evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

SNPAS OECM Grants — Eswatini's National Payment Scheme for Community & Private Conservation Land

Eswatini · Siteki · See the Eswatini profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

GEF/UNDP-funded six-year programme run by Eswatini's National Trust Commission raised national protected-area coverage from 3.9% to 5.2% by paying grants of E200,000–E270,000 to eight community, private and university landholders securing 18,000 ha as conservation areas.

3.9% → 5.2% % of national territory
National protected-area coverage (2015–2021)
18000 hectares
Land committed to conservation (2015–2021)
6 US$ million (E98.5 million combined GEF funding and co-financing)
Project funding (2015–2021)
E200,000–E270,000 per entity, 8 entities
OECM grant awards (2015–2021)
SNPAS OECM Grants — Eswatini's National Payment Scheme for Community & Private Conservation Land

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC), with UNDP and the Global Environment Facility
Period
2015–2021 (OECM Guidelines launched May 2021)
Keywords
protected areas, biodiversity stewardship, community conservation, OECM

Context

Between 2015 and 2021, the Strengthening the National Protected Area System (SNPAS) project — implemented by Eswatini's National Trust Commission (ENTC) with UNDP as GEF implementing agency and roughly US$6 million (E98.5 million) in combined GEF funding and co-financing — worked to expand conservation land outside Eswatini's formal state reserve network.

Objectives

Expand national protected-area coverage by paying grants to community, private and institutional landholders who commit land to Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs), and establish a durable legal recognition framework for such land.

Activities

Eight entities — three community-based, four privately owned, and the University of Eswatini — received grant awards of E200,000 to E270,000 for protecting land in the Lubombo landscape (including sites around Shewula, Mbuluzi and Mlawula); in May 2021 Eswatini formally launched national OECM Guidelines, described by UNDP as the first such guidelines in Africa and worldwide.

Results

National protected-area coverage rose from 3.9% to 5.2% of Eswatini's territory over the project period, with about 18,000 ha of private and communal land committed to conservation.

Conclusions

Reported figures vary slightly between UNDP's own account (3.9%→5.2%, 18,000 ha) and secondary press coverage (3.9%→5.5%, ~20,000 ha); this record uses UNDP's figures as the more authoritative primary source, and independent, quantified biodiversity-outcome data (species counts, habitat condition trends) beyond the area and grant figures were not found in public reporting.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Approximately US$6 million (E98.5 million) in combined GEF funding and co-financing over six years, plus direct grants of E200,000–E270,000 to eight landholders — a medium cost band for a national-scale six-year programme.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — A defined six-year project (2015–2021) that produced a durable legal outcome (national OECM Guidelines) beyond its own end date — a medium timeline band.
Staffing & skills
Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC) — project implementer, UNDP — GEF implementing agency, Global Environment Facility — funder, Eight grant recipients: three community-based, four private landholders, and the University of Eswatini

Conditions for success

  • Direct grant payments (E200,000–E270,000) to landholders as a concrete incentive to commit land to conservation
  • A durable legal recognition framework: Eswatini's national OECM Guidelines, launched May 2021, described by UNDP as the first in Africa and worldwide
  • Multi-stakeholder recipient mix (community, private, university) rather than government land alone

Common failure modes

  • Reported area/coverage figures vary between UNDP's own account and secondary press coverage, indicating some reporting inconsistency
  • No independent, quantified biodiversity-outcome data (species counts, habitat condition) beyond area and grant figures was found

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful