Costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good Mandate

Information and Discussions on Management Issues in SANParks
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany

Costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good Mandate

Post by Klipspringer » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:21 am

An interesting tender document

https://www.sanparks.org/groups/tenders ... vation.php
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of these terms of reference (ToR) is to invite prospective professional service
providers to submit a quotation to render the costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public
Good Mandate to be used as a basis for SANParks’ engagement with its Shareholder and
National Treasury.
2. BACKGROUND
South African National Parks (SANParks) is the main custodian of the country’s biodiversity
heritage. Under the Protected Areas Act, SANParks functions as a state-owned entity
mandated to conserve South Africa’s biodiversity, land- and seascapes together with
associated heritage assets through its system of national parks. SANParks manages 21
national parks in seven of the nine provinces, with a total area of just over 4 million hectares
comprising 67% of the protected area under state management. SANParks a Schedule 3A
Public Entity, as per the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA). The system for funding
of national parks under SANParks management authority is relatively simple; the
Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries commits a budget allocation amount to
SANParks as part of its Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and transfers a
lumpsum (i.e. government appropriation) to SANParks annually. This MTEF allocation
includes various additional sources of government funding available from DEFF, i.e. the
Infrastructure Investment and Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) funding.
Furthermore, SANParks is able to generate its own revenue through mainly tourism
originating from providing accommodation, game drives, walking trails and other amenities
to tourists.
The suit of environmental legislation imposes obligations on Management Authorities which
result in higher costs and inefficiencies due to factors impacting parks’ expenditure such as
(a) designation as a World Heritage Site; (b) presence of nearby communities, (c) coverage
of alien invasive species and (d) degree of fire threat. Generally, compensation of
employees is the largest cost item in the management of national parks. National Parks that
protect endangered or high-value fauna and flora or include marine protected areas are
more expensive per hectare than those that do not. Greater tourism activity increases costs
even when controlling for park size. Besides aging infrastructure and equipment, therefore
parks with more infrastructure and equipment have higher running costs. As such, the ability
of SANParks to generate tourism revenue is dependent on its appeal to tourists, its
accessibility, and on whether the appropriate infrastructure and equipment is in place and
adequately maintained. The funds which SANParks receive from the DEFF Expanded
Public Works Programme (EPWP) is conditional grant fund appropriated to specific projects
which aim to help reduce poverty through employment creation and skills development
opportunities in the environmental sector. The above results into SANParks with an
underfunded conservation mandate and undertaking specific public good functions but do
not receive funds from nationally raised revenues in order to fulfil these functions.
SANParks is now seeking a complete costing of its conservation and public good mandate
to effectively execute its responsibility, and the resultant financial implications on the
organisation.
3. SCOPE OF WORK
The successful bidder will be required to demonstrate what the cost of SANParks’
conservation and public good mandate truly is. This costing focuses on the Conservation
and Socio-Economic Transformation mandate only and includes the following aspects:
 What is the adequate personnel (number, expertise) required for different type and
sizes of park, bearing in mind ecosystem and species management;
 Focus on terrestrial and marine conservation and the Socio-Economic
Transformation obligations;
 Implementation of required park management activities;
 What is the cost of compliance for a public sector entity;
 What is the infrastructure requirements and equipment requirements;
 Management, planning, research and monitoring cost of a growing conservation
estate;
 Operational support requirements.
The scope of costing the conservation and public good mandate gives rise to the following:
a. Legislative review of cost implications as imposed by the National Environmental
Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA) (Act 57 of 2003), the National
Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) (Act 10 of 2004), and Public
Financial Management Act (PFMA).
b. Institutional review of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good mandate
c. Identification of relevant strategic objectives and operational activities required to
execute SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good mandate
6
d. Situational analysis
i. Summary of findings pertained to its current cost status quo
ii. Identification of underfunded aspects of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good
mandate
e. Demonstration of financial shortfalls in SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good
mandate.
f. Links to other sources of funding affecting SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good
mandate
g. Recommendations
i. Recommended changes to the implementation of SANParks’ underfunded
Conservation and Public Good mandate
ii. Recommendations for financial mechanisms to address SANParks’ underfunded
Conservation and Public Good mandate
Bidders are accordingly invited to provide SANParks with:
 a proposal of how the bidder would provide the required Costing of the Conservation and
Public Good Mandate accompanied by a project plan; and
 a fee arrangement/cost estimate that the bidder would require to render the services for
this project.
https://www.sanparks.org/docs/groups_te ... erence.pdf

https://tenderbulletins.co.za/files/Ter ... 283%29.pdf

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 63011
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good Mandate

Post by Lisbeth » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:18 am

That's quite a mandate :shock: and a new one :-?

Maybe better if they do not throw too much money into the wind like last year :twisted:

Or does Sanparks want to have an excuse for all the new developments :-? Maybe it would have been better not to build the Skukuza Lodge O**

Does someone know why they are doing this?
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge

User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 76070
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT

Re: Costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good Mandate

Post by Richprins » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:19 am

i. Recommendations for financial mechanisms to address SANParks’ underfunded
Conservation and Public Good mandate


That is all one needs to know. In other words, how to create money using community development as an excuse. O**

SP unilaterally dream up their mandates then dream up machinations around them. All while conservation and maintenance suffers. Note the reference to marine life, this refers to fishing quotas in national parks, I think.
Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 63011
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good Mandate

Post by Lisbeth » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:23 am

Yes, I was wondering about that. There are no more fish :no:

Is it "underfunded" or is that only an excuse?
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge

User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 76070
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT

Re: Costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good Mandate

Post by Richprins » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:39 am

SP have been underfunded since before the new government took over. That has always excluded gigantic infrastructure projects, paid for separately by govt., like camps, roads, dams etc. So more in reference to salaries. Now salaries are high and employees are unproductive as much is outsourced, as with all SOE's. And money is running out or being stolen.

Also all government institutions have explicit instructions to advance the aims of the ruling party. :O^
Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596

User avatar
Lisbeth
Global Moderator
Posts: 63011
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: Costing of SANParks’ Conservation and Public Good Mandate

Post by Lisbeth » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:44 am

The whole way of thinking and doing of the ruling class need to be altered!
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge

Return to “General Management Issues - SANParks”