"Answers" finally from Sanparks re Hotels... - Tue Sep 20th

General Information & Discussion on Hotels in Kruger
User avatar
Committee Member
Posts: 77238
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm

"Answers" finally from Sanparks re Hotels... - Tue Sep 20th

Post by Richprins » Mon May 21, 2012 12:54 pm

Richprins wrote:This from the other forum today...

Below, the first set of questions that SANParks has responded to. They are working on the others. Linked, also find facts sheets on both properties.

How would the ecological footprint of this development compare with that of the existing camps in Kruger National Park, perhaps most interestingly with its neighbouring camps, nl. Berg en Dal, and Biyamiti?

This camp development incorporates more contemporary conservation management methods as compared to our older camps.

2. Interesting notes would include, the physical size and practices regarding water and waste management as well as the amount of traffic generated by the various camps.

Please see Prof van Riet’s presentation on web. link

3. Is this a purely Sanparks initiation, or are there other "stake/shareholders" on board?

Why is this question asked? Suggesting that SANParks does not take public participation seriously? Or is the question asking if a particular group was asked? We find it very strange!
Irrespective, Yes and public participation is at different levels:
a. We are a state institution – representing the majority of South African voters;
b. Commercialization is a SA Parliament approved program;
c. Park Management Plans incorporate Commercialization that is accessible to the public;
d. The Malelane Safari Lodge undertook a public tender process as described by the SA National Treasury;
e. EIA processes currently underway requires public participation.

4. What checks and balances are in place to facilitate transparency?

Process are required by the government for transparency. Hence an independent EIA process.

5. What is government's role in this? Do they have to give final approval of any contractual agreements?

Again, processes as required by the SA govt appointed National Treasury requirements are met.

6. Dr Mabunda refers to the Malelane development as a ‘Safari Lodge with hotel facilities’ aimed at the ‘Black Diamonds’ , the Scoping report refers to The Malelane Hotel development being a 4-star product, focused on conferences and with average rates of approximately R1300 per person per night. Is this development merely another Conference facility? Do we really need another conference facility in these stringent economic times?

It is a safari lodge with conference facilities – yes we do need a conference facility like that at Berg-en-Dal and Mopani. SANParks tourism numbers are not affected negatively.

7. What is the occupancy of the Conference Centre at Skukuza and does it warrant the development of a hotel in the Skukuza?

The occupancy for a newly built conference center is irrelevant. What is important is that even without a conference center, Skukuza is running on very high occupancies.

8. What is the type and size of conference bookings?

Type of conference facility – do not understand the question.
Size, the conference facility at Skukuza seat 500+ delegates and there are breakaway facilities.
9. Are more hotels/ safari lodges in the KNP, part of the KNP short/long term tourism development plan? If so how many?

Not currently.

10. In which areas are they possibly being considered for?

“ “

11. How many beds will be on offer?

Skukuza – 300 of the 4000 beds in the KNP.

12. Will these hotels/safari lodges also offer 24/7 access, if no decision about this had been made, what would SANPARKS stance be about this?

Yes, with a park and drive – again all details are in Prof van Riet’s presentation on the web.

13. Is the privatization of the KNP rest camps being considered, if so why?

No, but we would invite your views on such discussions – benefits and risks in a professional, fair and a manner that takes all stakeholder views into account.

14. Why were the objections by the KNP Manager of Conservation Services about the Malelane site not respected when the site was decided on by SANPARKS, as per the Scoping report.

Please let us know what objections are you referring to and we will addressed them. As much as we have public participation with the external stakeholders, we are also good at doing the same internally.
15. Why was the site opposite Leopard Creek rejected.

The site next to the Sugar Cane field (pauses*) no more environmental damage.

16. What are SANPARKS plans to provide more affordable overnight accommodation to those who would love to visit our Park and cannot afford to do so.

With South Africa having a high unemployment rate, and with the majority of our citizens not allowed to take part in the politics, economy or enjoyment of the Kruger National Park amongst various other essential services, we will not be in a position to provide even more affordable accommodation to the vast majority of our citizens. All suggestions are invited from yourselves on how all South Africans will be able to benefit from the Kruger National Park that has been so many years been reserved for the enjoyment of the fraction of the population of this great country.
Richprins wrote:I don't know what genius provided these sarcastic answers, but they are a condescending slap in the face, if you ask me!

The occupancy for a newly built conference center is irrelevant

preceded by:

yes we do need a conference facility like that at Berg-en-Dal

O/ O/ O/ O/

And the Leopard Creek site was moved to sugar cane fields!?!?!?

