Comments on Kruger management Plan 2018/2028

[H. erectus]

Yoh lotsa concern,..yet not a single situation outlined
where the landlord will stand responsible!!

A sad sad situation!!!

[Richprins]

Ideas from member as to input to be delivered by us?

[Richprins]

Gump will also be going to White River one...he is a bit unreliable, though...

[Richprins]

Adaptive management (AM), also known as adaptive resource management (ARM) or adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM), is a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring[1]. In this way, decision making simultaneously meets one or more resource management objectives and, either passively or actively, accrues information needed to improve future management. Adaptive management is a tool which should be used not only to change a system, but also to learn about the system.[2] Because adaptive management is based on a learning process, it improves long-run management outcomes. The challenge in using the adaptive management approach lies in finding the correct balance between gaining knowledge to improve management in the future and achieving the best short-term outcome based on current knowledge.[3] This approach has more recently been employed in implementing international development programs.


The achievement of these objectives requires an open management process which seeks to include past, present and future stakeholders. Adaptive management needs to at least maintain political openness, but usually aims to create it. Adaptive management must therefore be a scientific and social process. It must focus on the development of new institutions and institutional strategies in balance with scientific hypothesis and experimental frameworks (resilliance.org).

Use in environmental practices

Applying adaptive management in a conservation project or program involves the integration of project/program design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn. The three components of adaptive management in environmental practice are:

Testing assumptions is about systematically trying different actions to achieve a desired outcome. It is not, however, a random trial-and-error process. Rather, it involves using knowledge about the specific site to pick the best known strategy, laying out the assumptions behind how that strategy will work, and then collecting monitoring data to determine if the assumptions hold true.
Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions to respond to new or different information obtained through monitoring and project experience.
Learning is about explicitly documenting a team's planning and implementation processes and its successes and failures for internal learning as well as learning across the conservation community. This learning enables conservation practitioners to design and manage projects better and avoid some of the perils others have encountered.[18] Learning about a managed system is only useful in cases where management decisions are repeated.[19]


6.6.1
Wilderness
zone
Objectives
The
objective of this conservation orientated zon
e is to protect areas of the park
that are un
-
impacted by
human developments to provide an experience aimed at
intangible attributes such as solitude, remoteness,
wildness, and serenity (wilderness qualities
).
As such
,
they are areas
where the sights and sounds of
human activities are infrequent or that have high scenic or natural qualities allowing for an experience of
isolation.
The main accent of management is biodiversity conservation and the conservation
of the wildness
for the appreciation by future generations.
The park
also has extensive scope to provide a true wilderness
experience as defined in the NEM: PAA.
To allow for management actions, to secure biodiversity assets and to make these wildernes
s areas more
accessible to suitable tourism products, the existing roads bisecting the large Wilderness blocks will be
maintained.
The resulting Wilderness clusters will be governed by cluster guidelines as defined in the CDF


6.7 Buffer zone
The buffer zone as per the Buffer zone strategy has be
en identified as part of the park’s
integrated land use
strategy.
The buffer zone, in combination with guidelines, will serve as a basis for:

Identifying the focus areas in which
park management and scientists should respond to EIA’s;

Helping to identify the external impacts that would adversely affect the park;

Integrating long term protection of the park into the
Spatial Development Frameworks (
SDF
s
)
of municipalities and other
local authorities;

Identifying the focus areas in which park management need to consolidate compatible land
uses and cooperative agreements
; and

Identify
ing
the focus areas for community beneficiation projects
.
The park will endeavour to forge closer col
laborative relationships with neighbouring communities in
the
buffer zone
, both on the western and eastern boundary. The park will interact with all spheres of
government, whether local, provincial, or national, as required, to achieve a positive conserva
tion outcome
in the buffer zone. In terms of
the EIA response, the buffer zone
serve largely to raise red
-
flags and do n
ot
remove the need for careful consideration of
the exact impact of a proposed development. In particular,
they do not address activit
ies with broad regional aesthetic or biodiversity impacts.
In
the
park
’s case, there are three categories within the park buffer zone, the priority natural area
:
catchment
protection
area and the view
shed protection area
(Appendix 6
, Map 6).
6.7.1 Priori
ty natural areas
The
bu
ffer zone comprises both the p
ark’s land consolidation footprint and serve
s as a defensive buffer to
the p
ark.
The land use buffer zone is inclusive of the priority natu
ral areas required for the long
-
term
persistence of
biodiversi
ty in and around the p
ark through the protection of patterns and processes.
Additionally, priority natural areas typically include areas identified for future park consolidation, ecological
and climate change corridors and linkages as well as reasonably na
tural areas of high biodi
versity value.
The
buffer zone allows for protection to core biodiversity areas.
Inappropriate development and negative
land use changes should be opposed in this area.
6.7.2 Catchment protection
Catchment protection areas
are
landscape level
areas important for maintaining key hydrological processes
within the park.
Inappropriate development (dam construction, loss of riparian vegetation
etc.
) should be
opposed.
Control of alien vegetation and soil erosion as well as appropr
iate land care should be promoted.
6.7.3 Viewshed protection
Viewshed protection areas
aim to preserve the
aesthetic quality of the visitor’s experience in a park.
Within
these areas
,
any development proposals should be carefully screened to ensure that
they do not impact
excessively on the aesthetics of the park.
The areas identified are only broadly indicative of sensitive areas,
at a fine scale many areas within this zone would be perfectly suited for development.
In addition, major

[Richprins]

9.1 L
ong term development plan
Tourism d
evelopment in the park has always played a signifi
cant role in the success and
sustainability of
KNP
(and SANParks as
a whole).
In order to remain relevant, development has
to a large degree been focused on meeting both changing visitor needs and expectations.
Development has steadily brought in more co
mfort and convenience.
Moving forward it is expected that this development trend will continue with specific focus on
emerging market needs as well as the increasing demand for meaningful experiences and
adventure.
It must be stated that development is
not considered lightly and will only be
embarked on to meet a very real operational need or opportunity.
All development must be
conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner, be aligned to the zonation plan of the park
and is
dependent on the availa
bility of funds
. Apart from development currently in the pipeline or
under
development, all major future developments should be based on the periphery of the park
close to acc
ess facilities
.
Further to this there will be a specific focus on small rustic
type
development and mobile tented facilities as well and self
-
sufficient camping facilities.
Events that
focus on the adventure market will also be explored including cross border products.
Lastly
visitor experience and management will play an important
role in guiding where development
should take place or not.
All camp upgrades and refurbishment will be done within the existing
footprints and according to
the
camp master plans.
During the upgrade emphasis will be place
on ensurein
g
that Universal Acc
ess and family / child friendly requirements are incorporated.
Importantly, a decision has been taken that no further accommodation development (apart from
the current developments) will be explored south of
the Sabie Rive

[Richprins]

9.3 Communication routes
Communication need
s
to be improved in the park, including telephone,
data
network, free and
metered
Wi
-
F
i
and cellular access
.

[Richprins]

Kruger National Park Management Plan
201
8
–
2028
99
KRUGER
NATIONAL PARK
–
MANAGEME
N
T PLAN
Table
9
.
Proposed
administrative
infrastructure development
in the park
.
9.5.2 Visitor
faciliti
es
Visitor facilities include all non
-
commercial facilities and points of interest available to visitors are set out in
Table
10
below.
Table
10
. Proposed visitor facility development
in the park
Infrastructure
Current
status
Zone
Probability
B
ulweni platform hike
Non existent
To be determined
Medium
Doispane p
icnic spot
Primitive
High
Dzundzwini viewing platform
-
with ablution
facilities, bush stop
LIL
Medium
Hippo Pools bird h
ide
High
Hlanganini Dam lookout point
HIL
Matambeni look
out point
LIL
Mathekenyane p
icnic site
HIL
Nsemani
bird h
ide
Renosterkoppies
bird hide
Primitive
Shabeni lookout point
LIL
Shangoni gate
To be determined
9.5.3 Commercial
facilities and
activities
There are a limited number of commerc
ial activities and or p



Table
11
.
Proposed accommodation development
in the park
.
Infrastructure
Current
s
tatus
Zone
Probability
Various
–
as per camp master plans
Non existent
Various
To be determined
Infrastructure
Current
s
tat
us
Zone
Probability
Camp close to
Satara
Non existent
Various
Med
ium
Makhadzi Mouth overnight hide
LIL
Makhadzi rustic tented camp
High
Phalaborwa hub
HIL
Phambi wilderness t
rails camp
Primitive
Medium
Shangoni tented camp / lodge
LIL
High
Tsendze confluence overnight hide
HIL
Tshokwane tented camp

[H. erectus]

Make a long story short, Sanparks creating room for some mishap!!!

"unforeseen"",..

resource management objectives and

Adaptive management needs to at least maintain political openness, but usually aims to create it

For once Custos Naturae being practiced again

Use in environmental practices

Sanparks not nearly knowing what their mandate, maybe
rather what their responsibility is!!

[Richprins]

Potential risks to tourism in the park are diverse and largely unpredictable. A study conducted during 2016
by the University of Pretoria concluded that rhino poaching and anti
-
poaching measures do impact tourism
and coul
d affect future visitations to the Park.
Conservation fees will
increasde
by 11.
3
%
in
2018
/19
for all
national
parks with rhino’s.
This increase has been brought about
to support the increasing costs
associated with Anti
-
Poaching operations.

[Richprins]

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