Loading SafariFind...
Eswatini’s conservation network combines national parks, nature reserves, private game reserves and community conservancies. In 2026, protection is focused on strengthening the Lubombo landscape, improving conservation finance, supporting rangers and balancing wildlife security with community rights.
Quick answer: Eswatini is strengthening conservation across a mixed network of national parks, nature reserves, private game reserves and community-managed areas. The country’s main strategic priority is the Lubombo landscape, where government plans to expand the core area of the Lubombo Biosphere Reserve and develop a larger Big Five conservation landscape linking areas including Hlane Royal National Park, Mlawula, Mbuluzi, Shewula and the Inyoni Yami Swaziland Irrigation Scheme (IYSIS) .
Progress is visible in species recovery and ranger support, but conservation remains underfunded and exposed to wildlife crime, resource overuse, human-wildlife conflict and climate-related pressure. A credible 2026 assessment therefore needs to recognise both conservation gains and the social and financial challenges that could undermine them .
Last reviewed August 2026. Conservation data changes — see the cited sources for the latest figures.
Eswatini’s protected-area system safeguards a compact but varied set of landscapes. The country contains national parks, nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and game reserves under a mixture of public, private and community ownership. This diversity means conservation is not delivered by one institution or one management model: government agencies, the Eswatini National Trust Commission (ENTC), private conservation organisations, local communities and international partners all have roles .
Important conservation sites include Hlane Royal National Park, Mlawula Nature Reserve, Malolotja Nature Reserve, Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary and private reserves such as Mkhaya Game Reserve. Big Game Parks describes its properties as protecting diverse habitats, offering tourism opportunities and promoting Eswatini’s natural heritage . The result is a conservation system in which tourism-oriented private areas sit alongside government reserves and community conservancies.
Eswatini’s wildlife history also shows why active management matters. The Giraffe Conservation Foundation reports that southern giraffe likely disappeared from the country after a rinderpest outbreak in 1896. Reintroduction began in 1965, when two giraffe were moved from South Africa’s lowveld to Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary; giraffe were later reintroduced to Hlane and other properties . The foundation now reports more than 400 southern giraffe across 11 properties in Eswatini, while also emphasising the need for better population information and stronger local partnerships .
Large mammals are only one part of the picture. Protected landscapes conserve woodland, grassland, river systems and mountain habitats, while also supporting cultural heritage, water resources, employment and nature-based tourism. The conservation value of a reserve is therefore measured not only by the animals visitors see, but by whether ecological processes and local benefits can persist over time.
The Lubombo region is central to national conservation planning. The IUCN’s State of Protected and Conserved Areas report says the Eswatini government is prioritising the core area of the Lubombo Biosphere Reserve and allocating increased resources and effort towards establishing a Big Five National Park. The proposed conservation focus includes Hlane, Mlawula, Mbuluzi, Shewula, IYSIS and contiguous areas considered worthy of protection .
This approach reflects the reality that wildlife does not follow reserve boundaries. Eswatini’s transboundary conservation relationship sits within the Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), which spans Eswatini, South Africa and Mozambique. The IUCN identifies Malolotja Nature Reserve and Mlawula Nature Reserve as Eswatini conservation areas contributing to the Lubombo TFCA . Peace Parks Foundation describes the wider Lubombo area as comprising four transfrontier conservation areas between the three countries, covering 11,236 square kilometres .
Transboundary conservation can improve ecological connectivity and coordination, but it also requires cooperation between governments, conservation authorities and communities across borders. Law enforcement, land-use planning, tourism development and community livelihood initiatives need to work across the same landscape rather than stopping at an international boundary.
Poaching remains a serious threat, particularly for rhinos and other high-value wildlife. Project ALPHA, an Endangered Species Protection Agency programme delivered with Big Game Parks, says Eswatini’s black rhino population once fell to five animals and that the country’s white rhino population was also severely reduced. The programme trained game rangers in patrols, field first aid, crime-scene management, evidence preservation and operational response .
Project ALPHA reports a 100% reduction in rhino poaching at Hlane Royal National Park and Mkhaya Game Reserve following its training partnership. That is a claim made by the programme and should not be interpreted as evidence that the national threat has disappeared: the same source assesses the poaching risk as severe and says organised crime continues to endanger Eswatini’s rhinos . For visitors, the practical lesson is that apparently secure safari sightings depend on continuous patrols, intelligence, judicial cooperation, equipment and funding.
Anti-poaching also raises important questions about law enforcement and human rights. An Earth Island Journal report states that exact figures for people killed by park rangers are unavailable, while citing a Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs estimate that several dozen suspected poachers are killed each year. The report describes calls for greater accountability in the use of lethal force and a review of the Game Amendment Act . Effective wildlife protection must address organised wildlife crime while respecting the safety, dignity and legal rights of people living near protected areas.
Finance is one of the clearest constraints on protected-area management. In a survey discussed by Conservation Magazine, 85% of respondents said the protected areas where they worked were insufficiently funded to achieve their conservation goals. In the same survey, 61% said that both reduced pressure on protected areas and increased funding would be needed, while 69% were unaware of alternative finance mechanisms beyond donor funding and government grants .