(Glad I'm banned, and even more scared at Sanparks' arrogance and incompetence! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: )

User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 64091
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano

Re: "Answers" finally from Sanparks re Hotels... - Tue Sep 2

Post by Lisbeth » Mon May 21, 2012 12:56 pm

Lisbeth wrote:RP, I was just about to post a link, but a few would not be able to read it \O

Those answers must have been translated ( badly) from another language :? Look at the last one :shock:
Sprocky wrote:Is this where KNP is headed??? O/ With answers like this...let me say no more. :evil: What a waste of time!! :evil:

I was speaking to a senior member of the HR's today and asked him how it's going, as I used to be a member. His reply was that it is going well with them, somebody has to look after what happens to the park. Even they are saddened by how the SANParks management are handling things. O/
Lisbeth wrote:Those answers are rude or arrogant as RP says; they could at least have translated them into english!!!
Richprins wrote:The answers were not translated, Lis! :shock:

That's Wanda at her best! O/

So better merge...oh no, we can't! :twisted:

Better copy and paste and delete! :wink:
Tshukudu wrote:All I see is that they are saying nothing O/ O/ No real answers given, just hoping to keep the otherside quiet O/
iNdlovu wrote:
Richprins wrote:4. What checks and balances are in place to facilitate transparency?

Process are required by the government for transparency. Hence an independent EIA process.
Independant EIA process????????? Not anymore, is it not being done by Prof Van Riet's company, since they fired the previous company.
Richprins wrote:Here's the scenario, IMO:

1. Those original questions were put away in file 13 a long time ago.

2. Suddenly, some realised people were actually concerned, and felt cheated by the lack of response, and started complaining and leaving!

3. Mods over there in a corner, while Sanparks top brass smiling all the way to the bank.

4. Mods EVENTUALLY convince someone to attempt answers, and Sanparks also SLOWLY see the problem...

5. Bu&^%t thought up political replies while busy with "more important work"...
Richprins wrote:
iNdlovu wrote: Independant EIA process????????? Not anymore, is it not being done by Prof Van Riet's company, since they fired the previous company.
I sincerely doubt the respondent is even aware of this! O/
Bushcraft wrote:I will post here what I have posted there for those that can't follow what's happening there.

Question:Firstly, thanks for a response, but I have to agree with others above on the tone of the answers.

Are these answers from the SANParks board or from an individual empowered to answer the questions on behalf of the board? After 8 weeks I expected more comprehensive answers to summarized questions.

Answer:Bushcraft, these answers are from people at SANParks empowered to answer them.

The questions were directed to SANParks management, not the Board.

Question:Thanks DB, but who is making the decisions, SANParks management or the SANParks board. Isn't the board is making the development decisions, so surely they should be answering the questions.

Sorry I didn't realize that SANParks management was empowered to answer sensitive questions such as these without board approval.
No answer yet
Flutterby wrote:Did we expect any better? O/ O/
Lisbeth wrote:To tell the truth I had my doubts that they would come. If the next ones are going to be like these, they can just as well not give the answers!

Absolutely nobody is commenting over there :? Only Stark, BC and I have posted.

Sorry, wrong! Gerhard, Jumbo and Salamanda by now. All very polite but also very critical!
Mel wrote:I think that's the first time I got a y0 from a mod... :shock:
This forum here makes me naughty! :twisted: :lol: \O
Sprocky wrote:Jumbo deserves a medal!!! \O
Mel wrote:I have always admired Jumbo's commitment to support all sorts of good causes, but her way with words just leaves me in mere awe. How can one possible be so straight to the point but never (or hardly ever) crossing the line? Pretty 8) ! \O
Richprins wrote:Ja! The whole "speculation" crap rule is now a free license for anything not acceptable!
Mel wrote:
Agreed, RP, I had to sit on my hands not to say exactly that. Any unwanted opinion can be deemed as speculation. :?
Bushcraft wrote:
Mel wrote: Any unwanted opinion can be deemed as speculation. :?
You see :shock: You got the IQ, can I use those words that side :twisted:
Mel wrote:Well, I only got the IQ partly... O/ If I post exactly that, it'll just put more oil into the fire which I think is not worth it as fighting with the mods is not helping our cause.

And, please, don't push me to do any more naughty things in just one day - I have been on the other forum for more than two years and was always so well behaved :twisted:
and now that I scooped some courage from here I get the finger over there almost instantly. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Peter Betts wrote:This is very SAD...we have an unqualified non conservationist making idiotic comments on SANParks behalf...Who was this?? Surely NO ONE from Kruger itself...it must be one of those crony folk??
Richprins wrote:Thread locked at 10:58! -O

The rule maker didn't like the fact that a rule about another rule was deemed unruleworthy....

Clear signs of....

(Now I'n speculating...) :shock:

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Flutterby wrote:Looks like I missed everything...I see the topic is locked and posts have been deleted.....what was everyone saying that led to that?
Lisbeth wrote:Only educated critics of the answers and the tone of who had answered and saying
that some answers were incomprehensive.

The comments are there though. Here!

Return to “General Hotel Discussions, KNP”