below Water) by mitigating land-based pollution and protecting inland aquatic ecosystems, which are critical to the health of downstream marine environments.

The Environmental Management Act of 2002 and Environment Assessment Regulations, 2022, establish mandatory EIA requirements for all development projects in Eswatini. Implementation includes: 1. Mandatory EIA process for all Category 1 projects (predominantly urban, 95% located in urban areas, 5% in rural areas) and projects requiring Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), Initial Environmental Examinations/Compliance Monitoring Plans (IEEs/CMPs), and Environmental Impact Assessments/Compliance Monitoring Plans (EIAs/CMPs). 2. The Eswatini Environment Authority (EEA) issues EIA approvals and conducts compliance monitoring. Between 2019 and 2025, EEA issued an average of 530 EIA approvals annually (inclusive of the three project categories). 3. Enforcement actions are taken against violators, averaging approximately 30 cases annually between 2019-2025. 4. In rural areas where approximately 70% of projects requiring EMPs, IEEs/CMPs, and EIAs/CMPs are implemented, compliance is mainly driven through financial institutions, the Land Management Board, and Community Development Officers who help ensure EIA-related conditions and safeguards are applied. However, enforcement in rural areas remains notably weak, with a very high percentage of developmental undertakings going unassessed. This has led to significant loss of natural ecosystems through agricultural expansion, informal settlements, and poorly regulated infrastructural development on Swazi Nation Land.

EIA Approval Trends (2019-2025): The number of EIA approvals issued annually averaged 530 (Table 4). The highest approvals of 691 were issued in 2024, followed by 624 in 2019. The lowest annual approvals of only 201 were issued in 2020 during COVID-19 global pandemic lockdown. The years 2021 (570), 2022 (531), 2023 (567), and 2025 (535) saw approvals in a consistent range.

Table 4. Number of EIA approvals issued annually between 2019 and 2025.

Enforcement Actions (2019-2025): The Authority undertook enforcement actions averaging 30 cases annually (Table 5). The year 2024 recorded the highest enforcement actions of 42 cases, aligned with the highest EIA approvals. The year 2025 recorded 34 enforcement actions. The lowest number of 24 cases was recorded in 2022. Notably, 2020 with the least EIA approvals (201) still saw 26 enforcement actions, indicating consistent enforcement effort.

Urban vs Rural Compliance: Category 1 projects show 95% compliance in urban areas versus 5% in rural areas. For projects requiring full EIAs, approximately 70% are in rural areas where compliance depends heavily on financial institution requirements and Land Management Board oversight. However, many rural developments proceed without proper assessment.

Table 5. Number of enforcement actions taken for EIA violations.

• Insufficient enforcement capacity in rural areas due to limited personnel and logistical constraints
• Weak penalties for EIA violations fail to provide sufficient deterrence to non-compliance
• Limited awareness among rural communities and small-scale developers regarding EIA requirements
• Lengthy EIA approval processes (averaging several months) encourage informal development to proceed without authorization
• Absence of systematic national tracking system for ecosystems lost to development projects
• Limited inter-agency coordination between EEA, Land Management Board, municipal authorities, and traditional authorities

Limited capacity on the compilation of comprehensive environmental assessment reports among environmental consultants, resulting in unsatisfactory/weak submissions to the Authority for assessment.

EEA Enforcement Capacity Strengthening (2022-2024): The correlation between increased EIA approvals (691 in 2024) and increased enforcement actions (42 in 2024) demonstrates EEA's enhanced monitoring and compliance capacity. This represents a 75% increase in enforcement from the 2022 baseline of 24 cases, indicating improved institutional effectiveness despite resource constraints.

Financial Institution EIA Requirements: Commercial banks and development finance institutions increasingly require EIA compliance as a condition for project financing in rural areas. This market-based mechanism has improved compliance rates for medium and large-scale agricultural and infrastructure projects, though small-scale developments remain largely unassessed.

Target 1.2 contributes to:  SDG 15.9 – Integration of ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, and poverty reduction strategies through mandatory EIA processes.  SDG 12.2 – Sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources through development impact assessment and mitigation.  SDG 16.6 – Development of effective, accountable and transparent institutions through EIA enforcement and compliance monitoring.

Eswatini's ecosystem restoration efforts are transitioning from planning into early implementation through a portfolio of coordinated national and regional initiatives that collectively reflect a sustained commitment to reversing land degradation. The national restoration agenda is grounded in the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Target Setting Report submitted to the UNCCD, which identified 115,000 hectares[1] representing approximately 25% of degraded land and reflecting a comparable 25% reduction in ecosystem extent over past decades as requiring active restoration. This baseline has since been refined spatially, with 93,774 hectares of priority restoration zones mapped according to high conservation value and high threat criteria, providing a more targeted framework for intervention planning and investment. To note, the Government of Eswatini operates six nurseries with a combined production capacity of approximately 120,000 tree seedlings annually. Based on expert assessment, approximately 50% of production comprises indigenous tree species, supporting restoration and reforestation programmes across the country. Expanding the proportion of indigenous species in nursery production and increasing overall production capacity to meet restoration demand represents a priority for scaling ecosystem recovery under this target. The current capacity, while meaningful, represents a modest fraction of the seedling volumes required to achieve the 115,000-hectare restoration target by 2030, and investment in nursery infrastructure and indigenous seed sourcing is identified as a near-term implementation need.

At the regional level, Eswatini's participation in the Great Green Wall Initiative situates national restoration efforts within a broader continental landscape framework, offering access to technical expertise and potential funding mechanisms that complement domestic capacity. This regional dimension is further reinforced through climate policy, with NDC 3.0 embedding ecosystem-based adaptation measures including wetland restoration, erosion control, and invasive species management as core commitments within the country's enhanced nationally determined contributions, thereby linking biodiversity restoration to climate resilience objectives.

The flagship on-the-ground initiative is the GEF-funded Mbuluzi Ecosystems Restoration Project (2023–2028)[2], which targets 60,700 hectares across five constituencies in the Hhohho and Lubombo regions. This represents approximately 53% of the national LDN restoration target and focuses on donga rehabilitation, invasive species control, and the promotion of sustainable land management practices. The project has leveraged considerable co-financing, with a GEF grant of approximately USD 3.9 million catalysing an additional USD 31.76 million from national and local sources. Complementing this is the Smallholder Agriculture Productivity Enhancement and Marketing Project (SAPEMP), launched in 2024 with total co-financing of USD 45.5 million from IFAD, the Green Climate Fund, and government sources. SAPEMP targets 40,000 hectares of general restoration across all four regions, with an additional 1,000 hectares designated specifically for agroforestry systems, making it the largest single restoration investment in the country's history.

At the community scale, the Eswatini Environment Fund has provided accessible grant financing typically in the range of E150,000 to E300,000 (approximately USD 8,125–16,250)[3] per project to support locally led restoration initiatives. These include completed donga rehabilitation projects at Mahlangatsha (61 hectares) and Nkonjwa (19.6 hectares), as well as wetland protection interventions across approximately 20 sites, though precise hectarage for the latter remains undocumented. Cumulatively, active and completed projects account for a quantified restoration footprint of over 122,094 hectares across ecosystem types including agroforestry, degraded mixed lands, grassland/donga systems, wetlands, and the Mbuluzi landscape (cropland, forestry, and rangeland).

Looking ahead, the Strengthening Agro-Ecosystem Adaptation for Sustainable Livelihoods (SEASL) project[4], backed by the Adaptation Fund with a USD 10 million budget and focused on the Lubombo and Ngwempisi landscapes, remains in proposal review stage with implementation pending approval. If approved, this would further expand the national restoration portfolio and strengthen the climate-biodiversity integration that underpins Eswatini's overall approach to ecosystem recovery. Collectively, documented international and multilateral funding commitments for ecosystem restoration total approximately USD 98.4 million between 2016 and 2025, reflecting both the scale of the challenge and the significant external interest in supporting Eswatini's restoration trajectory.
 

[1] Ministry of Agriculture, Country Report of the Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme (Mbabane, Eswatini, 2018).

[2] https://publicpartnershipdata.azureedge.net/gef/GEFDocuments/a0901c4a-6aff-ea11-a815-000d3a5c09ae/PIR/ProjectImplementationReportPIR_10695-PIR-UNEP-2025-Mbuluzi%20Ecosystems%20Restoration%20Project.pdf

[3] Samkele Tfwala et al., Eswatini Environment Fund: Funding Climate Change Adaptation and Biodiversity Actions at the Local Level (Mbabane, Eswatini, 2023).

[4] https://www.adaptation-fund.org/project/strengthening-agro-ecosystem-adaptation-for-sustainable-livelihoods-within-landscapes-seasl/

Baseline Assessment: Total degraded land area requiring restoration is 115,000 hectares, representing 25% reduction in ecosystem extent over past decades. This degradation affects grasslands, savannas, wetlands, and forest ecosystems.

Current Restoration Coverage: Eswatini's documented ecosystem restoration efforts cover 122,094.6 hectares across confirmed restoration projects and the Mbuluzi landscape intervention target, representing approximately 106% of the 115,000 ha national Land Degradation Neutrality target. This achievement confirms that Eswatini has met its national ecosystem restoration target ahead of the 2030 deadline, driven by the combined scale of the Mbuluzi Ecosystem Restoration Project, SAPEMP, and community-based restoration initiatives coordinated through the Eswatini Environment Fund..

Breakdown by Ecosystem Type (Table 6): General restoration: 40,000 hectares (SAPEMP), Agroforestry systems: 1,000 hectares (SAPEMP), Mixed degraded lands: 82 hectares (SMLP/CSARL in Middleveld and Lowveld), Donga rehabilitation (grassland erosion control): 80.6 hectares (Mahlangatsha 61 ha, Nkonjwa 19.6 ha via Eswatini Environment Fund), Wetland restoration: 20+ sites documented but total hectares NOT aggregated nationally and Hawane nature reserve (250 ha).

Table 6. Hectares of ecosystem under active restoration by type.

Geographic Distribution: Restoration projects span all four regions (Hhohho, Manzini, Shiselweni, Lubombo) with concentration in Mbuluzi landscape (60,700 ha target) and community-based initiatives across multiple constituencies (Table 7).

Table 7. Restoration project’s location.

Implementation Status Timeline: Active projects (Table 8): Mbuluzi (2023-2027), SAPEMP (2024-multi-year), Completed projects: SMLP/CSARL, EEF donga rehabilitation (2016-2022), Planned/pending: SEASL ($10M, approval pending).

Table 8. Implementation status by project.

Funding Mobilization: Table 9 indicates that International and multilateral funding has been the primary financial driver of ecosystem restoration in the country, with documented commitments totalling ~ USD 98.4 million between 2016 and 2025. The SAPEMP project represents the largest single investment at USD 45.5 million, combining resources from IFAD, the Green Climate Fund, government contributions, and private sector co-financing to support comprehensive ecosystem restoration across all four regions. The Mbuluzi Ecosystems Restoration project illustrates the significant leverage effect of international funding mechanisms, with a GEF grant of approximately USD 3.9 million catalysing an additional USD 31.76 million in co-financing from various national and local sources among other funding sources. 

Table 9. International and Multilateral Funding (Documented Projects)

The Eswatini Environment Fund (EEF) has emerged as a critical national financing mechanism for ecosystem restoration (Table 10), providing accessible grant funding for community-based and locally led restoration initiatives that complement larger international projects. Individual EEF project grants typically range from E150,000 to E300,000 (~ USD 8,825 to USD 17,650 at the current exchange rate), scaled appropriately for community-level implementation capacity while still enabling meaningful restoration outcomes.

Table 10. National and Local Funding (Eswatini Environment Fund).

• Current mobilized resources ($98.4M over 9 years) fall short of comprehensive restoration needs for 115,000 hectares
• Land tenure complexities on Swazi Nation Land complicate restoration implementation, particularly for long-term land use agreements and benefit-sharing arrangements
• Limited technical capacity for restoration planning and implementation, including species selection, erosion control engineering, and ecosystem-appropriate techniques
• Absence of national soil conservation policy framework to guide and standardize restoration approaches
• Weak coordination among agencies involved in restoration activities (ENTC, EEA, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Natural Resources, municipalities)
• Lack of systematic monitoring of restored areas - tree planting success rates unknown, restored ecosystem health not tracked
• Insufficient capacity on choice of appropriate tree species for specific ecological zones and restoration objectives
• No systematic national reporting mechanism to aggregate forest and wetland restoration hectares across all implementing agencies

Case Study 1: Mbuluzi Ecosystems Restoration Project (2023-2029) This GEF-funded landscape-scale restoration initiative targets 60,700 hectares across Hhohho and Lubombo regions, representing 53% of Eswatini's national LDN target. The project integrates multiple restoration approaches including donga rehabilitation using engineering and biological stabilization techniques, invasive alien plant species control and replacement with indigenous vegetation, sustainable land management practices with community participation, and livelihood diversification to reduce pressure on natural resources. Key innovation: The project demonstrates large-scale restoration feasibility through GEF catalytic funding ($3.9M) leveraging substantial co-financing ($31.76M) from government, communities, and private sector. Community involvement across 5 constituencies ensures local ownership and long-term sustainability.

Case Study 2: Mahlangatsha Donga Rehabilitation (Eswatini Environment Fund) Community-led restoration of 61 hectares of severely eroded grassland in Mahlangatsha demonstrates effective small-scale restoration approaches. The project employed soil conservation techniques including gabion structures for gully stabilization, indigenous grass species reseeding matched to local ecological conditions, and community training in erosion control maintenance. Results: Successful stabilization of major erosion features, recovery of native grassland vegetation, and community capacity building. This model has been replicated in other sites (Nkonjwa 19.6 ha) and provides templates for scaling through EEF funding mechanism. Project cost of approximately $8,825-17,650 demonstrates cost-effectiveness of community-based approaches.

Target 2 contributes to multiple Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 15.3 - Combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world. Eswatini's 115,000 ha restoration target directly addresses this goal.  SDG 13.1 - Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards through ecosystem restoration that enhances natural climate regulation and disaster risk reduction.  SDG 6.6 - Protect and restore water-related ecosystems including wetlands, which comprise a key component of Eswatini's restoration portfolio with 20+ wetland sites. SDG 2.4 - Ensure sustainable food production systems that help maintain ecosystems through landscape restoration supporting agricultural productivity and ecosystem services.

Eswatini's protected area system has been progressively expanded through a combination of formal gazetting, innovative conservation designations, and landscape-level planning. Gazetted protected areas managed by the Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC) and Big Game Parks include major reserves such as Malolotja, Mlawula, Mantenga, Hawane, Mlilwane, Hlane Royal National Park, and Mkhaya Game Reserve collectively covering approximately 4.26% of the country's terrestrial area (approximately 741 km²).

To extend conservation coverage beyond formally gazetted land, Eswatini launched the Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECM) Framework in May 2021, becoming the first country in Africa and globally to officially launch OECM Guidelines. Under this framework, 11 additional sites have been formally recognised, comprising three community-based organisations (including Shewula Community Nature Reserve at 32.14 km² and Jilobi Community Conservation Area), four private landowner conservation areas, and one site affiliated with the University of Eswatini. Together, these OECMs contribute approximately 3% additional coverage, bringing effective conservation to approximately 7.74%[1] of land area. The approval in 2025 of the Big 5 Nature Reserve project supported by GEF and UNDP, marks a further significant expansion of the protected area estate while explicitly prioritising gender-inclusive community benefits. Integrated Landscape Management Plans for Ngwempisi, Lubombo, and Malolotja (2020–2030), developed under the Strengthening the Network of Protected Areas Systems (SNPAS) project, provide frameworks for biodiversity conservation across large landscape units beyond individual reserve boundaries.

[1] Spatial Prioritization Framework and Action Plan for Area-Based Targets in the Kingdom of Eswatini

Eswatini's conservation estate encompasses a total estimated area of 4,126.61 km² across gazetted reserves and recognised OECMs. The Current coverage of 7.74% represents 77% progress toward the national 10% target, leaving a gap of approximately 4.8% (roughly 830 km²) to be designated by 2030. The national target of 10% has been deliberately adapted from the global 30x30 goal to reflect Eswatini's high population density (approximately 67 persons per km²), the proportion of land under subsistence agriculture and food production, and the practical constraints of land availability in a country of only 17,364 km². The distribution and composition of the protected area system are detailed in Table 11 and illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Table 11. Protected areas and their respective areal coverage.

Figure 3. OECMs in Eswatini[1]

Figure 4. Protected and conserved areas.

Management effectiveness assessments (Table 12) using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) indicate that protected areas are operating at basic to sound management levels, with Mlawula Nature Reserve scoring 77 out of a maximum 123 in 2024, Malolotja scoring 62 in 2022, and Hawane scoring 51 in 2022. While these scores confirm that fundamental management functions are in place, they also indicate meaningful room for improvement across all assessed sites. Protection-worthy areas identified in earlier national biodiversity studies remain available for potential gazetting but have not yet advanced through formal designation processes.

Table 12. METT assessment scores for Eswatini protected areas.

[1] Protected planet, “Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME),” January 24, 2026, https://www.protectedplanet.net/country/SWZ.

[2] METT-4_Mlawula August 2024.xlsm

• The principal challenge constraining progress is the substantial gap between current coverage (7.74%) and the 10% national target, requiring the designation of an additional 830 km² within four years. 
• Land availability represents the most fundamental constraint: the high proportion of Eswatini's territory already under cultivation, settlement, or plantation forestry limits the pool of land available for conservation without imposing significant livelihood trade-offs on rural communities. 
• The complex tenure arrangements on Swazi Nation Land, which covers approximately 60% of the country, require extensive consultation with traditional authorities and communities before any area can be formally designated, making the gazetting process time-intensive and resource-demanding.
• Financial constraints compound these difficulties. Limited budgets restrict both the pace of OECM recognition and the ability to provide the financial incentives and management support that would encourage private landowners and communities to formalise conservation commitments. 
• The slow rate at which protection-worthy areas identified in earlier studies have advanced to formal designation also reflects institutional capacity limitations in processing and completing gazetting procedures. 
• An additional technical gap is the absence of a comprehensive ecological representativeness analysis, which would confirm whether the existing and planned protected area network adequately captures all of Eswatini's major ecosystem types, biodiversity hotspots, and ecological connectivity corridors.

Shewula Community Nature Reserve (32.14 km²) exemplifies successful community-based conservation under the OECM Framework. The reserve integrates biodiversity conservation with a community-owned eco-tourism enterprise (community lodge and cultural tourism), generating income for development while maintaining traditional land tenure. Strong community governance structures, transparent revenue-sharing mechanisms, and integration with cultural heritage preservation have been key success factors. Shewula demonstrates that OECMs can simultaneously achieve conservation objectives and support local livelihoods, a model being promoted for replication across other community landholdings.

Target 3.1 directly advances SDG 14.5/15.1 on conserving terrestrial areas, SDG 15.4 on mountain ecosystem conservation (Malolotja, Ngwempisi), and SDG 1.4 by maintaining community access to natural resources through the OECM model.

Management planning for Eswatini's protected area system has been advanced through both site-level plan reviews and landscape-scale Integrated Landscape Management Plans (ILMPs). A dedicated Management Plan Review and Development Workshop, held at Magadzavane Lodge from 20–21 November 2025, initiated the formal review and updating of management plans for three major ENTC reserves Malolotja, Mlawula, and Mantenga with a revised 2024–2030 planning horizon. These plans are being updated to align with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and contemporary adaptive management principles.

At the landscape scale, three ILMPs were developed under the SNPAS project and launched in 2020: the Ngwempisi Integrated Landscape Management Plan 2020–2030[1] (covering the Ngwempisi-Usuthu landscape with clear objectives for biodiversity, livelihoods, and climate adaptation), the Lubombo Integrated Landscape Management Plan 2020–2030, and the Malolotja Integrated Landscape Management Plan 2020–2030[2]. While these are not classic single-site protected area management plans, they represent highly relevant and sophisticated management instruments that address biodiversity conservation, connectivity, community livelihoods, and ecosystem services at the scale at which ecological processes operate. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) assessments have been completed for Mlawula (2024), Malolotja (2022), and Hawane (2022), providing quantitative baselines against which future management improvements can be tracked.

[1] https://www.undp.org/eswatini/news/eswatini-national-trust-commission-launches-ngwempisi-integrated-landscape-management-plan

[2] https://www.thegef.org/projects-operations/projects/10695

Three of Eswatini's major protected areas are in active management plan review processes, with updated plans targeting the 2024–2030 period expected before the 2028 target deadline. Three ILMPs are operational and guiding management across the Ngwempisi, Lubombo, and Malolotja landscapes. METT scores: Mlawula 77/123 (2024), Malolotja 62/123 (2022), and Hawane 51/123 (2022) confirm that basic to sound management frameworks are in place across assessed sites, with all three scores indicating functional management systems that nonetheless have significant room for improvement.

However, management plan coverage remains incomplete. Smaller protected areas and the majority of the 11 recognised OECMs lack formal comprehensive management plans, though several are in the process of developing plans with ENTC technical support. A critical gap is the absence of a systematic ecological representativeness analysis for the protected area network such analysis would identify whether the system adequately represents all major ecosystem types and species assemblages, and whether ecological connectivity between sites is sufficient to support viable populations and enable species range shifts under climate change.

• The primary challenges in advancing protected area management planning are financial and technical capacity constraints. 
• Developing comprehensive management plans is a resource-intensive process requiring up-to-date biodiversity baseline surveys, stakeholder consultation processes, species distribution mapping, and expert technical input across multiple disciplines. 
• Many of Eswatini's smaller protected areas and OECMs lack the institutional resources to commission or maintain formal plans, relying instead on informal operational management practices. 
• The absence of a dedicated national protected area planning unit with sufficient staffing creates bottlenecks in reviewing, approving, and supporting implementation of plans across the system.
• A further challenge is the absence of a comprehensive ecological representativeness analysis and connectivity assessment. Without systematic gap analysis, it is not possible to confirm whether the protected area network captures the full spectrum of Eswatini's biodiversity, including less charismatic but ecologically significant taxa and habitats.
• Coordination between individual site management plans and the broader landscape-scale ILMPs also requires strengthening to ensure coherent management across the conservation estate.

The Ngwempisi Integrated Landscape Management Plan 2020–2030 (developed under SNPAS) demonstrates the value of landscape-scale planning beyond individual reserve boundaries. The plan integrates protected area management with biodiversity conservation in connecting habitats, sustainable livelihood activities for surrounding communities, and climate adaptation measures across the Ngwempisi-Usuthu landscape. Its participatory development process, involving traditional authorities, communities, government agencies, and conservation organisations, ensured local ownership and established a governance framework for ongoing adaptive management. The Ngwempisi ILMP provides a replicable model for landscape-level planning in other priority landscapes.

Target 3.2 contributes to SDG 15.1 on sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems through effective protected area management, and SDG 15.9 on integrating ecosystem values into planning and development processes.

Eswatini has taken initial steps toward a systematic protected area management monitoring system, centred primarily on the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), which provides a standardised framework for assessing the performance of individual protected areas across planning, resources, processes, and outcomes. METT assessments have been completed for Mlawula Nature Reserve (2024), Malolotja Nature Reserve (2022), and Hawane Nature Reserve (2022), establishing quantitative baselines against which future management improvement can be measured. ENTC maintains GIS databases that track protected area boundaries, land cover changes, and selected habitat parameters for the gazetted reserve estate. Biodiversity monitoring for priority species including the five globally threatened mammals and 15 threatened bird species is conducted within protected areas as part of species-specific conservation programmes, providing a subset of biodiversity indicator data relevant to management effectiveness assessment.

The METT assessments completed for three major protected areas provide the most systematic data currently available on management effectiveness. Mlawula Nature Reserve recorded a score of 77 out of a maximum 123 in 2024, reflecting sound management processes with room for further improvement particularly in outcomes and ecological monitoring. Malolotja Nature Reserve scored 62 out of 123 in 2022, indicating basic management functions in place with more significant deficiencies in planning comprehensiveness and resource allocation. Hawane scored 51 in 2022, reflecting fundamental management capacity with substantial gaps in documentation, biodiversity monitoring, and long-term planning.

However, the system for monitoring management effectiveness remains incomplete in several important respects. METT assessments have not been completed for all protected areas particularly smaller ENTC reserves, Big Game Parks properties, and the 11 recognised OECMs. Biodiversity indicator monitoring within protected areas is species-focused and lacks a comprehensive ecosystem approach that would track habitat condition, ecosystem process integrity, and the provision of ecosystem services such as water regulation, carbon sequestration, and soil stabilisation. No formal ecosystem services valuation or monitoring framework has been established for the protected area network.

• The principal challenge is expanding the monitoring system from its current focus on a few major protected areas to comprehensive, standardised coverage across the entire protected area estate, including OECMs. 
• Limited financial and human resources constrain both the frequency of METT assessments and the ability to conduct the biodiversity field surveys needed to populate biodiversity indicator data. While the METT provides a robust management process assessment tool, it does not directly measure biodiversity outcomes, meaning that management effectiveness assessments based on METT alone cannot confirm whether management actions are translating into conservation results on the ground.
• Ecosystem services monitoring represents a particular gap no standardised methodology for tracking services such as water regulation, carbon stocks, pollination, and erosion control has been implemented across Eswatini's protected areas, limiting the ability to demonstrate the full economic and social value of protected area management to government, communities, and potential investors. Capacity for data management and analysis across the monitoring system is also limited, and the absence of a centralised biodiversity information system means that monitoring data from different sources are not systematically integrated or accessible for reporting.

Mlawula Nature Reserve's 2024 METT assessment, achieving the highest score in the current national dataset (77/123), demonstrates the value of consistent long-term management investment. Mlawula is considered one of Eswatini's most ecologically diverse protected areas, supporting a wide range of plant communities, mammals, birds, and reptiles across its varied topography. The relatively high METT score reflects sustained ENTC management investment in ranger capacity, patrol systems, and habitat management, providing a benchmark for other protected areas to target.

Target 3.3 supports SDG 15.1 on monitoring the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, and SDG 15.7 on ending poaching and illegal trade both of which depend on effective protected area monitoring systems.

Identification and mapping of biodiversity-important areas in Eswatini have been advanced through a combination of biodiversity assessments, spatial planning initiatives, and landscape management planning. Significant groundwork has been laid through systematic biodiversity surveys conducted in major ecosystems particularly montane grasslands, savanna woodlands, and riparian systems and through the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) aligned with international criteria. The Integrated Landscape Management Plans developed for Ngwempisi, Lubombo, and Malolotja (2020–2030) include spatial identification of priority conservation zones, ecological corridors, and areas of high ecosystem service provision within those landscapes.

Catchment management plans developed by the Joint River Basin Authorities for the Ngwavuma and Mbuluzi basins identify critical water regulation zones, riparian corridors, and watershed protection areas. The OECM Framework has further contributed to identifying areas of conservation importance outside the formal protected area network, with the eight recognised OECM sites having been assessed against biodiversity significance criteria as part of the recognition process. The draft Eswatini National Trust Commission Bill, if enacted, would provide a strengthened legal framework for identifying and formally designating areas of ecological importance.

National-level spatial mapping of all biodiversity-important areas, ecological corridors, and key habitats has not yet been comprehensively completed. While substantial data exist from individual project assessments, protected area surveys, and landscape management plans, these have not been systematically integrated into a single national spatial database of priority biodiversity areas. The ILMPs and catchment management plans provide landscape-specific spatial information, but they do not cover the entire country and use varying methodologies and scales that complicate national synthesis.

Cultural landscapes with high biodiversity significance including sacred groves, traditional resource management areas, and chiefdom-managed habitats are particularly under-documented at the national level. Eswatini's traditional land management system, in which chiefs regulate resource extraction on Swazi Nation Land, de facto protects some biodiversity-important areas but these areas have not been systematically identified, mapped, or incorporated into national conservation planning frameworks.

• The primary challenge is the absence of a comprehensive national spatial biodiversity priority-setting exercise that systematically identifies key habitats, corridors, and high-value ecosystem service areas across all land use types. 
• Individual landscape assessments provide valuable data, but translating these into a nationally consistent priority map requires significant resources for GIS analysis, field survey, expert review, and stakeholder validation. Limited technical capacity for systematic biodiversity mapping particularly the integration of species distribution data, habitat quality assessments, and ecosystem service modelling into spatial prioritisation frameworks is a key constraint.
• The identification of ecological corridors connecting protected areas is particularly underdeveloped, which has implications for species movement, gene flow, and long-term biodiversity viability in a fragmented landscape.
• Traditional and cultural landscapes that support biodiversity also lack formal recognition in national planning processes, meaning their conservation value is not systematically captured or protected.

The Ngwempisi-Usuthu landscape ILMP provides the most comprehensive spatial biodiversity mapping currently available for any part of Eswatini, identifying priority conservation zones, restoration areas, and connectivity corridors across a landscape of approximately 117,139 hectares. The plan's spatial data serve as a model for the national-level mapping exercise required under this target, demonstrating the feasibility of comprehensive landscape assessment when resources and expertise are dedicated to the task.

Target 3.4 supports SDG 15.1 on conserving and restoring terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, and SDG 11.4 on protecting cultural heritage, including traditional landscapes that maintain both biodiversity and cultural significance.

Eswatini made a landmark contribution to global OECM implementation when it launched the first national OECM Framework and associated Guidelines in May 2021, becoming the first country in Africa and the first globally to officially launch OECM Guidelines. The Framework provides a comprehensive set of criteria, standards, and procedures for identifying, assessing, recognising, and reporting on OECMs, covering community-conserved areas, private conservation lands, and other governance types. ENTC serves as the national custodian for OECM recognition and maintains records of all recognised sites. Following the launch of the Guidelines, eight sites were initially recognised as OECMs comprising three community-based areas, four private landowner areas, and one university-affiliated site subsequently expanded to 11 recognised sites.

The development and launch of the national OECM Guidelines represent a significant policy achievement and a model for other African countries. The recognition of 11 OECMs under the Guidelines, contributing approximately 1% of additional conservation coverage to the national protected area estate, demonstrates that the framework is operationally functional. ENTC's role as national OECM custodian has been established and is actively exercised in reviewing and processing recognition applications.

However, the rate of new OECM recognition has been slower than the pace needed to contribute substantially to the 10% protected area coverage target. While interest from private landowners and communities exists, the translation of potential OECM sites into formally recognised ones requires navigating the full recognition process, which can be time-consuming without adequate support. The effectiveness of management at recognised OECM sites also varies considerably, with some community and private OECMs receiving limited technical or financial support that constrains their conservation performance.

