Comments on Kruger management Plan 2018/2028

[H. erectus]

Thanks RP and Rog,..For once I can clearly read
the content!!The overhead slideshow projectors
are never clear to read in these boardrooms.

[Richprins]

Ja, thanks to Andre!

This was my 4th SP meeting in less than a year, and I found enthusiasm to have dampened fro attendees a bit. One gets the impression that there is still little trust regarding the motives and integrity of SP top brass, and that these are largely PR exercises.

HOWEVER, there was quite some feedback regarding the number of meetings that have taken place with communities in this same vein, many of them indeed, and this is a good thing!

Any more specific questions?

[stefan9]

Thank you for the feedback everyone.

[dup]

Good afternoon, I just bring myself into the facts and feelings on how you saw the meeting at White River. These guy's can produce paper and play for time.........and make no mistake every bit of pressure to keep them on track did have a influence...take note their track not identified or specified as their mission and vision ..are just words to keep the paperwork logic, the job need still to be done and that need a lot of sweat, money, integrity against nature and a lot lot more......
p.s.Have to leave early before Q and a (take note small a),work to be done.

[Richprins]

dup! Nice to see you again!

[Lisbeth]

Dup

[PennyinSA]

For what its worth - here is my e mail sent to Sanparks yesterday!
MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW – KRUGER PARK

MANDATE
It would be hoped that the Sanparks role in maintaining the biodiversity of such a magnificent World Heritage Site (which should be declared) such as the Kruger National Park should be excercised using total transparency and accountability. Sadly many South Africans feel that this has not been the case.
It would appear that there has been a lack of political will in many spheres to uphold the ethos of KNP as a place to be trodden on lightly and great respect for the tremendous biodiversity should in the same vein not be taken lightly. This requires extreme environmental conscience and when one gets the perception that commercialisation (money above everything else) becomes the driving force then one has to believe that it is a matter of time before this would be tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Is conservation bowing to commercialisation? There is a plethora of information that there are virtually no legal guarantees that will safeguard the ethos of our Parks and stop them from being over developed. The Kruger National Park’s Mission Statement is “To maintain biodiversity in all its natural facets and fluxes and to provide human benefits in keeping with the mission of the SANP in a manner which detracts as little as possible from the wilderness qualities of the KNP”. This is fully covered by NEMA. Sanparks are bound by the Environment Conservation Acrt (ECA) No. 73 of 1989 as well as the EIA Regulations and Guidelines pertaining to the ECA, and the National Water Act (NWA) (NO. 36 of 1998) AND the National Environmental Management act (NEMA) (No. 107 of 1998 and the National Parks Act (NPA) No. 52 of 1976 and the Principles and Procedures of Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) under NEMA.
This mandate has, in many people’s opinion, been irrevocably changed in complete conflict with itself by the granting of the concessions, the continued barrage of new developments in the form of HUBS, hotels, allowing the culling of buffalo and hippo to show goodwill to communities, all sorts of hair brained schemes from tented camps to the erection of tents to private companies within camps for glamping, to new tarred roads that appear to be forging ahead despite the fact that an initial BAR has not even been completed, to allowing Kruger to be used as a thoroughfare without jurisdiction, to the complete abuse of gates and roads throughout the night, to the labour dispute now playing itself out with a franchise holder who is still operating in KNP but not under the franchise banner, to the protection of wildlife – with specific regard to rhino and elephant.

NEW REGIME
How will the possibility of a totally new government structure in the very near foreseeable future affect Sanpark’s ability to guarantee that the Kruger National Park is kept in as pristine a condition as possible for future generations?

EXCESS ACCOMMODATION AND MAINTENANCE
How will Sanparks deal with all of the accommodation that they will, within the time frame of this management plan, find reverting to them. Please note in this regard that it was legislated at the time of the granting of the concessions that they would only last for 20 years and that there was also no right to renew or right of first refusal. Please also remember that at the time the esteemed Dr. Ian Player believed that these concessions were ill conceived and had grave doubts as to their role in making KNP accessible to ALL South Africans as they were aimed at an elite and extremely upmarket overseas clientele. Much of the accommodation in Kruger Park is in desperate need of constant maintenance not emergency repairs and sadly the pricing structure of the current Sanparks accommodation has put it beyond the realm of most for an affordable bush holiday.

PUBLIC INPUT
This should not be perceived by Sanparks as a token gesture and nor should they see the meetings currently being held as having met due process and that they were now entitled to rubber stamp all commercial planned activities having supposedly followed due process. Given that this due process was NOT followed in the case of the concessions, must we believe that Sanparks will now not take into account the chance for the public as well as specialists in their fields to contest these processes. After an extremely limited and small public participation process the concessions were granted as is and passed with the public hardly being aware that in excess of 100 000 hectares had been signed away to concession holders.

POACHING
There is not a single person in the world who is conservation minded, nor in the hearts of most South Africans, that does not abhor poaching and the relentless killing of our wildlife. This is a scourge that must be fought with full political will and the added commercialisation of the KNP will simply add to this scourge. Already, the usage of gates and the abuse of them and roads throughout the night by concession holders and staff is a major cause for concern. It is doubtful whether Sanparks is in full control as to who is staying in their staff villages, who is driving armed and with dubious intent through their gates and who is setting the thousands of shameful snares that are to be found throughout the Park. The baiting and luring of big cats is a major problem and if not tackled this will damage the integrity of Sanparks as many see the hunting alongside original Park boundaries in the Timbavati and APNR as well as the Greater Frontier Park on the Eastern boundary as nothing more than legal poaching. This has to be stopped. The Park needs to be cleansed from the inside out and Sanparks needs to be at the forefront of doing this whether it be in the form of increased boots on the ground, cutting cell phone signals, lifestyle audits, lie detector tests, sniffer dogs that are utilised in staff camps in surprise raids and any other tool in their armoury. This is a war that has to be won!!!!!

FINALLY – OUR FINANCIAL STAKE
Not only are we concerned stakeholders but many of us who have been loyal to Sanparks have spent in excess of HALF A MILLION RAND, some way more, others less, over our lifetimes to avail ourselves of the spiritual renewal and awakening that Kruger affords everyone.

Please do not let South Africans down in your endeavour to commercialise KNP – it’s the most tranquil place on earth according to the civet!

IS LIFE TRANQUIL ASKS THE CIVET?
ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LIVE IT!
AND TO THIS RHETORIC QUESTION,
I MUST POSE YOU A SUGGESTION!
THOUGH THE QUESTION IS ABSORBING,
SO THE ANSWER IS REWARDING!
TO BE TRANQUIL IS NOT EASY!
LIFES’ NOT ALWAYS BRIGHT AND BREEZY!
TRY TO LIVE IT LIKE THE CIVET
TRY TO LOVE IT
AND TO LIVE IT!

Thank You
Penny Legg

[Lisbeth]

Excellent, Peggy

You have managed to touch all the delicate and sensitive questions and all the problems that so many of us are concerned about.

[Lisbeth]

I'm struggling to get through this document for now, but have seen what is important.

A Draft Response:

We are once again concerned that a plan of this incredible magnitude and global importance has been released very quietly, with no media release and request for stakeholder feedback other than for existing participants.

Upon review, it is of concern that the main priority of Kruger remains commercial in nature, followed by political. Conservation comes in a poor third or fourth, with the maintenance of biodiversity first being mentioned on page 56 as a primary function.

We utterly dispute that moneymaking should be a primary concern of Kruger. Similarly, socio-political upliftment and the addressing of land claims are political issues beyond the ambit of SANParks, an organisation established for conservation purposes. There are huge National Departments that deal with these issues, and it is entirely unwaranted for conservationists to be spuriously tasked with the above.

In the same vein, we find the gist of the preamble to the Plan to be sanctimonious and condescending regarding the Mission and Vision of SANParks, and thereby Kruger. Basically it is a case of 243 pages of stating what has been decided and that is how it will be. We are under no illusions, from past experience, that this public participation process will be a rubber-stamp affair, as little mention is made of concerns raised at high levels over the previous ten years other then them being incorporated in a pre-concluded fashion.

The Strategic Adaptive Management approach that has been taken is fundamentally flawed here in the sense that the outcomes have been pre-ordained, thereby pre-empting the consultation process. Telling is the fact that existing planned improvements will continue and no new ones after that in the Southern Section. Said improvements are truly massive in scale and warrant a ten-year expansion programme on their own.

Furthermore, while offensive terms such as "purist", "fortress conservation" and "Western Noses" (foreign opinions on Kruger management) are thankfully absent in the Mission, the general attitude of certain stakeholders' interests being elevated above those of others patently remains, apparently on a racial basis. This is unacceptable given the fact that despite various initiatives, and for various reasons, Kruger's source of income largely remains the reliable middle class white tourist. It is a simple fact.

More importantly, in the current climate of rampant corruption in South Africa, coupled with economic failure, we find continued investment of taxpayers' money (be it by SANParks or Ministries) into various extremely expensive capital ventures in Kruger to be extremely imprudent to say the least. We conservatively estimate the cost of said ventures to be in the range of R2 000 000 000, with little scientifically-researched justification and little chance of recoupment within the 10-year framework given. While projects such as the R260 000 000 Skukuza Conference Lodge are in progress and have been approved, that does not mean that they do not set a very serious precedent for the future, especially regarding privatisation of taxpayer assets, an acknowledged possible outcome.

Similarly, financial red flags are raised regarding the implementation of an 11.3% increase in Conservation Levy due to rhino poaching, and generally dubious financial statements indicating a shortfall in budget while a profit is simultaneously claimed.

More specifically regarding conservation, there is a lack of significant appraisal of the elephant overpopulation question. This is the most important problem faced by Kruger regarding biodiversity, and is being ignored for anthropomorphic reasons. It is ironic that sustained culling of elephant would arguably solve the protein deficiency needs of all impoverished communities in the Kruger area, if not the subcontinent, thereby fulfilling all the socio-political mandates that SANParks have ascribed to themselves.

In the short term we request that all tourist infrastructure development in Kruger Park, both current and future, be placed on hold pending Parliamentary Scrutiny.

Africa Wild

Have you sent the above? Time is running!

[Flutterby]

Well done Penny!