The IUCN’s regional financing research reported that the Eswatini National Trust Commission received 55% of its funding from government in 2018/2019 . This is a historical figure, not a current 2026 budget, but it illustrates why protected areas often need a combination of state support, grants, tourism income and innovative finance rather than relying on a single source.
Underfunding affects more than patrols. It can limit ecological monitoring, maintenance, invasive-plant control, community engagement, visitor infrastructure, staff training and the ability to respond quickly to emerging threats. Conservation finance must therefore be judged by whether it supports the full management system, not simply whether it pays for visible anti-poaching operations.
Research on protected-area finance in Eswatini identifies unsustainable utilisation and overexploitation of natural resources, together with financing shortages, as threats to the expansion and management of conservation areas and the livelihoods connected to them . These pressures can appear as competing demands for land, fuelwood, water, grazing or other natural resources.
Climate change adds another layer of uncertainty. The Eswatini Environment Fund is designed to support environmental protection, sustainable natural-resource management and community participation, including programmes connected to climate adaptation . The available research does not provide a national 2026 figure for climate-related wildlife losses or habitat degradation, so the responsible conclusion is that climate resilience should be treated as a management priority rather than assigned an unsupported numerical impact.
Eswatini has developed a legal and institutional framework for protected-area governance. The IUCN identifies the Environment Management Act of 2002, the Swaziland Tourism Authority Act of 2001, the Swaziland Environmental Authority Act of 1992, the National Trust Commission Act of 1972, the Forest Preservation Act of 1910 and flora-related legislation among the laws shaping environmental conservation and protected-area management .
The ENTC is the parastatal organisation responsible for conserving the country’s cultural and natural heritage, according to the regional protected-area financing report . It also works with governments and conservation organisations in Mozambique and South Africa on conservation initiatives . The Strengthening National Protected Areas Systems (SNPAS) initiative is another programme identified as supporting conservation efforts in Eswatini .
The Eswatini Environmental Fund (EEF), operated by the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, is intended to aggregate funding for environmental sustainability and sustainable livelihoods. Its capitalisation includes government concessions, environmental fines and grants from development partners . A briefing on the fund says recipients can include communities, environmental organisations and non-governmental organisations, with an emphasis on community participation in environmental protection and sustainable natural-resource management .
Alternative finance is important because tourism revenue can fluctuate, as the COVID-19 period demonstrated across transfrontier conservation landscapes. A Lubombo TFCA response project aimed to reduce the pandemic’s impact on conservation areas and community-based tourism initiatives in Eswatini, Mozambique and South Africa . The broader lesson is that reserves need financial systems capable of maintaining ranger services and community programmes when visitor income falls.
Rangers are the operational foundation of wildlife protection, but training must cover more than armed patrols. COVID-19 response grants supported ranger and manager training in areas including difficult-terrain driving, snake handling, river guiding, first aid and invasive-plant control. The programme also delivered two human-rights-in-law-enforcement workshops, with 53 rangers in Eswatini receiving training .
Project ALPHA’s partnership with Big Game Parks added crime-scene management, evidence preservation, legal training for the Department of Public Prosecutions and operational mentoring to the ranger response . This combination matters because successful conservation law enforcement depends on detection, safe arrest, evidence handling and prosecution—not only on the number of patrols conducted.
Big Game Parks publishes an anti-poaching hotline, listed as +268 7650 0501 on its 2026 website, alongside its conservation and tourism operations . Travellers should use official channels and should never approach suspected poachers, wildlife criminals or dangerous animals themselves.
Southern giraffe recovery demonstrates the value of coordinated reintroduction and monitoring. The Giraffe Conservation Foundation is collaborating with Big Game Parks and other local partners to improve understanding of giraffe population status and support future conservation initiatives . The reported population of more than 400 giraffe across 11 properties is encouraging, but the foundation’s emphasis on better data is equally important: a recovery programme needs regular monitoring, genetic and demographic information, suitable habitat and secure management across multiple properties .
Rhino protection provides a more cautionary example. Training and reported reductions in poaching at Hlane and Mkhaya are significant programme outcomes, but the continuing assessment of severe risk shows why success cannot be treated as permanent . Eswatini’s conservation agencies and partners must maintain capacity even when headline poaching figures improve.
Community participation is not an optional addition to protected-area conservation. The Eswatini Environmental Fund explicitly seeks to support communities and community groups, while the Lubombo COVID-19 response included community-based tourism and alternative livelihoods . These approaches recognise that conservation areas affect people who live around them and that long-term protection depends on legitimate local benefits.
Community conservation is especially relevant in the Lubombo landscape, where Shewula Community Nature Reserve forms part of the proposed wider core conservation area alongside Hlane, Mlawula, Mbuluzi and IYSIS . Travellers can read more about the principles and practical role of community conservancies in Eswatini before choosing an itinerary.
Tourism can contribute through park fees, accommodation, guiding, transport, food purchases, employment and conservation donations, although the exact distribution of revenue differs between properties and programmes. Visitors should ask operators which fees are included, where the money goes and whether community or conservation contributions are independently reported.
Private conservation organisations also remain important. Big Game Parks says its properties combine habitat protection, tourism and conservation of national heritage . Travellers can book conservation-supporting safaris on SafariFind, while choosing operators that explain their local partnerships and avoid promising that every payment directly funds wildlife protection.
Safari experiences should be low-impact. Staying on designated roads, following guide instructions, keeping a safe distance from wildlife, avoiding flash photography where prohibited and not requesting unethical animal interactions all reduce pressure on protected areas. A walking safari at Mkhaya Game Reserve, for example, should be selected for its safety standards, qualified guides and conservation policies rather than for unusually close wildlife encounters.
| Conservation area | Evidence of progress | Remaining challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Lubombo landscape | Government priority to strengthen the biosphere reserve core and pursue a Big Five National Park landscape . | Expansion requires finance, cross-border coordination, land-use planning and community participation . |
| Southern giraffe | More than 400 giraffe are reported across 11 Eswatini properties after reintroduction began in 1965 . | Partners are still working to improve population-status information and future planning . |
| Rhino protection | Project ALPHA reports a 100% reduction in rhino poaching at Hlane and Mkhaya following ranger and prosecution support . | The same programme assesses the poaching risk as severe and says organised crime remains a threat . |
| Ranger capacity | Fifty-three Eswatini rangers received human-rights training through a COVID-19 response programme . | Training, equipment, welfare, accountability and sustainable financing must be maintained . |
| Protected-area finance | The EEF aggregates government, fines and development-partner funding and can support community groups . | A survey found that 85% of respondents considered their protected areas insufficiently funded . |
The overall picture is neither a simple conservation success story nor a collapse narrative. Eswatini has demonstrated that reintroduction, private conservation, ranger training, transboundary planning and community funding can produce meaningful results. At the same time, the evidence points to persistent financial shortages, severe wildlife-crime risk and unresolved questions about how conservation enforcement affects nearby communities .
Eswatini’s national parks and reserves are most likely to remain resilient when conservation is treated as a shared public good rather than a security project alone. Protecting wildlife requires secure habitats and capable rangers, but it also requires credible institutions, sustainable finance, accountable enforcement and meaningful benefits for the people living alongside protected areas.
Eswatini is prioritising the Lubombo Biosphere Reserve core, strengthening protected-area systems, supporting ranger training, developing conservation finance through the Eswatini Environmental Fund and working with regional partners in the Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area .
The current strategic focus includes Hlane Royal National Park, Mlawula, Mbuluzi, Shewula, IYSIS and contiguous areas considered suitable for protection as part of a larger Big Five landscape .
The Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area is a cross-border conservation landscape linking Eswatini, South Africa and Mozambique. Peace Parks Foundation describes the wider Lubombo area as covering 11,236 square kilometres across four transfrontier conservation areas .
Yes. Project ALPHA reports improved rhino-poaching outcomes at Hlane and Mkhaya, but it still assesses the poaching threat as severe and says organised crime remains a risk to Eswatini’s rhinos .
The Giraffe Conservation Foundation reports more than 400 southern giraffe across 11 properties in Eswatini. The organisation is also working with Big Game Parks and local partners to improve population-status information .
Community involvement includes community nature reserves, community-based tourism, alternative livelihood projects and access to support through the Eswatini Environmental Fund. Shewula Community Nature Reserve is included in the Lubombo conservation planning area .
Tourism can support protected areas through park fees, accommodation, guiding, employment and local spending, although the exact use and distribution of revenue varies by property. Visitors should ask operators for transparent information about conservation and community contributions .
Visitors should use transparent operators, respect park rules, avoid feeding or disturbing wildlife, support local services, protect sensitive wildlife-location information and report concerns through official channels rather than intervening themselves .
A protected-area stakeholder survey found that 85% of respondents considered the areas where they worked insufficiently funded, while 61% said both increased funding and reduced pressure were needed to achieve conservation goals .
Not yet. Giraffe recovery, reported reductions in rhino poaching and improved ranger training are positive developments, but underfunding, severe wildlife-crime risk, resource overuse, climate pressure and human-rights concerns remain ongoing challenges .
Explore curated safari packages and find your perfect African adventure with verified operators.
Rothschild’s giraffe is not native to Madagascar: the subspecies is documented in Uganda and Kenya, while Madagascar has no recorded wild population in the supplied research. Conservation therefore depends on protecting its East African range and avoiding unsupported claims about translocations to the island.
Ethiopia is both a source and transit country for illegal wildlife products, with Bole International Airport identified as a regional trafficking hub. In 2026, anti-poaching efforts focus on strengthening EWCA, the Environmental Crime Unit, protected-area patrols, judicial capacity and community participation.
Lion conservation in Eswatini depends on secure protected areas, effective monitoring and cooperation with neighbouring countries and communities. Eswatini has important wildlife sanctuaries, but the available research does not provide a verified national lion population estimate for 2026.