Letter to the editor Tourism Tattler Issue 01

[iNdlovu]

Tourism Tattler Issue 01 (Jan/Feb) 2012 Edition

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor,
I think the most pressing problem from a tourism slant (right now in South Africa – Ed) is the proposed hotels for the Kruger National Park. SAN Parks seems extraordinarily sensitive to any criticism of their plans, even going as far as to ban some users from the SanParks blog.
The Kruger National Park has shown with the many private lodges that have been allowed in recent times, and which are almost all suffering low occupancy rates, that mass tourism in five-star hotels is not the way to go.
From my personal point of view, National Parks are not a place for hotels – even if they are built in the form of glorified lodges. I fully understand that the
National Parks have to be run as a business, but the main concern should be about the conservation of animals and the fauna and flora.
The south of Kruger is already overcrowded, particularly during the high seasons. The extra traffic of – not only the additional tourists but – the staff required to run the hotel will only increase the congestion on the roads within Kruger. There is already a problem with speeding delivery vehicles, speeding tourist and general disregards of the rules of the park, particularly at a major sighting such as leopard or lion. There are many more concerns I have such as water shortages, gates staying open late, etc.
Our National Parks should be kept as simple as possible as I believe that that is what attracts people who visit the parks. There are many lodges on the border and concessions within the park for tourists who do not want to stay in the self-catering accommodation already offered. Our natural parks are about animals and nature and should not be turned into rowdy holiday resorts.
For more information and facts regarding this topic I suggest you contact AIKONA, which stands for:
A – Against I – Interference in K – Kruger O – Our N – Nature A – Asset
Neville Thompson

The Tattler consulted various concerned parties for their opinions on this contentious matter – Ed. SANParks replies to the letter submitted by Mr. Thompson.
Glenn Phillips writes:
The letter submitted by Mr Thompson, clearly shows that the arguments against hotel development in Kruger are unfounded and are driven by emotions and not fact. In an attempt to answer the concerns raised I will talk not only to the issues raised but also to broader issues facing conservation authorities.
South African National Parks (SANParks) are the custodian of National Parks for the People of South Africa. Sadly, in South Africa, and indeed elsewhere in Africa, National Parks are not currently relevant to the broader population.
With a growing population and associated poverty surrounding many of our protected areas, there is growing pressure on these areas to provide direct socio-economic benefits to these communities. This is evidenced by the fact that over 2/3 of the Park has been subject to Land Claims. It is incumbent on us to understand these pressures and to respond to them. For this to happen we have to adapt current thinking and find new ways not only to manage protected areas, but to connect with a broader society, by doing so we will ensure that we become more relevant to the broader population and this will translate into greater willingness for these areas to remain intact for future generations. Conservation or rather, preservation, and purist practices of the past no longer apply in the modern society. We have to acknowledge that.
Recent articles written by scientists and conservationists support this. (Link for download: Resource Lockdown_Game&Hunt_Dec2011.pdf)

The Evolution of Tourism in SANParks
Currently SANParks Manages 22 National Parks and hosts over 4,5 million visitors across these parks annually. The formal establishment of Tourism Division in National Parks was only approved in 1999 and the Tourism pillar in SANParks is now recognized as one of the key pillars ensuring the future sustainability of SANParks. Generating tourism revenue is now an official conservation strategy and policy, and is built into all senior staff key performance areas, and is implemented and monitored through the balanced
scorecard system.
The objective of operating tourism facilities and activities in National Parks is:
1. To supplement limited Government funding in order to fund the core mandate of Bio-diversity Conservation (Only 5 of the 22 Parks are able to provide surplus revenue from tourism operations).
2. To provide the residents of South Africa and visitors from other countries with the opportunity for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, commercial and tourism opportunities within the National Parks system.
3. To ensure that National Parks provide socio-economic benefits and public enjoyment to the communities who reside both in and around these conservation areas.

Legal Mandate, Principles And Values Relevant To Tourism
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
The SANParks mandate is underpinned by Section 24b of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 which states that:
Everyone has the right –
(a) To an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing;
and
(b) To have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that:
i. Prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
ii. Promote conservation; and
iii. Secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
SANParks was initially established in terms of the (now repealed) National Parks Act, 57 of 1976 and continues to exist in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2003; with the mandate to conserve; protect; control; and manage national parks and other defined protected areas and their biological diversity (Biodiversity). As a public entity, SANParks is also governed by the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999 (as amended by Act 29 of 1999), and it is listed as Schedule 3 Part
A: 25 public entity.
SANParks gets its Tourism Mandate from The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (PAA).
Section 17 of the PAA deals with the purpose of a protected area.
17 (i) The purposes of the declaration of areas as protected areas are –
(i) to create or augment destinations for nature-based tourism.
Section 20 of the PAA deals with the declaration of National Parks.
20 (2) (c) A declaration under subsection (1) (a) may only be issued to –
(c) provide spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and
tourism opportunities which are environmentally compatible.

The need for tourism revenue
South African National Parks has, since its inception relied, in some shape or form, on tourism revenue to support its conservation mandate. The Kruger National Park (KNP) has over time become, and still remains, the flagship Conservation and Tourism product offering within the National Parks system.
Visitation to the KNP has grown steadily since the 1920’s. Tourism goes through cycles, and is clear that it is affected by what is happening in society, both domestically and abroad. As demand grew, the Park expanded its tourism offering, this has always been the case from when the first facilities were developed in the late 1920’s. Each time a new development took place there was an outcry from certain quarters of society. Historically there were no EIA processes to ensure public participation or sound environmental
management practices Today we are subject to legislation in this regard.
There has always been a steady growth in visitation. At no point in the past has this been capped. There has instead been an attempt to manage peak periods through a gate quota system. The quota system is based on a ratio of cars per km of road available in a specific area.
From an experiential point of view, the question is; what is too busy? The answer to this is a very subjective one. It is almost always founded on individual beliefs and expectation, and not on well-researched scientific models. There is currently no sound scientific method that can determine carrying capacity or experience. The answer, we believe, is in taking a different approach to visitor management. This would require a deeper understanding of tourist demand and expectation. We need to clearly understand what tourists do, where they do it, and for how long they do it. This would allow both the design of facilities and the deployment of resources to be more effective.
This would also require a different approach to the historic and current ‘do it yourself’ approach. Currently the total development footprint in the Kruger National Park is 0.20 percent. This leaves tremendous scope for responsible product diversification and development.

Facts regarding the Safari Lodge development at Malelane:
• The Safari Lodge is not intended to be 5-star. A 4-star hotel is envisaged at Malelane aimed at the domestic market.
• A park-and-ride system is required, that will mean visitors will park at the gate and be transported on a shuttle service to the hotel. All activities will be guided.
• The facility will be using the same source water as did the Malelane Sun (Crocodile River). However the operator is contractually bound to a water consumption target, as well as other conservation and responsible tourism related targets, something that we cannot manage if the hotel is not on state land.
• The current Concession Lodges are indeed experiencing difficult trading conditions. The Game Lodge Market at large is feeling the pressure and this is due to the recession, specifically in source markets. SANParks are working with our partners to ensure that they get through this downward cycle. SANParks on the other hand, focuses on the domestic market and is currently achieving occupancies in excess of 70 percent nationally whilst Kruger on its own is achieving annual room occupancies of between 75
percent and 80 percent.
SANParks currently provides over 85 percent of its operational funding from its tourism operations. Internationally we are recognized for this model, and in fact National Parks in other countries including the USA are looking at the South African model as a way to combat government funding cutbacks. I believe that we have to continue to diversify our product offering according to the demands of the broader population, provide more direct socio economic benefits, thereby ensuring more relevance to broader population and in the long term achieve the objective of biodiversity conservation.
Glenn Phillips,
05 December 2011.

AIKONA representative Allan Eccles commented as follows – Ed.

It is contended that the two upmarket hotels proposed for the Kruger National Park are contrary to the intent and spirit of the guidelines of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Protected Areas Act.
It is contended that the principles and several of the clauses of the National Environmental Management Act have been breached with regard to the proposed Malelane hotel and the conference centre at Skukuza.
It is contended that the commercialisation policy is invalid, if not illegal, due to the lack of stakeholder endorsement via public consultation / participation, as prescribed by the National Environmental Management Act. Fear exists that there are no limits or restrictions to the commercialisation programme.
The arguments raised in this document represent the contributions that I have consistently made towards the debate. They do not consider questions or arguments related to development footprints, infrastructure, services or environmental issues. These aspects are expected to be addressed by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and will be responded to once this process has been concluded.
The focus of the arguments has revolved around the questions of;
(a) compliance with the two acts involved, i.e. the Protected Areas Act and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA);
(b) whether the State is abrogating its financial responsibility towards SANParks with its real or threatened withdrawal of the annual grant towards the operational budget and
(c) the potential threats of the proposed developments to the intrinsic wilderness attributes of the KNP.

