iNdlovu wrote:Besides the obvious impact on endagered plants, birds etc, it's just plain crazy to expect an extra 350 rooms or 700 beds not to have an impact on an already grossly overcrowded southern section of the park. How can the CEO of SanParks say this won't have an effect. The impact of this alone will have a major effect on the animals, & birds in the area. Imagine the traffic jams at sightings, it's bad enough already.
General Information & Discussion on Hotels in Kruger
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 11:58 am
- Country: South Africa
- Location: Lowveld, South Africa
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 64105
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
Sprocky wrote:With our input, they might not be too late to learn.
joekin wrote:Mabunda seems to be the brick wall and representing the whole sanparks.
I read that they had decided to move the hotel 2km from the river front. so why just not have it outside, why does it need to be inside the park.
Flutterby wrote:@Joekin...why do you think.....so that Mabunda & friends can benefit from it!!
Lisbeth wrote:Since Dr. Mabunda became Ceo of sanparks, he has been working towards a further tourist development in the parks and obviously backed by the government this has been judged the right moment.
I wonder which came first, the reduction in support from the state or the plan for a tourist development on a larger scale :?:
lowveldboy wrote:Lisbeth - You will get 2 answers to that question
1. The official answer
2. the truth.
and they will be different. Speculation as to which is which, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.
Lisbeth wrote:Mine are only speculations, but we will never know will we?
In this place I hope the speculations are allowed, if not too far fetched :? I only have Dr. Mabunda's thesis as prove and it is only a circumstantial one
Wild Dreamer wrote:Just a general observation about what hit me so hard I reeled with shock:
Yesterday as I was pondering the whole infuriating business of the proposed Malelane Safari Resort, the pictures of the lay-out of it which were submitted for public viewing, flitted through my mind. Two or three pretty looking bungalows developed to blend in with nature etc. etc. - and then the shock came: THERE ARE GOING TO BE 240 ROOMS OF THEM!!!!
A HUGE piece of Kruger's stunning fauna and flaura is going to be hacked away!!!
It was the first time the full truth blasted me so hard!
Edit: 240 beds
Wild Dreamer wrote:And they keep on hammering away on the hotels being in support of the poor rural communities, far more on that than on the preservation of our heritage. How many of the tens of thousands of these people will really benefit? Trading that for as many of them losing their jobs at lodges, guesthouses, B&B's etc. in Malelane and surrounds because of fewer visitors, who will probably prefer to be right in Kruger itself.
And in the whole process our beloved wilderness must pay the price.
Why not simply enlarge and upgrade existing camps a bit to generate SANParks income? It will be much, much, much cheaper.
There MUST be money exchanging hands here, otherwise the whole scenario does not make any sense!
Flutterby wrote:I think the only ones who will reap any benefit from these monstrosities will be the top brass!!
Lisbeth wrote:Please, do not let us start all the speculations again. It is too easy denigrate someone who cannot defend himself/themselves. If you do not have something substantial please refrain from hinting corruption or plain stealing. This does not mean that I do not agree with you on many of these issues, but it will just be a repetition of what was already said on the Sanparks forum.
BTW, I have one too.....Sanparks has an account in Switzerland....What would they need that one for???
Tshukudu wrote:Look who's stirring the pot now :lol:Lisbeth wrote: BTW, I have one too.....Sanparks has an account in Switzerland....What would they need that one for???
lowveldboy wrote:Lis with information like that I can only but wonder!!! Unfortunately staying in this country, where corruption is "encouraged", leaves one with little but to wonder and speculate!! The sad truth.
Lisbeth wrote:Tshukudu, that is a fact! A receit for a payment to Sanparks, came from a Swiss bank and when interrogated why, the answer was, that they needed a foreign bank when they received payments in foreign currency.
lowveldboy wrote:SANPARKS open themselves up too speculation and attack, through actions like these that just don't make sense. Whether it is miscommunication, bad communication, deliberate or not - they should really start asking themselves why they are being attacked like this. Then again, maybe they don't care. :roll:
guest wrote:Here below is an extract from the SANPARKS - Radison Blu Malelane Safari Resort fact sheet:
Please read through it, amazing how wonderful it all looks.