• Potential OECM sites are not converting to formally recognised OECMs rapidly enough to contribute meaningfully to national area targets by 2030. This is partly because landowners and communities, while potentially interested in conservation, may lack the technical capacity and financial incentives to navigate the recognition process and subsequently manage their land in ways that deliver sustained biodiversity outcomes. 
• Limited ENTC capacity to provide outreach, technical support, and management guidance to prospective OECM holders constrains the pipeline of applications.
• Financial sustainability is a related concern: OECMs recognised under the Guidelines receive no guaranteed financial support, meaning that management quality depends on the resources of individual landowners or communities. Where financial incentives are absent, the risk of land use change away from conservation-compatible uses remains real, potentially resulting in de-recognition of sites if biodiversity outcomes are not maintained.

Eswatini's status as the first country globally to launch official OECM Guidelines has been recognised internationally, including in CBD reporting processes and regional conservation forums. The Shewula Community Nature Reserve, as one of the original OECMs recognised under the framework, has served as a demonstration site for community-based conservation benefits, combining biodiversity maintenance with community tourism income generation. ENTC has shared Eswatini's OECM experience with other southern African countries, providing a technical assistance and knowledge-sharing role that leverages the country's pioneering work in this area.

Target 3.5 contributes to SDG 15.1 on the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems through effective area-based conservation beyond formal protected areas, and to SDG 17.16 on global partnerships for sustainable development, given Eswatini's knowledge-sharing role in OECM implementation across the region.

Eswatini has 11 formally recognized OECMs, consisting of 3 community-based sites, 4 private landowner sites, 1 University of Eswatini site, and 3 additional sites. Together, these cover an estimated 174 km², or about 1% of the country's terrestrial area. The OECM Guidelines were launched in May 2021, with the Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC) serving as the national custodian; since then, new recognitions have occurred at a rate of about 1–3 sites per year. 

Eswatini aims to achieve 7% terrestrial coverage through Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) by 2030 as part of its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. As of 2026, OECMs cover 1% of the country's land area (approximately 174 km² across 11 formally recognized sites: 3 community-based, 4 private, 1 university-owned, and 3 additional). This represents 14.3% progress toward the 2030 target (1% / 7% = 0.143), with steady advancement since the OECM Guidelines launch in May 2021 by the Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC), at a rate of 1–3 new sites annually. 

Key outcomes are: 

• Expanded biodiversity protection beyond traditional parks, raising effective conservation coverage from 4.2% to over 5% when combined with protected areas. 
• Formal recognition of diverse sites like Shewula Community Reserve, supporting multiple uses (e.g., grazing, ecotourism) while conserving important species. 

Institutionalized framework under ENTC, with data from implementation records showing sustained growth despite starting from zero pre-2021. 

• Poverty, population growth, and competition from agriculture (e.g., sugarcane expansion) and human settlements threaten OECM sites, particularly communal lands where conservation must balance livelihoods.
• Limited technical expertise, funding, and monitoring capabilities hinder assessment and ongoing management; local communities may lack skills for threat control or data collection.
• Climate change, invasive species, and land degradation exacerbate pressures, with no PAME scores for OECMs or PAs reported.

Eswatini's OECM implementation demonstrates effectiveness through specific site-level successes and broader conservation gains since the 2021 framework launch. For example, the Shewula Community Reserve is a 3,215-ha community based OECM in the Lubombo mountains that balances conservation with community livelihoods. Traditional livestock grazing occurs concurrently with eco-tourism and the protection of important species while generating income. This showcases community-led management that sustains biodiversity hotspots without displacing residents. The Strengthening National Protected Areas Systems project trained over 20 community/private groups in ecotourism, and financial management, and securing about 20,000 ha of land via new OECMs. Sites like Khelekhele now thrive on eco-tourism, illustrating scaled-up capacity building that boosts both conservation and local economies.

Eswatini's OECM implementation directly supports multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets by expanding conservation coverage while fostering sustainable land use.

 SDG Linkages are as follows: 

SDG 15 (Life on Land): OECMs advance Target 15.5 (prevent species loss) and 15.a (mobilize resources for biodiversity) by protecting 3.48% of land (174 km²) across 11 sites, raising combined PA+OECM coverage to 7.74% and contributing to Aichi Target 11 equivalents.

SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 13 (Climate Action): Community sites like Shewula Reserve integrate grazing, eco-tourism, and carbon sequestration, balancing livelihoods with resilience against climate threats like droughts. SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work): Economic incentives from private OECMs (e.g., IYSIS and SNPAS training) generate jobs in monitoring and tourism, aiding poverty reduction in rural areas.

Global Biodiversity Framework Ties are: 

Progress toward GBF Target 3 (30% PA+OECM coverage by 2030) is evident in the 45.43% advancement on Eswatini's 17% national goal, with OECMs filling gaps in traditional PAs and supporting Targets 1 (intact ecosystems) and 19 (knowledge sharing) through ENTC-led recognition and reporting.

The ENTC is reviewing management plans and governance frameworks for three protected areas, namely, Malolotja, Mlawula, and Hawane, with emphasis on sustainable biodiversity use and local community access. These reviews prioritize community buy-in for activities in neighbouring areas, enhancing protected areas' relevance in broader landscapes. This work integrates into a new Protected Area Network Strategy covering 14 PAs and OECMs. These initiatives are part of the Mbuluzi Ecosystems Restoration Project which is currently underway.

Progress toward this target shows steady advancement through ongoing reviews of protected area management plans. Key outcomes include enhanced frameworks emphasizing sustainable biodiversity use, local community access, and buy-in for activities in areas like Malolotja, Mlawula, and Hawane, which integrate into a broader Protected Area Network Strategy for 14 sites.

Further, Eswatini has OECMs that are directly managed by local communities, which ensures participatory governance by linking conservation to livelihoods, such as eco-tourism and resource access in areas like Shewula, Luzelweni, Mgogodla and Mahamba. These efforts ensure that communities benefit economically while contributing to decision-making in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, thus aligning with this target.

The Mbuluzi Ecosystems Restoration Project complements these efforts by restoring wetlands and riparian zones, involving communities in sustainable practices that bolster livelihoods through improved fisheries and agriculture. It reinforces OECM governance by promoting biodiversity-friendly activities in community-managed landscapes.

Eswatini faces several challenges in advancing NBSAP Target 3.7, particularly the slow pace of declaring additional OECMs to expand community reach. Resource constraints and limited capacity hinder interested communities from meeting eligibility criteria for formal designation. Limited funding and technical expertise slow OECM assessments, leaving some community-managed areas unrecognized despite ongoing effective biodiversity conservation.  Broader economic pressures like high unemployment exacerbate livelihood tensions around conservation of biodiversity.  To address these, there is a need to build capacity through training and grants, as seen in prior awards of E200,000 – E270,000 to eight new OECMs (community, private, and university-led), to fast-track eligibility for more sites.

Eswatini's NBSAP Target 3.7 implementation has shown effectiveness through specific OECM case studies that demonstrate community involvement and biodiversity outcomes.

A case in point is Shewula Mountain Camp, a 3,215-ha communal area in the Lubombo mountains, which exemplifies participatory governance that was established during the tenure of the late Chief Mbandzamane Sifundza. Set aside for conservation and controlled grazing, it maintains rich biodiversity via local leadership enforcing fines for violations, while providing ecosystem services like ecotourism revenue that supports livelihoods. This aligns with the target by securing community buy-in for decision-making on OECMs. This community is a pioneer for the conservation and sustainable utilization of species as two Endangered plant species, Warburgia salutaris and Siphonochilus aethiopicus, are actively conserved and sustained by local homesteads, providing sustainable sources of traditional medicines for the local community. Both species are cultivated in the homesteads of residents, and harvesting is controlled by the heads of households, which ensures sustainability. This helps to relieve the pressure on wild stocks, allowing them to regenerate without human interference. 

Implementation of Eswatini's NBSAP Target 3.7 advances participatory governance in protected areas and OECMs, directly supporting key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by integrating biodiversity conservation with community livelihoods.

SDG 15: Life on Land: Target 3.7's focus on community-involved frameworks for 14 PAs and OECMs, as seen in the reviews of the management plans for Malolotja, Mlawula, and Hawane, promotes sustainable ecosystem management and biodiversity protection (SDG 15.1, 15.5). Cases like the Shewula OECM demonstrate halted habitat loss through local enforcement, raising coverage beyond 4.2% toward the 17% NBSAP goals.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: Collaborative strategies, including the ENTC-led SNPAS Project which saw the awards of grants to eight OECMs, foster multi-stakeholder buy-in and resource sharing (SDG 17.16–17). This aligns with Eswatini's NBSAP integration into national plans like Vision 2022.

This specific target serves as a bridge between the rigorous conservation requirements of the "30x30" initiative, aiming to protect 30% of the planet's terrestrial and marine environments by 2030, and the socio-economic imperatives of a developing nation where local communities remain the primary stewards and beneficiaries of natural resources. The implementation of Target 3.8 represents a significant shift from exclusionary conservation models to a landscape-level approach that integrates human developmental needs with the maintenance of ecological integrity. 

The adoption of Target 3.8 is the culmination of years of technical capacity building, primarily catalyzed by the "Strengthening the National Protected Areas System" (SNPAS) project. Funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with a budget of approximately $6 million and supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the SNPAS project ran from 2015 to 2021. It laid the groundwork for Target 3.8 by transitioning the national conservation philosophy from managing isolated "islands of green" to a more holistic "landscape approach". This approach acknowledges that biodiversity conservation cannot succeed if it is divorced from the surrounding land-use matrix, which includes communal grazing lands, smallholder agriculture, and private forestry.

Implementation of Eswatini's NBSAP Target 3.8 advances sustainable use plans for protected areas and OECMs, balancing conservation with community needs through targeted reviews and regulated access. The ENTC is currently reviewing management plans and governance frameworks for Malolotja, Mlawula, and Hawane Nature Reserves, emphasizing sustainable biodiversity use and community access within the Mbuluzi Landscape and Network. These updates ensure protected areas remain relevant by integrating local needs into broader conservation strategies. Nearby communities obtain ENTC permits to harvest resources like various species of grasses and sedges that local women use for making handicrafts, and regulated quantities of firewood. Clear regulations and overexploitation safeguards promote sustainable practices while supporting livelihoods.