The decision to embark on a primarily commercialisation route with upmarket hotels and conference centres, in contrast to a strictly naturefocused approach, has been adopted without any or, at most, minimal public consultation.
In the case of the proposed hotel developments SANParks has been elusive and unwilling to be involved in vigorous, open public debate on the issue.
Important information of particular relevance to the hotels, in particular, and tourism development plans for the Kruger Park, in general, has also been withheld. This is based on the following:
Between April and December 2010 four requests for meetings to discuss the hotel issues were either turned down, the first by Dr Mabunda, the following three, all to Mr Glenn Phillips to whom Dr Mabunda referred me, totally ignored and no response received.
Three appeals that the hotel issue be opened to a broader public debate, submitted before the commissioning of the EIA, and subsequent to the initiation of the scaled-down EIA, were ignored (no response, yes or no, received). Mr Phillips considered the EIA process adequate.
The fact is that the EIA process commenced some six months after the Malelane project had been awarded to a developer. No EIA has, as yet, has been commissioned for the Skukuza hotel.
Some requested information regarding the projects was received from SANParks. In some cases the information was fragmentary while additional requests in December 2010 and January 2011 have received no response.
Responses to questions on what projects are in the pipeline for the Kruger Park have been tentative, inadequate or simply lacking.

Allan Eccles

[Lisbeth]

Strange how SanParks can't control water usage and other environmental issues unless the hotel is within the park, but they signed an agreement to do just that for the coal mine at Mupungubwe which is just outside the park.
These people say what they want for the moment without any consistency what so ever
What credibility does this give them and how can we believe any of the lies that continue to flow.

• The current Concession Lodges are indeed experiencing difficult trading conditions. The Game Lodge Market at large is feeling the pressure and this is due to the recession, specifically in source markets. SANParks are working with our partners to ensure that they get through this downward cycle. SANParks on the other hand, focuses on the domestic market and is currently achieving occupancies in excess of 70 percent nationally whilst Kruger on its own is achieving annual room occupancies of between 75 percent and 80 percent.

They admit to the fact that there are already occupancy problems in the more upmarket forms of accommodation. No normal person would then attempt to errect more of these accommodation types, knowing that they will find great difficult to put bums in beds. Unless of course, one or two individuals stand to make a fair amount of money on the side line. The reason they are still getting, what they claim to be 75-80% occupancy, is that the accommodation is still fairly affordable to those on a tight budget. They can bull shit some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time!

Is he implying that the lodges cater to the international market and the camps cater to the domestic market. If so their hotel will be just another lodge which will cater to the international market, already a business bust.
I think Sanparks' upper echelons have lost touch with reality, just because they earn huge incomes they seem to think that the general population in SA does as well. Who out of the domestic market will fill these beds other than a few fat cats who generally speaking, don't give a damn for wild places.

Mr Phillips answer suggests that the concession lodges occupancy is adversely effected by the current economic downturn , I have heard that ever since their opening they have never experienced financially viable occupancy rates .

Building a 4 star hotel or two in Kruger for the domestic market
surely must mean that the income gap is broadening dramatically
with those being able to afford the luxury accommodation and the local
communities which supposingly profit because they get employment.
(It almost sounds as if all poor people living adjecent to the park would
win...) Seeing iNdlovu's comment this is obviously not the case. And yet
again SANParks snubs potential international visitors by targeting
the national market. Not very clever...

Other than that serval and Sprocky took the words out of my mouth.

Quite right Mel, this whole job creation angle is laughable. What the heck is 300 jobs going to do for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people surrounding Kruger, and those same 300 people, if not more, would have the same jobs if the hotel was built on Mejajane Trust land.

Two things,
- Phillips put the land claim thing prominent in his replay as if the "development" will save the future of this National park. I can't believe this argument, put he the "survival "on the 300 jobs or the popularity of the fun park hotel with the black diamonds.If he want the park to be loved and survived within the local Nkomazi and Nzikazi communities he must have start working already. To this communities Skukuza is a town where you go with a contractor to work or a supplier to deliver.Lions , Leopard' s etc is something they heard of and saw a few times in books. Out of the 15 people I have contact (in a day to day situation) only two know what a Impala is.They never had the chance to learn more or see more of the Kruger.Mr Phillips you must start to sell the park to the population and not the government,politicians and black diamonds.You can start at Numbi gate.Ask the curio artist how many of the animals that he cut he OR his children saw , oh! and also do a study how sustainable is his supply of wood.
-Can somebody get the real occupancy figures of Singita(2011) ,then we can give it to SanParks. It seems to me they work on hearsay.

Ja! The 2/3rd Land Claims story is a hot excuse for Sanparks suddenly, but is highly debatable!

Found out a couple of days ago that Kruger was not surveyed as "farms", in the sense that Land claims are investigated/administered these days, which makes decisions difficult and subjective according to the post-Apartheid system.