The bold script at the end is mine.
2. RADISSON BLU SAFARI RESORT KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
2.1 After the Malelane Sun burnt down on 22 May 2007, SANParks saw this as an opportunity to provide a similar product but across the Crocodile River inside the Kruger National Park and for the following reasons:
2.1.1 Location: The facility to be built within the KNP and this could be done according to the best environmental practice, as currently applies to private operators within national parks.
2.1.2 The same water resource would be utilized, whether the facility lies south or north of the Crocodile River.
2.1.3 Guests would still essentially use the same or similar facilities in the vicinity, namely the golf facilities in the area as well as the Park for leisure, as they did at Malelane Sun.
2.2 The R125m to be spent on the Safari Resort at Malelane will attract more of the growing black middle class. The annual spending power of SA’s 3- million or so black middle-class citizens (up from 2-million in 2005) was estimated at R237bn last year, down from an estimated high of R250bn in 2008. The black middle class had a combined spending power of 34% of all consumers — SA’s 34-million adults. Attracting more middle-class blacks was one of SANParks’ three focus areas for the park. The others were continuing to serve the park’s traditionally largely white domestic market — which was more attracted to self-catering accommodation — and the international mark. About 30% (of domestic market) of the park’s visitors are black, although less than 10% of overnight domestic visitor are black.. Market research showed the majority of SA’s black middle class wanted full-service resort-type accommodation.
2.3 SANParks has no intention of harming its "impeccable" record of upholding the highest environmental ethics by planning for the Kruger National park the type of Safari Resort that would harm its ecology or ambience. This Safari Resort will bear the hallmark of environmental sensitiveness as opposed to the bling of multi-storied, neon lights of city hotels.
2.4 The tender to build and operate the development went to a consortium that was predominantly South African and included a 20% holding by a
community trust on a 30-year concession, with 6% of turnover going to
2.5 The International Union for Conservation of Nature guideline for
infrastructure development in a reserve was 10% of the total area, and the park had so far developed 6285ha (0,3%) including roads and staff
accommodation. SANParks had no intention to develop the park even to the 10% threshold.
2.6 Diversification of product - Currently, visitors can either book the self
catering, very basic and affordable accommodation or the ultra luxurious
private lodge accommodation. The Kruger Park does not cater for the middle ground. More and more holiday makers would like to be comfortable and catered for and this development will provide just that. SANParks had spent R1,9bn for park infrastructure over the past five years, but had not yet catered for visitors who wanted hotel-style accommodation. The park had an occupancy rate which, although seasonal, ran at an average of 79,4% in 2009- 10. This was much higher than the national average of 50% to 60%.
2.7 Job creation & Stimulation of local economy - Local businesses will have the opportunity to supply produce and services to this Safari Resort. The development will also increase SANParks’ total employment to 11000.
According to estimates, this Safari Resort will provide around 230 additional jobs to two very poor neighbouring communities. This excludes the workforce needed for the construction.
2.8 It is expected - The international visitors are accustomed to resort-style accommodation in national parks around the world, and expect the same when visiting the Kruger National Park.
2.9 Increased revenue will aid conservation - It is a known fact that where nature, whether it is a rock or a piece of land or an animal, is in high demand, it is protected because it has commercial value.
2.10 Possible public/scheduled transport to KNP – SANParks believes that the increased number of visitors and visitors without their own transport will initiate scheduled transport to KNP, at least to Malelane. These facilities will not be self-driving, but will be driven in safari vehicles. The new facilities are not going to add to the human footprint and congestion on the park’s roads. Visitor quotas for the gates will remain the same.
2.11 Accessible and affordable scheduled safaris - According to the plans,
scheduled safaris will be available to visitors, giving them the benefit of
excellent local guides. They will not otherwise become aware of all the
interesting facts of all the fauna, flora and history of the Kruger National
2.12 What matters is not the type of accommodation provided but how it is crafted to match environmental ethos and how visitors will be managed.
2.13 The public participation stage is underway and an independent service provider is conducting the EIA in terms of the law and members of the public is invited to submit objections if they have.