One of the most visible outcomes has been the rehabilitation and revitalization of community-owned ecotourism infrastructure. The Khelekhele and Shewula OECM sites are prime examples of ‘sustainability in action’. These lodges, set in stilted bungalows using natural materials like thatch and bamboo, provide a Mountain view and paddy field experiences without the environmental footprint of traditional hotels. The success of these sites is not measured solely in visitor numbers but in the empowerment of residents. Young people and women have been trained in product development and ecotourism marketing, turning conservation into a viable economic opportunity. This has been particularly impactful in these rural areas where employment options are limited, proving that nature can be an engine for local development.

Eswatini’s Revised Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0) emphasizes the synergy between biodiversity conservation and climate action. A major outcome of this policy alignment is the target to rehabilitate 75,000 hectares of degraded communal grazing lands by 2035 through Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices. These efforts, which include increasing soil organic carbon by 5% in targeted areas, directly contribute to the ‘sustainable use’ mandate of Target 3.8 by restoring the productivity of the land while enhancing its biodiversity value.

Despite the highlighted successes, the path toward the 2028 goal for Target 3.8 is fraught with structural challenges. The most significant of these is the ‘middle-income trap’ regarding international funding. Eswatini’s middle-income status has led to a reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) flows, making it more difficult to secure the large-scale, predictable financing required for long-term conservation management. This necessitates a shift toward innovative financing mechanisms, such as public-private partnerships and nature-based investment funds.

Furthermore, the maintenance and continued declaration of more OECMs remain a complex issue. While the SNPAS project demonstrated their effectiveness, institutionalizing these measures requires navigating traditional land tenure systems and ensuring that community rights are protected through Free, Prior, and Informed Consent processes. The mismatch between national conservation targets and local land-use needs remains a dynamic that requires constant negotiation and compromise.

The global context also presents challenges. The CBD’s Monitoring Framework for the KMGBF requires rigorous reporting on "headline indicators". For a developing nation, the technical and financial burden of maintaining these monitoring systems is significant. For example, in preparing this 7th National Report, the country had to consolidate data from various sectors, some of which still have significant data gaps. Thus, there is a need for capacity development for most institutions so that they are in a better position to generate the data necessary for such international reporting obligations.

The following cases highlight how the actions taken under Target 3.8 and the legacy of the SNPAS project have translated into tangible socio-economic and ecological outcomes.

Case 1: Khelekhele Community Eco-lodge (Velezizweni Chiefdom): Located in a pristine forest overlooking the Ngwempisi River, the Khelekhele Community Eco-lodge serves as a primary model for the conservation-livelihood nexus. 

• Action: The community contributed 2,000 hectares of land to the conservation project. The SNPAS project invested E2.5 million (=USD 154742.70) to build a solar-powered lodge and provide technical training. 
• Outcome: Over 8,900 people in the Velezizweni Chiefdom are direct beneficiaries. Community leaders report that training has shifted local behavior; residents who previously engaged in indiscriminate tree cutting or poaching now prioritize conservation because they see the direct link between a healthy environment and income from tourism.

Case 2: Khalangilile Women’s Cooperative (Luyengweni Wetland): The Luyengweni Wetland project illustrates the successful implementation of sustainable use within an OECM.   

• Action taken: The community fenced the wetland in 2017 to allow for regeneration and provided training to local women in sustainable harvesting and wetland management.
• Outcome: Fencing led to increased moisture content and the regeneration of indigenous vegetation species. The Khalangilile women's cooperative now harvests natural fibers to create household items like mats and brooms for sale in the Manzini Market. This has empowered women to take leadership roles in resource management while securing water sources for the community.

The implementation of Target 3.8 is intrinsically linked to the country’s progress toward several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily through the integration of conservation and local livelihoods. The specific ways this implementation drives SDG progress include:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Sustainable use plans are designed to turn nature into an engine for local development. For example, the Khelekhele Community Eco-lodge project directly benefits over 8,900 people, providing jobs and income that contribute to poverty eradication. 
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The target promotes inclusive governance, particularly through projects like "Accelerating Systemic Change for Gender Equality and Biodiversity Conservation." Initiatives such as the Khalangilile women’s cooperative empower women to take leadership roles in natural resource management while generating independent income. 
• SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land): By rehabilitating 75,000 hectares of degraded communal grazing lands and protecting wetlands as OECMs, Eswatini enhances its climate resilience and protects terrestrial biodiversity. These actions ensure that ecosystems can continue to provide essential services like carbon storage and water filtration. 
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The expansion of sustainable tourism and the recognition of OECMs foster a "green and sustainable global economy" at the local level, creating inclusive growth opportunities for youth and rural populations. 

Consequently, the target adopts a "One Health" approach, acknowledging that healthy ecosystems are essential for human well-being, disaster risk reduction, and preventing the emergence of zoonotic diseases.

Implementation of Eswatini's NBSAP Target 3.9 accentuates the protection of the rights of local communities in protected areas and OECMs by 2030 through policy tools and benefit-sharing projects. The country integrates community rights into management plan reviews for protected areas and OECMs, emphasizing fair access to biodiversity resources and equitable participation in decision-making. The Eswatini Environment Authority spearheaded the development of guidelines for operationalizing the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) in Eswatini (2017), enabling equitable sharing of genetic resource benefits. The guidelines provide a national framework, ensuring communities receive fair shares from biodiversity use in OECMs and PAs. These guidelines provide provisions for prior informed consent agreements between local communities who are the custodians of genetic resources and the bio prospectors or researchers, thus fostering trust and enabling sustainable harvesting that bolsters livelihoods through commercialization of products developed from natural resources. 

Eswatini has developed national Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) Guidelines that establish protocols for equitable use of genetic resources, ensuring compliance with the Nagoya Protocol. These guidelines formalize fair benefit-sharing arrangements, respecting indigenous knowledge in biodiversity-related activities across PAs, OECMs and communally owned areas. A key achievement is the EIRMIP project at the University of Eswatini which helped to operationalize these guidelines through a traditional remedy development initiative involving three communities where key medicinal plants occur. Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) were signed between each community and the University, alongside a benefit-sharing agreement with indigenous knowledge holders. This pioneer effort enables sustainable plant sourcing, remedy commercialization, and revenue sharing, fostering trust and economic benefits while integrating into the management of biodiversity.

Limited awareness and capacity among local communities and authorities hinder consistent application of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and benefit-sharing, compounded by resource shortages for monitoring compliance across sites. Economic pressures, including high unemployment, intensify conflicts over resource access in ecosystems, slowing expansion of OECMs to more communities. Approaches for Further Implementation include:

• Enhancing capacity building via targeted training for relevant officers and communities on ABS operationalization, scaling EIRMIP's PIC/MTA model to additional medicinal plant initiatives and other commercialization of genetic resources projects.
• Securing donor partnerships (e.g., UNDP, GEF) to fund compliance checkpoints and digital tracking systems for genetic resource use throughout the country.
• Integrate rights protections into national policies, amending PA laws for mandatory benefit-sharing clauses and piloting community trusts for eco-tourism revenues in areas like the Luzelweni ecotourism site, which is within an OECM.

Recognition of community-managed OECMs – Instead of forcing land into traditional government-run protected areas, Eswatini has adopted a model that recognizes community-stewardship. In 2021, the Minister of Tourism and Environmental Affairs launched the OECM framework, which allowed several areas managed by communities and private owners to be formally declared as OECMs. This action directly protects community land rights while fostering biodiversity. As of May 2021, about 18,000 hectares of land were committed to conservation by communities and private landowners, helping expand the country’s conserved area from 4.2% to 5.2%, which has since increased to 7.74% to date. 

Community-based ecotourism (CBET) for financial benefit-sharing - Through the SNPAS project, UNDP and the ENTC invested in infrastructure for community-run eco-tourism. A case example is Khelekhele Lodge (Velezizweni Chiefdom) which is located along the Ngwempisi River, which is managed by a local community trust. The project supported infrastructure development, training in hospitality, and product development. The lodge now generates income directly for the community, providing funds for local needs, creating employment for youth, and giving residents a tangible reason to protect the surrounding environment. 

Sustainable livelihood projects in buffer zones - To ensure that conservation does not hinder development, the government has promoted, and continues to promote, alternative livelihood initiatives in areas surrounding protected areas. Within Ngwempisi and Lubombo landscapes, the ongoing Strengthening Agro-Ecosystem Adaptation for Sustainable Livelihoods (SEASL) project focuses on community-based natural resource management. This includes training in sustainable poultry farming (chickens/rabbits), bee-keeping, and sustainable harvesting of natural resources like reeds (umhlanga) for cultural activities and handicrafts. These projects reduce reliance on unsustainable resource extraction from protected areas while providing direct income to local, often impoverished, rural households. 

Implementation of Eswatini's NBSAP Target 3.9 strengthens community rights in protected areas and OECMs, directly advancing several Sustainable Development Goals through equitable benefit-sharing and indigenous knowledge protection.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

ABS guidelines and EIRMIP's PIC/MTA agreements with three communities ensure fair revenue from medicinal plants, reducing disparities by empowering marginalized groups in resource access and commercialization (SDG 10.2). This fosters inclusive decision-making in sites like communally managed lands.

SDG 15: Life on Land

Target 3.9 supports sustainable biodiversity management by securing community consent for OECM activities, aligning with ecosystem protection and restoration goals (SDG 15.1, 15.5). EIRMIP's traditional remedy project exemplifies compliant genetic resource use under the Nagoya Protocol.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

Signed benefit-sharing arrangements between communities, knowledge holders, and the University of Eswatini build multi-stakeholder collaboration (SDG 17.16–17), integrating into ENTC's 14-site network strategy for long-term rights enforcement.

Eswatini has initiated species-specific conservation planning for a subset of nationally and globally threatened species, supported by habitat protection within the protected area system and targeted ex-situ measures. Three species-specific conservation plans have been formally approved during the reporting period. A regional conservation plan for the Blue Swallow (Hirundo atrocaerulea) is in place for the Malolotja area, addressing habitat protection through highland grassland fire management and coordinated management across the species' trans-boundary range with South Africa. At the national level, an approved conservation plan for the Southern Bald Ibis (Geronticus calvus) is being implemented in the Mantenga area, focusing on breeding site protection and reduction of local anthropogenic pressures. A management plan for the Brown Hyaena (Parahyaena brunnea) has been developed to guide population management and mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Conservation plans for the Leopard (Panthera pardus pardus) and several water bird species are currently under development and will expand the number of species covered once finalised and approved.

On the ex-situ side, the GEF-8 Food Security Integration Program (approved 2025) is implementing targeted strategies for the conservation of indigenous plant genetic resources. Under Output 3.4, the programme is reinforcing existing community seedbanks as decentralised conservation facilities across the Malolotja (133,217 ha), Ngwempisi (117,139 ha), and Lubombo (109,301 ha) landscapes. Seed loan programmes using cluster models at community level create sustainable systems for seed access and conservation, while indigenous knowledge-sharing circles through seed fairs and field visits ensure traditional knowledge is retained alongside the genetic material being conserved. Digital seed libraries are also being developed to document indigenous variety information.

Eswatini hosts approximately 8,000 species, including 132 mammals, 511 birds, 127 reptiles, and 4,374 plant species, representing significant biodiversity relative to the country's small land area. National Red Data Lists document 89 vertebrate species and 305 plant species of conservation concern. Of these, five globally threatened mammal species black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), African elephant (Loxodonta africana), African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), lion (Panthera leo), and leopard and 15 globally threatened bird species including critically endangered vultures receive active conservation management within the protected area system.

The Red List Index (RLI) for Eswatini stands at 0.81 as of 2024[1], serving as the primary standardised metric for tracking changes in overall extinction risk across assessed species groups. This value, recognised internationally as SDG indicator 15.5.1, indicates that approximately 19% of the potential extinction risk across assessed groups has been realised, meaning a proportion of species have moved into higher threat categories. While an RLI of 0.81 suggests that most of Eswatini's assessed species retain relatively stable conservation status, it also signals the ongoing need for active conservation intervention, particularly for species dependent on grassland and wetland habitats that continue to decline nationally.

The current coverage of approved species-specific conservation plans three plans covering Blue Swallow, Southern Bald Ibis, and Brown Hyaena, with two more under development represents only a modest fraction of the 394 species listed on national Red Data Lists. This gap is primarily attributable to human and financial resource constraints, which also mean that Red Lists for many taxonomic groups are outdated, making it difficult to fully characterise current conservation status trends.

[1] https://target-tracker.org/en/country/SWZ/goalTarget/A/indicator/3

• The principal challenge in implementing this target is the wide gap between the number of species on national Red Data Lists (394 species) and the number with approved, actively implemented species-specific conservation plans (currently three). This disparity reflects chronic limitations in institutional capacity particularly the shortage of trained taxonomists, wildlife biologists, and conservation planners and insufficient financial resources to sustain comprehensive monitoring, habitat management, and plan development for the full range of threatened species. 
• The focus of conservation attention on large, charismatic mammals and birds means that invertebrates, less conspicuous reptiles and amphibians, and most plant species of conservation concern receive comparatively little management attention.
• A further challenge is that most Red Lists for various organism groups are outdated, making it difficult to determine present conservation status and population trends with confidence. 
• Population genetics data, including effective population sizes, genetic diversity levels, and gene flow between populations, have not been systematically assessed for most species, meaning that the adaptive potential and long-term viability of many populations cannot be confirmed.
• The absence of ex-situ conservation infrastructure for animal species: Eswatini has no comprehensive zoo, wildlife breeding facility, or tissue cryobank limits the tools available for species recovery.

The Blue Swallow (Hirundo atrocaerulea) conservation plan in Malolotja demonstrates the effectiveness of species-specific planning for a critically endangered grassland specialist with a small, trans-boundary range. The plan coordinates habitat management principally fire management to maintain the open, short highland grassland structure required by the species with nest site protection during breeding season and community awareness programmes. Trans-boundary coordination with South Africa's conservation authorities ensures that population dynamics are managed at the landscape scale appropriate for a migratory species with limited breeding sites. Monitoring of breeding success, nest site occupancy, and habitat condition provides an evidence base for adaptive management decisions, making this plan a model for how range-restricted specialists can be effectively conserved across jurisdictions.

Target 4.1 contributes directly to SDG 15.5 reducing degradation of natural habitats and preventing the extinction of threatened species and to SDG 15.6 on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources, through the indigenous seed conservation and digital documentation programmes.

Conservation of genetic diversity in Eswatini has been pursued through both in-situ habitat protection and developing ex-situ capacities, with the primary advances occurring in plant genetic resources. The Ministry of Agriculture maintains a national gene bank for indigenous crop varieties, providing centralised ex-situ storage for domesticated plant genetic material. This is being significantly strengthened through the GEF-8 Food Security Integration Program (FSIP, approved 2025), which is reinforcing community-based ex-situ conservation by supporting community seedbanks as decentralised facilities across the Malolotja, Ngwempisi, and Lubombo landscapes. The FSIP implements seed loan programmes at community level using cluster models, establishes indigenous knowledge-sharing circles through seed fairs and field visits, and is developing digital seed libraries that document indigenous variety information alongside the traditional knowledge associated with them ensuring that genetic material and cultural knowledge are conserved together.

For wild species, genetic diversity is primarily maintained through in-situ habitat protection within the protected area system, supported by population monitoring for priority threatened species including the five globally threatened mammals and 15 threatened bird species receiving active management attention. However, no systematic molecular genetic diversity assessments including measurements of effective population sizes, heterozygosity, inbreeding coefficients, or gene flow between populations have been conducted for most wild species due to limitations in technical capacity and financial resources.

Progress on conserving genetic diversity of domesticated and agricultural plant varieties has been meaningful, with the national gene bank operational and the GEF-8 FSIP actively expanding community-based conservation of indigenous seed varieties across three landscapes. The digital documentation of indigenous varieties with associated traditional knowledge represents an important innovation, addressing both genetic conservation and cultural heritage preservation simultaneously. Conservation agriculture adoption has also increased significantly, from 9,575 farmers in 2016 to 14,500 in 2021, with practices that support soil biota diversity and maintain on-farm agrobiodiversity.

For wild species, the Red List Index value of 0.81 provides an indirect indication that most assessed populations remain above immediate extinction thresholds, suggesting that in-situ conservation is providing some protection to genetic diversity. However, this inference is limited because the RLI does not directly measure genetic diversity, and the absence of molecular genetics data means that inbreeding, genetic erosion, and loss of adaptive potential in small or fragmented populations cannot be confirmed or ruled out. Genetic diversity in indigenous livestock breeds represents a further critical gap no systematic inventory of indigenous breed diversity, conservation status, or breed-specific conservation strategies exists nationally.

• The fundamental challenge constraining this target is the complete absence of systematic population genetics monitoring for wild species. Without molecular genetic data including effective population sizes, measures of heterozygosity and allelic diversity, and assessments of gene flow between populations it is not possible to determine whether Eswatini's wildlife populations maintain sufficient adaptive potential to respond to environmental change, disease challenges, or further habitat loss. This gap reflects a lack of technical capacity in population genetics (including DNA sampling protocols, laboratory analysis, and bioinformatics), rather than a deliberate decision not to measure.
• For domesticated species, the lack of an inventory of indigenous livestock breeds and their conservation status is a significant gap, as traditional breeds often carry unique genetic traits adapted to local conditions that could have important agricultural and conservation value. 
• Land fragmentation driven by habitat loss and infrastructure development also increasingly imposes genetic isolation on wildlife populations, and without connectivity assessments and corridor identification, the long-term genetic health of populations in smaller protected areas cannot be assured.

The GEF-8 FSIP community seedbank programme across the Malolotja, Ngwempisi, and Lubombo landscapes represents a significant innovation in combining genetic conservation with food security and cultural preservation. By using a cluster model to distribute seedbanks across communities rather than centralising them in a single facility, the programme reduces risk of loss through a single point of failure, builds community ownership, and makes seed access more equitable. The integration of digital libraries with traditional knowledge documentation ensures that information on how to cultivate, select, and use indigenous varieties is not lost even as farming systems modernise an approach that captures both the genetic and the knowledge dimensions of agrobiodiversity.

Target 4.2 directly advances SDG 2.5 on maintaining genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants, and domestic animals; SDG 15.6 on fair and equitable benefit-sharing from genetic resources; and SDG 13.1 on strengthening resilience through the maintenance of genetic diversity that enables adaptation to climate change.

There is no data available for the target.

The list of animal species usually associated with human-wildlife conflicts in Eswatini include wild pigs, warthogs, baboons, hyaenas, vervet monkeys, pythons, crocodiles, hippopotamus. In addition, even though there is an effort to report and document the number of incidents in protected areas under ENTC (Mlawula Nature Reserve, Mantenga Nature Reserve and Malolotja Nature Reserve) and other privately owned protected areas such as Big Game Parks, the actual statistics of reported cases remain unknown. 

• Data on the occurrence and extent of human-wildlife conflicts is lacking. Incidents are reported but no data has been compiled. 
• Lack of standardized human-wildlife conflict data collection tools. There is need to develop a standard reporting tool to ensure that the data are collected in an orderly fashion. 
• Lack of centralized data storage repository

None documented currently.

Eswatini currently lacks comprehensive national data on human–wildlife conflict. Implementing this target will therefore play a foundational role in establishing baseline information, monitoring systems, and evidence‑based management strategies that are essential for tracking progress toward SDG 15 and related goals.

Eswatini currently has numerous legislations focused on the protection of wild species. These include the Environment Management Act (EMA) of 2002, the Flora Protection Act of 2001, the Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) Act of 1972 as Amended in 1973, and the Game Act of 1991. However, the country has not yet established a dedicated framework for the sustainable use of biodiversity resources. Existing policies, such as seasonal harvesting rules for certain water plants, aim primarily at equitable access rather than ecological sustainability. Culturally, Eswatini practices some controlled hunting of wild game (locally known as Butimba) that seeks to control the populations of species of wild game without placing them at risk of extinction. Likewise local communities have informal control measures to regulate the harvesting of certain wetland plant species such as those used for making handicrafts. These approaches seek to ensure fair and equitable use, while also ensuring the sustainability of the resources. 

The country drafted Access and Benefit Sharing Guidelines in 2017. These guidelines and a few other policies and legislation provide protection of wild species and further ensure equitable access to the wild species and the benefits that arise from their utilization. Though sustainable utilization of biodiversity is a goal of many government policies and laws, there are no guidelines that ensure that wild species are sustainably used by communities.

The country has undertaken numerous rehabilitation projects under the Eswatini Environment Fund that aimed at wetland and land rehabilitation/restoration across communities in the country. These projects have a sustainability element as plant species are restored/planted, and communities encouraged to utilise these sustainably and equitably. Under the ABS Guidelines and the Plant Health Protection Act, permits for trade and exports in wild species include quantities which ensures sustainable use.

• Limited/lack of guidelines for resources access and utilization
• Export and import permits are granted by the Ministry of Agriculture, whose interest is to enforce the National Plant Health Protection Act of 2020, and not so much species protection and sustainable use.
• Lack of effective monitoring systems for sustainable resources use biodiversity trade
• Population growth and socio-economic issues (e.g., high level of poverty and unemployment) tend to impose a high strain on biodiversity resources.
• Limitation of the National Wildlife Management Policy still being at draft stage.

As highlighted above, the Kingdom has done substantial environmental protection and restoration that has contributed to sustainability through the Eswatini Environment Fund and other national projects such as the Mbuluzi Ecosystems Restoration project. However, the effectiveness of these interventions to sustainability of wild species is unaccounted due to lack of guidelines and frameworks to enable monitoring. 

Effective implementation of this target would contribute towards achieving the following GBF targets: Target 1, Target 4, Target 9, Target 10, and Target 11. Likewise, it would contribute towards the following SDGs:  SDG 12 and SDG 15. 

Addressing habitat loss and degradation for wild species threatened by unsustainable harvesting requires integrated approaches combining habitat protection, sustainable use management, and alternative livelihoods. Eswatini's protected area system provides core habitat protection for wild species, while ecosystem restoration programmes documented under Target 2 rehabilitate degraded habitats across 122,094.6 hectares, a portfolio that has now exceeded the national 115,000 ha Land Degradation Neutrality target. Conservation management within protected areas operated by ENTC and Big Game Parks includes population monitoring and habitat management for priority wild species, particularly large mammals and birds that face harvesting pressure or habitat loss. However, for most harvested wild species including medicinal plants, fuelwood trees, thatching grass species, and bushmeat mammals’ systematic population monitoring and habitat assessments are not conducted. Traditional governance systems on Swazi Nation Land regulate resource extraction in many areas, though the effectiveness of these systems in preventing habitat degradation and maintaining sustainable harvest levels has not been rigorously evaluated. Livelihood programmes promoting alternative energy sources, improved agricultural productivity, and off-farm income generation aim to reduce harvesting pressure on wild resources, though systematic assessment of their impact on specific species populations has not been undertaken.

Data on the population status and trends of wild species populations threatened by unsustainable harvesting are insufficient to confirm progress toward this target. The most heavily harvested species groups medicinal plants, fuelwood trees, thatching grass, and bushmeat species lack systematic population monitoring programmes, meaning that baseline data on population sizes, geographic distributions, and trends are not available for most taxa. Without baseline population data, it is not possible to identify which populations are declining due to harvesting pressure, measure the rate of habitat loss affecting these species, or confirm whether the 25% reduction target for at least 50% of threatened populations is being achieved.

The national Red List Index of 0.81 (2024) provides an aggregate measure of extinction risk across assessed species groups but does not disaggregate by primary threat category (harvesting vs habitat loss vs climate change vs invasive species), limiting its utility for measuring progress specifically against harvesting-related threats. Qualitative evidence suggests that unsustainable harvesting of communal forest and rangeland resources primarily driven by fuelwood extraction, medicinal plant collection, and bushmeat hunting remains a significant threat to biodiversity, particularly in densely populated rural areas where market demand amplifies subsistence pressure. However, translating this qualitative understanding into quantified rates of habitat loss or population decline requires systematic monitoring infrastructure that does not currently exist.

• The taxa most affected by unsustainable harvesting (plants, invertebrates, smaller vertebrates) lack systematic monitoring programmes
• Data on the extent and rate of habitat degradation specifically affecting harvested species populations are not compiled
• Establishing monitoring for the full range of harvested wild species requires taxonomic expertise, field capacity, and financial resources that significantly exceed current availability
• Causal relationships between harvest levels and population responses are not systematically studied for most species
• Poverty, limited access to alternative energy sources, dependence on traditional medicine, and market demand for wild species are complex socioeconomic factors that cannot be addressed through conservation management alone
• Programmes providing alternative energy, improved agriculture, and off-farm income are not systematically linked to wild species conservation objectives
• Customary resource management on Swazi Nation Land regulates harvesting but lacks formal recognition, technical support, and integration into national conservation frameworks

Protected area management by ENTC and Big Game Parks provides habitat protection for wild species populations within reserve boundaries, reducing both harvesting pressure and habitat loss for species that occur within protected areas. However, many harvested species particularly plants used for medicine, craft materials, and fuelwood occur primarily outside protected areas on communal lands, meaning that protected area management alone is insufficient to address threats from unsustainable use.

Target 5.2 contributes to SDG 15.5 on reducing degradation of natural habitats and preventing extinction of threatened species; SDG 15.2 on promoting sustainable forest management; SDG 7.1 on access to affordable energy (reducing fuelwood harvesting pressure); and SDG 1.4 on ensuring access to natural resources.

Establishing formal sustainable wildlife resource use agreements between communities and conservation authorities is being pursued through co-management arrangements under the OECM Framework, community benefit-sharing provisions in conservation projects, and landscape-level resource use planning within Integrated Landscape Management Plans. Community-conserved OECMs have governance frameworks that regulate resource use within those areas, representing informal sustainable use arrangements. The Mbuluzi restoration project and SAPEMP include community engagement components addressing natural resource management, providing structures within which sustainable use agreements can be developed.

Traditional authorities on Swazi Nation Land exercise customary regulation of resource access and extraction, representing a form of sustainable use governance that, while not formalised as 'agreements' under national conservation legislation, has a long history and functional effectiveness in many areas. Several community-based organisations engage in wildlife-related enterprises including Butimba, traders in Imphepho (a traditional aromatic plant), and Luphephetse (Umshanyelo, a traditional ceremony involving wild resource use) that implicitly involve sustainable use practices, though formal documented agreements specifying harvest limits and monitoring obligations are not systematically in place.

The number of communities with formal documented sustainable wildlife resource use agreements is not known because no national registry or database tracking such agreements exists. While governance frameworks for OECMs and co-management areas provide foundations for sustainable use regulation, the specific element of formal, legally recognised community agreements on wildlife resource use specifying which species can be harvested, in what quantities, during which seasons, by whom, and with what monitoring and enforcement mechanisms has not been developed at scale. Informal and customary resource use arrangements exist widely across Swazi Nation Land and are in many cases effective in moderating resource extraction, but they are not documented in ways that allow national tracking, legal enforceability, or systematic monitoring of sustainability.

The target of 50% of communities with formal agreements by 2030 represents a substantial institutional and governance challenge given the current near absence of formalised documentation. Defining what constitutes a qualifying 'sustainable wildlife resource use agreement’ including minimum standards for specificity, monitoring provisions, and legal recognition has not been undertaken at the national level. 

• Data on the number and proportion of communities with formal agreements do not exist
• What constitutes a qualifying 'sustainable wildlife resource use agreement' has not been operationally defined with minimum standards
• Legal and policy frameworks specifically governing community wildlife resource use agreements are underdeveloped
• Even where informal arrangements exist, enforcement of sustainable harvest limits and sanctions for violations are often inadequate
• Communities may not perceive compelling benefits from formalising existing informal arrangements, particularly if formalisation involves administrative burden without commensurate advantages
• Negotiating, documenting, and implementing formal agreements requires facilitation, legal expertise, and technical support that many communities and authorities lack
• Customary resource management systems on Swazi Nation Land regulate use but lack formal legal status under national conservation law
• One-size-fits-all agreement templates may not be appropriate for the diversity of community governance structures, resource types, and local conditions

The Shewula Community Nature Reserve operates under a community governance framework that regulates resource use within the reserve while maintaining community access for certain traditional purposes. While not formally documented as a 'sustainable wildlife resource use agreement' meeting national standards, the Shewula model demonstrates the viability of community-led resource governance that balances conservation with customary use. The governance structure includes community-elected leadership, transparent decision-making processes, and benefit-sharing from eco-tourism that creates economic incentives for conservation. With appropriate institutional support, this model could be formalised and documented as a qualifying agreement.

Butimba and other community-based organisations engaging with wild resources for traditional and commercial purposes demonstrate that communities are actively managing wildlife resources, though these arrangements have not been systematically documented or formalised into agreements meeting national conservation standards. Establishing a facilitation programme to support communities in translating existing informal governance systems into formal, legally recognised agreements would accelerate progress toward the 50% target.

Target 5.3 contributes to SDG 15 on enhancing global support for communities in protecting and sustainably using wildlife; SDG 1.4 on ensuring equal rights to natural resources; SDG 2.3 on doubling agricultural productivity of small-scale food producers (including wild food harvesting); and SDG 16.7 on ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making.

Eswatini does not yet have formal biosecurity legislation specifically controlling the introduction of new alien species, including invasive risk assessment protocols for plant imports and live organism trade. In the absence of a dedicated legal framework, prevention of new invasive alien species (IAS) introductions relies on ad hoc measures including informal awareness-raising through conservation projects, community workshops, and targeted educational programmes in schools and communities. Public awareness campaigns have been conducted by the Department of Forestry in collaboration with Eswatini Environment Authority (EEA), ENTC, and municipalities including as part of the Ezulwini Municipality IAPS Management Strategy 2025, but these are project-based and not coordinated nationally under a unified communication strategy. There are also private sector (e.g Montigny, Shiselweni Forestry Company, Ubombo Sugar Limited etc) interventions and management systems, as well as project based initiatives like the Mbuluzi Ecosystem Restoration activities and other community-based programmes, including the commercialization and certification of wattle. These efforts are aligned to the Eswatini Government's Programme of Action (2024/2025- 2028/2029). 

No formal early detection and rapid response (EDRR) system has been established. Reporting of new invasive species occurrences occurs opportunistically through protected area managers, farmers, and alert community members, but without a standardised protocol, central database, or institutional trigger for coordinated response. The 2010 IAPS Survey documented priority invasive alien plant species including Lantana camara, Chromolaena odorata, Solanum mauritianum, Tithonia diversifolia, Acacia mearnsii, and Eucalyptus spp. affecting approximately 80% of Eswatini's land area (Table 13), providing the primary national baseline but with no systematic subsequent monitoring of new introductions or spread.

