Planned Developments in the Kgalagadi - General Discussion

[Toko]

Mel, there are/have been plans for the SA side, as well: Southern Auob Concession with a lodge between Samevloeiing and Houmoed. But I don't know what is the current status of planning

[Toko]

Here is the document: Tourism Development Plan Khomani San Community

Southern Auob Concession

Location & description
The proposed Southern Auob Concession lies in the ‡Khomani San Commercial Preference Zone (V-Zone) along the western fringe of the Auob (including the river valley), roughly between Houmoed and Bobbejaanskop in the north and Samevloeiing in the south. North of Samevloeiing a section of the main road has been diverted out of the river valley. If feasible, this diversion may be extended further north (and possibly west) to establish a viable concession area along the vacated stretch of river. The Auob River forms the concession’s eastern boundary; its western, southern and northern boundaries should be defined during the scoping exercise referred to below.
An alternative location for the concession is the wedge of land between the Auob and Nossob Rivers north of Samevloeiing and south of the Houmoed to Leeuwdril link road. This option falls outside the V-Zone but it has been earmarked for development in various planning documents in the past (including the draft KTP TDF), and could be developed as a ‡Khomani San concession under an agreement with SANParks.
In summary and subject to further site level assessments and agreement with SANParks, the areas that could be used by this concession include:
• Option1: The area between the west bank of the Auob River and the existing road diversion north of Samevloeiing; or
• Option 2: The area between the west bank of the Auob River and the park road, but with an extended diversion to a point between Houmoed and Bobbejaanskop in the north; or
• Option 3: The area between the Auob and Nossob Rivers north of Samevloeiing and south of the Houmoed to Leeuwdril link road.
Refer to Map 8 for an illustration of the above options.

Rationale
The rationale for this concession rests on:
• the draft TDF for the KTP proposes a new low density “San community concession” north of Samevloeiing.
• the high quality of the proposed area’s resource base, including a mix of river valley and dune veld;
• the possibility of offering exclusive use-rights to a section of the Auob valley (due to the diversion of the main road away from the river course);
• proximity to the southern gateway and infrastructure hub at Twee Rivieren, where there is, amongst other things, fuel, visitor services (including an information centre), grid electricity and an airstrip;
• synergies with the proposed ‡Khomani San Heritage Centre at the southern gateway to the KTP; and
• the known interest of an established regional operator in a high-value concession that draws on the brand value of the KTP and expands the operator’s regional product offering.

Attractions
The concession’s main attractions are:
• wildlife, including the signature species of the southern Kalahari;
• scenic landscapes including the Auob valley and the dune veld to the west; and
• the cultural heritage of the ‡Khomani San.

Preferred markets
The concession is aimed at the top end of the ecotourism market in the form of:
• small fly-in groups on single or multi-destination circuits;
• small tour operator-conducted groups on regional itineraries; and
• occasional high-income FIT groups on regional itineraries.

Zoning
This proposed concession falls on the southern side of the Auob corridor, which has been demarcated as a “low sensitivity zone” in the Draft Joint Zoning Plan (Beyond Horizons Consulting & PPF, 2006).
In terms of the tourism zoning, the Draft Joint Zoning Plan designates this area for “mediumdensity motorised access”. Furthermore the TDF (V&L Landscape Architects, 2006) zones the area as part of the “Primary Tourism Experience Zone.” No amendment to the draft zoning is required for this concession to be further developed. A zoning summary for this concession is outlined in Table 21.

Indicated developments
Given the preferred market segments, the quality of the offering and the sensitivity of the area, the following developments are recommended:
• a light-footprint, upmarket lodge of between 20 and 50 beds; and
• light support infrastructure including service facilities, staff housing and a limited network of game viewing tracks.

Access
The proposed concession will have high quality road access via the southern gateway to the KTP and air access via the paved airstrip south of Twee Rivieren.

Activities
The concessionaire will be permitted to offer the following activities:
• day and night drives in the concession area using SANParks-compliant game-viewing vehicles;
• day drives on public roads outside the concession area using SANParks-compliant game-viewing vehicles;
• guided walks in the concession area, elsewhere in the V-Zone and, possibly, in the ‡Khomani San portion of the !Ae!hai Kalahari Heritage Park; and
• cultural performances and interactions involving the ‡Khomani San.

Environmental considerations
The following important environmental issues should be taken note of during the EIA procedure:
• In general, the lodge should be designed to have as light a footprint as possible in all respects, taking cognisance of all salient environmental features as well as making use of recent technological and design alternatives.
• Availability of water in sufficient quantity and acceptable quality to be determined by professional geohydrologist.
• Ideally, renewable energy sources such as solar power should be utilised and the use of generators, gas and paraffin should be limited. Energy saving devices should be incorporated in the design phase of the development.
• Solid waste must be responsibly and legally disposed of at a registered land fill site. A waste minimisation policy should be adopted and recycling is a requirement. Waste water should be separated into grey and black streams so that water can be recovered and reused. Sewage must be appropriately treated and disposed of. Water conservation must be practised at all times and water saving devices should be incorporated in the design phase, including dual flush toilets, low flow taps and shower heads, etc. Water consumption must be monitored, recorded and evaluated regularly.

Implementation method
The implementation method will depend on the outcome of the feasibility assessment referred to below and agreement between the ‡Khomani San and SANParks. However, it is recommended that the following principles be applied:
• The concession should be developed using a build, operate, transfer approach.
• The concession should be awarded to an appropriately qualified private partner via a competitive bidding
process.
• [TENDER RULES TO BE ADVISED PENDING LEGAL ADVICE AND CLARIFICATION OF SANPARKS POLICY/APPLICABILITY OF PPP RULES]

Financial and economic indicators
A base scenario financial model suggests:
• an initial investment of approximately R35-million;
• annual turnover at maturity of R25-million;
• pre-tax net income of R4,7-million;
• a pre-tax, ungeared IRR of around 18%;
• 72 full-time jobs with an annual wage bill of approximately R3,7-million; and
• an annual concession fee of approximately R2-million (at 8% of turnover).
The concession is rated as financially viable and economically desirable provided a high quality ecotourism firm with established credentials and international marketing reach operates it. In the absence of such an operator, the project is not considered viable.

Priority
Given its high financial and economic potential, the proposed concession has a very high priority rating.

Required interventions
The following actions are required before the concession can be implemented:
• a rapid feasibility assessment (including an environmental scoping to confirm the suitability of different site options) to confirm investor/operator interest and define details such as concession size, boundaries, duration, visitor limits and infrastructure requirements (including the possibility of further rerouting of the main tourist road);
• agreement between the ‡Khomani San and SANParks regarding the details of the proposed concession and investor procurement process;
• integration of the proposed concession into the management frameworks of the KTP;
• the preparation and formal approval of detailed concession documents (including RFPs and draft contracts); and
• implementation of the agreed procurement process to identify and contract an appropriate private investor and operator.

[annie]

I know that consultancy Delron is investigating the environmental impact of the developments at Nossob, Gharagab and Craig Lockhart (because I registered as an interested and affected party and I've seen the Draft Report) but has anyone seen any evidence of an EIA for the developments at Jan se Draai, Stoffelsdraai, the wilderness camps, MM and TR mentioned in the environment minister’s written reply to parliament mentioned above? (I think it’s on page 3)

[Toko]

TR, the wilderness camps, Jan se Draaidraai and Stoffels are probably in the pre-EIA stage

[Toko]

This is what I believe we will read in all the future EIA reports

The “No-Go” Alternative implies that the Park’s tourist product remains as it is. In the absence of development, the status quo of the park will be maintained and is likely to result in the following medium long term impacts:
· Unimproved diversification of tourism product;
· No change of the existing guest profile;
· Unimproved park infrastructure;
· SANParks is mandated to contribute to the economic development of the local community. The construction phase of this project will provide work/income to local SMME contractors; and
· The developments will, during the operational phase of the project, contribute to the improvement of income to cost ratio of the park and thereby contribute towards the long term objective of financial sustainability. The loss of this income stream will have a negative impact.
For these substantive reasons [...] the “no-go” alternative is not recommended.

from the DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT, page 82

Much of what is contained in this report is the result not only of environmental impact studies but also of reflection on policies and values that sum up SANParks and governments view of nature conservation as tool for "connecting to society", to contribute to the economic development of the local community and of course, to generate income for SANParks.