3. BIDDING PROCESS
On 31 May 2009, via national, provincial and local media, SANParks initiated a solicited transparent PPP Tender process for the Malelane Hotel Development. The following media was used:
•Sunday Times – 31 May 2009
•City Press – 31 May 2009
•Business Day – 1 June 2009
•Sowetan – 2 June 2009
•Lowvelder – 5 June 2009
This involved the Qualification of Interested Parties based on their operational experience and financial prerequisites by compliance to certain requirements and criteria as set forth in the Request for Proposals document. In addition, under the terms of the Request for Proposals document, Bidders had to submit their Technical Bids, which would be evaluated and scored by the Bid Evaluation Committees, before the
opening of the Financial Offers. The Technical Bids include BEE, Business and Operational Plan, Capital and Financing, Risk Transfer and Development and Environmental Proposals.
Bidders that showed interest and attended the Bidders Conference:
•Elephant Lake Hotel
3 Bids were received as follows:
•Secprop Leisure Consortium
•Malelane Hotel & Resort t/a Enticron
•Buffalo Nare Consortium
The sealed Financial Offers were separated from the Technical Submissions and kept in safekeeping. The Technical Submissions were evaluated by the various Bid Evaluation Committees on the 25th November 2009.
4. BID EVALUATION COMMITTEES
The Bid Evaluation Committees were made up as follows:
4.1 Business and Operational Plan
•Giju Varghese - Head Business Development
•Lucy Nhlapo – Head Tourism KNP
•James Daniels - Project Manager Business Development
4.2 Development and Environmental Plan
•Blake Schraader – Head Technical Services KNP
•Antionet van Wyk – General Manager Special Infrastructure Projects
4.3 BEE Plan
•Edgar Neluvhalani – General Manager People & Conservation
•Chris Patton – Project Manager Business Development
4.4 Capital and Finance Plan/Risk Transfer
•Dirk Fourie – General Manager Finance
•Justin Daniels – Senior Manager Finance
•Annetjie Drent – Senior Manager Finance
4.5 Process Management and Legal Compliance
•Annemi van Jaarsveld – General Manager Business Development &
•Ibraheem Dockrat – Credit Controller PPP Projects
5. WINNING CONSORTIUM
The winning consortium was Secprop Leisure Consortium. The consortium has undergone changes since the award and is now named Malelane Safari Resort Investments (Pty) Ltd. The shareholding as follows:
5.1 20% - Community Trust;
5.2 10% - Siyazi Management Consultants CC (sole member, Mr. Senzo
Tsabedze, a BEE businessman residing in Mbombela);
5.3 20% - RHW Joint Venture Ltd. (SA subsidiary of Rezidor – owned 74% by Rezidor Hotel Group of Brussels and 26% by Mvelaphanda Holdings Ltd);
5.4 20% - Afriliance Management Ltd (an offshore financing company); and 5.5 30% - Secprop 118 Investments (Pty) Ltd.
The Chairperson of SANPARKS Mr Kuseni Dlamini, is a Director of Mevelaphanda Holdings, who also have a finger in the pie with Coal doing the mining at Mapungubwe.
Just maybe it would surprise you to investigate and see who all are Directors of Mvelaphanda.
Richprins wrote:All that happened is that the Minister for water and tourism stated in the press that "media reports" regarding the Malelane hotel being a fact were over hasty, and that her final decision would be entirely subject to the EIA report.
Hence the new EIA.
She's probably forgotten about it by now, but anyway... :roll:
This and Gerhard's post should maybe be moved to the "hotel discussion" thread!?
Lisbeth wrote:What I do not understand is that the Rezidor part is only 20% and they are always the only partaker mentioned :?
The way the Malelane Safari Resort Investments (Pty) Ltd. is composed makes is necessary to ask at least one question:
The cost of the contruction is supposed to be payed by the the Malelane Safari Resort Investments (Pty) Ltd. How will the Community Trust manage to pay 20% of these costs?? :?
Roan wrote:I agree with all what has been said here. I have being visiting Kruger for many years, as I believe you all have done also. Sadly the south of the park just doesn't do it for me any more and its going to get worse
Let us just keep to the central and northern parts while it last. I can fully understand the reason why sanparks decided to target the south even more:
1) Skukuza is already a town, why not extend the "image" even further, who cares from their view point?;
2) The "Safari Lodge style accommodation" slots perfectly into their plans for their supposedly "target market";
3) taking into account points 1 & 2, what better option did they have at the moment to sell this idea than having it in the south as a start? We all know that the south boost the best chance to "tick off the big 5" and there lies there chance to attract potential visitors the these accommodations. Very clever indeed :roll:
Satara and Olifants are not far off to be targeted ! Both these camps are already far to busy to my liking.
The saddest thing of it all is that they are busy to create a president for the other parks to be will targeted eg. Karoo, Kgalagadi, Addo and in a few years from now we will read the plans :?
What have happened to keep everything simple, most importantly to conserve???
Lisbeth wrote:It does not pay off, RoanRoan wrote: What have happened to keep everything simple, most importantly to conserve???
iNdlovu wrote:The weird thing is that generaly speaking, the "target market" don't give a hoot about seing the big 5 etc, they are looking for a resort/holiday destination
Lisbeth wrote:Nobody really knows what the "Target Market" is, we only know what they say it is
Notification of Change in EAP from V&L 6.10.2011 - Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:59 pm
Lisbeth wrote:Dear Registered Interested and Affected Party
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A HOTEL AT THE CONFLUENCE OF THE TIMFENHENI AND CROCODILE RIVERS WITHIN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK (MALELANE) – MPUMALANGA PROVINCE
DEA Reference Number 12/12/20/610/1/69
Please find the attached notification for your information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at any stage should you require additional information or clarity.
Thank you for your continued participation in this process.
My warmest regards,
V&L Landscape Architects
(Attached PDF Document)
Dear Registered Interested and Affected Parties
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A HOTEL AT THE
CONFLUENCE OF THE TIMFENHENI AND CROCODILE RIVERS WITHIN THE KRUGER NATIONAL
PARK (MALELANE) – MPUMALANGA PROVINCE
We would hereby like to inform you that V&L Landscape Architects (V&L) have been appointed by
Malelane Safari Resort Investments (Pty) Ltd, to undertake the remainder of the Environmental
Assessment Process for the proposed hotel development in the Malelane area of the Kruger
Interdesign Landscape Architects are no longer the Environmental Assessment Practitioners for
this project and V&L will now be responsible for the following scope of work in accordance with
– Undertake a complete handover of all information, stakeholder databases, stakeholder
comments and all existing work done on the project thus far by Interdesign Landscape
– Amend the existing Final Scoping Report to address comments presented by Interested and
Affected Parties (I&AP’s) and the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA);
– Submit the Final Scoping Report for Public comment before submitting the report to the
– Co-ordinate required specialist studies as agreed upon by the DEA;
– Undertake a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, inclusive of all I&AP
– Submit Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report for Public Comment;
– Amend the Environmental Impact Assessment Report to address all I&AP comments before
submitting the document to the DEA for their decision making processes.
V&L have captured the details of all I&AP’s who registered previously with Interdesign Landscape
Architects, along with their comments and concerns. Therefore I&AP’s do not need to re-register
or re-submit previous comments.
We are currently amending the Scoping Report with updated information and the report will be
made available for public comment early in November 2011. Specific details of this will be provided
to you timeously.
We would like to thank you for your continued participation in this process. As Independent
Environmental Practitioners, V&L welcomes I&AP’s to contact us at any stage for additional
information or to comment on the proposed development.
Lead Environmental Assessment Practitioner
V&L Landscape Architects
Mel wrote:I stand to be corrected, but this change has been made
quite some time ago? And they only come up with this notification
today? Fits the bill...
Lisbeth wrote:This has been sent directly from the V&L, not from Sanparks.
The above has been send to me as "Registered Interested".
Mel wrote:I might have read it on the other forum, not here.
Can't remember. :oops:
But I do remember that this has been discussed
before. Hence I 'wonder' about the tardiness of this
Lisbeth wrote:The ILA informed me on the 28th August that they had been substituted by another company regarding the EIA process.