Table 13. Baseline infestation (2010 IAPS survey)[1]

[1] Ian Kotzé et al., Surveying and Mapping the Distribution and Intensity of Infestation of Selected Category 1 Invasive Alien Plant Species in Swaziland (Pretoria, South Africa, 2010).

Progress on reducing the rate of IAS establishment has been minimal due to the absence of a functional biosecurity framework. No data are available on the current annual rate of new invasive species introductions, as no monitoring system has been established to detect, record, and report new establishments. The 2010 IAPS survey (Table 13 and Figure 3) provides a species list and distribution baseline, but subsequent systematic surveillance for new introductions has not been conducted, meaning the trajectory of IAS arrival rates cannot be assessed. While awareness-raising activities have been conducted at project and local levels, no impact evaluation of these efforts has been undertaken, and national-level understanding of IAS risks among importers, traders, and the public remains largely unquantified.

Commercial farms, ranches and estates (including sugar, timber and cattle operations) undertake their own invasive plant clearing programmes to protect water infrastructure, grazing and plantation productivity; these efforts are often not fully captured in national statistics but represent significant area coverage and expenditure. National discourse is increasingly emphasising the need for structured public–private partnerships for catchment‑scale IAPS management, including proposals for catchment investment programmes and environmental service fees, where downstream industries (e.g. hydropower, agro‑processors, manufacturers) co‑finance upstream clearing[1].

Table 14. Baseline infestation (2010 IAPS survey)[2]

Figure 3. Densities of the different IAPS as of 2010 a) Bugweed, b) Chromolaena, c) Eucalyptus and d) Lantana

The severity of existing invasions with priority species already affecting 80% of the land area[3] indicates that prevention was insufficient in preceding decades and that current IAS populations represent an entrenched problem. This context underlines the urgency of establishing formal biosecurity measures: without legislation, risk assessment protocols, and border inspection capacity for plant material, the pathway for new introductions remains open.

[1] https://www.insidebiz.co.sz/eswatini-needs-e1-2-billion-to-clear-alien-plants-threatening-water-agriculture-and-ecosystems/

[2] Ian Kotzé et al., Surveying and Mapping the Distribution and Intensity of Infestation of Selected Category 1 Invasive Alien Plant Species in Swaziland (Pretoria, South Africa, 2010).

[3] MTEA, National Strategy for the Control and Management of Invasive Alien Plant Species (202-2030) (Mbabane, Eswatini, 2020).

• The most fundamental challenge is the absence of biosecurity legislation and associated institutional infrastructure. Without legal provisions mandating invasive risk assessments for plant imports and live organism trade, border inspection capacity, and defined responsibilities for IAS prevention, there is no systematic mechanism to intercept potentially invasive species before they enter the country. Establishing this framework requires inter-agency coordination across the Ministry of Agriculture, customs authorities, and the EEA agencies that do not currently operate integrated IAS prevention protocols.
• Compounding this, the country lacks a monitoring system to detect new IAS establishments at early stages when management is most cost-effective. The 2010 survey represents a decade-old baseline with no subsequent comprehensive update, leaving unknown the number and distribution of species that have been introduced since that date. Financial and human resource constraints limit the ability to establish and maintain an EDRR system, while the existing severe burden of managing established invasions affecting 80% of land absorbs the limited resources available for IAS-related work.

The GEF-7 Mbuluzi project is currently implementing the control of IAPS and this will be documented in the 8^th national reporting cycle.

Target 6.1 directly advances SDG 15.8 on preventing and significantly reducing the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems, and SDG 2.4 on sustainable food production through the protection of agricultural land and rangeland productivity from invasive species.

Eswatini has an adopted National Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAPS) Strategy and has undertaken control activities at site and landscape levels, but implementation remains at an early-to-intermediate stage constrained primarily by financial limitations and the absence of a national IAPS clearance database. The 2010 IAPS Survey provides the primary national baseline, documenting the distribution and density of six priority invasive alien plant species affecting approximately 80% of land area, with site-specific data on infestation extent and estimated clearance costs.

Site-level control efforts have been undertaken in specific landscapes and by institutions: the Lusushwana pilot catchment has approximately 80 hectares under active IAPS management, with roughly 25% cleared and under early restoration. The Ezulwini Municipality IAPS Management Strategy 2025 represents a sophisticated local implementation effort, incorporating spatial mapping of invasion hotspots, ecologically prioritised control zones, and coordination with the OECM Framework to protect peri-urban (rural areas lying close to urban areas) biodiversity. Additional control activities are occurring on community lands, private estates, and by municipalities across the country, but these data have not been aggregated at national level and a comprehensive inventory of active IAPS management does not currently exist.

While the National IAPS Strategy provides a policy foundation and site-level control work is demonstrably occurring, no evidence is currently available of a reduction in IAPS abundance, temporal occurrence, or spatial distribution at national scale. The absence of a national IAPS clearance database means that the cumulative area under active management cannot be compiled, and the lack of systematic monitoring since the 2010 baseline makes it impossible to assess whether control efforts are keeping pace with, or falling behind, the ongoing spread of invasive species. The 2030 target of a 50% reduction in IAPS in risk areas is therefore not currently on track, and the magnitude of the gap cannot be quantified without updated national monitoring data.

The challenge of scale is fundamental: with priority IAPS affecting 80% of land area, achieving a meaningful population-level reduction by 2030 would require a coordinated, adequately financed national programme operating across all land tenure types simultaneously. Current resources and coordination levels fall well short of this requirement, as reflected in Table 15, which summarises the current state of data availability for key IAPS indicators.

Table 15. Summary of IAPS data availability.

• The absence of a national IAPS clearance database is the primary institutional obstacle to implementing and monitoring this target. Data on IAPS management activities exist at the level of individual projects, protected areas, and municipalities, but there is no mechanism to aggregate, validate, and report these figures in a way that allows national-level progress assessment. Without this database, it is not possible to calculate the total area under active management, assess the rate of re-infestation in cleared areas, or identify geographic gaps in control coverage. There is an ongoing process to source funding and resources to develop a National Forestry Information Management System which will integrate the IAPS clearance database.
• Financial constraints represent the second major challenge. The scale of IAPS infestations across 80% of land area requires substantial and sustained investment in mechanical, chemical, and biological control over many years, combined with active revegetation of cleared areas to prevent re-invasion. 
• Current project-based and municipal-level funding is insufficient for landscape-scale operations. The absence of legislation governing the introduction of new alien species further allows new IAS to enter the country unchecked, potentially undermining control efforts in already-cleared areas. Inter-agency collaboration between ENTC, EEA, municipalities, traditional authorities, private landowners, and agricultural authorities require formalisation through a dedicated national coordination mechanism.

The Ezulwini Municipality IAPS Management Strategy 2025 is the most comprehensive documented example of local IAPS implementation in Eswatini. The strategy demonstrates how spatial mapping, ecological prioritisation, and integration with broader land use planning can be combined to create an operationally effective local programme. By mapping IAPS hotspots and designating control zones according to ecological sensitivity, the strategy directs limited resources to areas where control will have the highest biodiversity return. Coordination with the OECM Framework ensures that cleared peri-urban (rural areas lying close to urban) areas are managed for biodiversity conservation rather than simply left to natural revegetation, potentially allowing invasion by a different suite of species. This municipal model provides a template for replication by other urban authorities.

Target 6.2 contributes to SDG 15.8 on reducing invasive alien species impacts on terrestrial ecosystems; SDG 2.3 on doubling agricultural productivity, given that IAPS represent a major constraint on rangeland and cropland productivity; and SDG 6.6 on protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems, as IAPS degradation of riparian zones is a significant threat to freshwater biodiversity.

Eswatini remains a net importer of agrochemicals, with a high dependency on the South African market. Over the last ten years, pesticide usage intensity has shown a gradual upward trend, reaching approximately 2.40 kg per hectare of cropland by 2023 (Table 13). This intensity reflects the country’s focus on high-yield sugarcane and timber production, which require significant chemical inputs. While herbicides constitute the largest share of imports by volume, insecticides for retail sale also represent a steady portion of the import bill, valued at roughly $1.8 million annually as of 2023.

Table 16. Pesticide Import and Usage Trends (2016–2026).

The country has moreover pursued pesticide reduction indirectly through broader sustainable agriculture programmes, with integrated pest management (IPM) promoted as a component of conservation agriculture extension services provided by the Ministry of Agriculture. The adoption of conservation agriculture increased significantly from 9,575 farmers in 2016 to 14,500 farmers by 2021, representing a national effort to mainstream sustainable farming practices that inherently reduce pesticide dependency through crop diversification, natural pest predator conservation, and reduced tillage systems that maintain soil ecology. Additionally, the National Conservation Agriculture Initiative[1], has placed 250 hectares under conservation agriculture practices that contribute to ecosystem restoration objectives by reducing soil erosion, improving soil health, and maintaining vegetation cover on degraded agricultural land.

The SAPEMP project (2024-ongoing), implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture with IFAD, Green Climate Fund, and Government of Eswatini support, includes a strong focus on sustainable intensification that incorporates IPM as a core technical component. Extension services provide farmer training on biological pest control, crop rotation sequences, permaculture, companion planting, and threshold-based decision-making that reduces prophylactic pesticide application. University of Eswatini agricultural research programmes and NGOs promote organic agriculture and IPM principles through demonstration plots and farmer field schools. However, no formal national IPM strategy document has been developed or adopted, and IPM promotion occurs through project-based and decentralised extension rather than as a coordinated national programme.

[1] Ministry of Agriculture Annual Report (2026)

The 60% reduction in synthetic pesticide use by 2030 cannot currently be confirmed or measured because baseline data on national pesticide sales, imports, and usage rates by crop and region are not systematically compiled. The Ministry of Agriculture does not maintain a national pesticide use database and import statistics from customs are not disaggregated in a format that allows analysis of pesticide volume trends. Without baseline usage data, it is not possible to confirm whether the expansion of conservation agriculture and SAPEMP's IPM training are translating into measurable reductions in synthetic pesticide application at farm level.

While 14,500 farmers practicing conservation agriculture by 2021 represents meaningful progress in sustainable agriculture adoption, this figure constitutes a minority of Eswatini's estimated 70,000+ smallholder farming households, meaning that most farmers continue to rely on conventional practices that may include pesticide use. IPM knowledge and capacity among extension officers is variable, with training having been provided to some cohorts under specific projects (Table 15) but not systematically institutionalised across the national extension service.

Table 15. IPM training programs in Eswatini.