[Mel]

I'm a bit hopeless on this one, I have to admit. When even the EIA company pulls
the income and structural devolopment for the surrounding communities - card,
what is left to argue in order for the buildings not to happen in KTP?

And I don't believe for one moment that the guest profile will change with the proposed developments.
I can't see a different kind of clients going to the park because of more accommodation... Take the campers
for instant, they are usually very much in favour of roughing it out as opposed to have their own ablutions
next to the campsite. We saw quite a few who could have easily afforded chalets and bungalows (cars can
tell stories...) but they preferred places like Rooiputs and Polentswa because it's really wild.
Then there is the group that camps out of financial necessity. Those won't go for the luxury campsites either
as they probably will have to fork out a good deal more than for a campsite at Nossob, TR or MM.
Lastly, those who might consider camping but can't deal with communal ablutions are well off in the wilderness
camps as well.

Those buildings (and the building activity beforehand) are just gonna ruin the atmosphere in KTP.
Most people go there to escape their busy lifes. Now we will get a busy life in one of our last retreats as well...

Rather than creating income by building new acccomm, SANParks should try to create income by enhancing
existing facilities. And maybe employ more people to get things done quicklier that it's happening at the moment.

[Toko]

Now we will get a busy life in one of our last retreats as well...

The proposed developments will cater for additional 166 visitors

[Mel]

It is inevitable that there will be more traffic; just imagine what it is going to be during the construction work. And those roads are just not made for traffic! They are norrow and every time a car is passing sand is raising like clouds. That's why I am afraid that they will end up tarring the whole park, little by little and that will be the end I might not have loved my visit, but that has nothing do with the damage that all this may cause in the last real wilderness park in South Africa apart from Richtersveld

It seems that Lis made a clairvoyant post a long time ago... I just read on the SP forum from a member called jan.dup that he has got first hand info from KTP staff that tarring the roads is being discussed more and more often. And I think most of us will agree with what he also added: We all know what usually follows.

[Toko]

18 March 2013

Dear Stakeholder / Interested & Affected Party

REF: 12/12/20/2446/1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF 10 NEW ACCOMMODATION UNITS, 10 NEW LUXURY CAMPING SITES, A NEW ACCESS ROAD, UPGRADING OF SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE AND A LANDING STRIP AT NOSSOB CAMP, A LUXURY CAMP SITE AT GHARAGAB AS WELL AS A LUXURY CAMP SITE AT GRAIG LOCKHARDT (MATA MATA) IN THE KGALAGADI TRANSFRONTIER PARK, NORTHERN-CAPE PROVINCE

DEA Ref: 12/12/20/2446/1

NEAS Ref: DEAT/EIA/0000532/2011

The final Basic Assessment Report (BAR) dated October 2012 submitted to the National Department of Environmental Affairs refers.

The Department has reviewed the BAR. This review brought to light issues that need attention and clarification by SANParks before an informed decision regarding the application can be made.

The Department therefore, in terms of sub-regulation 24(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations, 2010 (GN R.543) rejected the BAR on 8 March 2012.

The Department requested that SANParks must submit additional information before a decision can be made.

On receipt of the additional information from SANParks, Delron Consulting will prepare an amended BAR to be submitted to DEA for further processing of the application.

Please note that in terms of the EIA Regulations registered interested and affected parties are entitled to comment, in writing, on all written submissions, including basic assessment reports amended and resubmitted in terms of regulation 24(4).

At this stage we cannot predict when the amended BAR will be completed, but be assure, that the amended BAR will be distributed to I&APs for comment opportunity before re-submission to DEA.

I trust you find the above in order.

Kind Regards.

Thanyani Mafumo
Delron Consulting CC
Tel: +27 12 991 5399
Fax: +27 86 588 4242
Email: eap@delron.co.za

[Richprins]

The Department therefore, in terms of sub-regulation 24(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations, 2010 (GN R.543) rejected the BAR on 8 March 2012.

The Department requested that SANParks must submit additional information before a decision can be made.

This is very significant indeed!

Well done, Department!

Same thing happened in Kruger two years ago!

But it is a "cat and mouse" game...