New EIA Malelane Lodge

[H. erectus]

Lis, I may just add here for curiosity sake,...
I question the "modus operandi" myself,...????
Who knows??? just maybe the lad has a joker tucked
in the sleeve,...

[Lisbeth]

and which one would that be

As you said, the text is rather arrogant and I cannot imagine why, i.e. if he is not angry with you personally

[H. erectus]

i.e. if he is not angry with you personally

Lis, between the two of us, not you!!!, rather M. Wright there is no love lost!!!
We encountered a tiff or two unto the plate right now.

Still awaiting a reply from him, my response to his letter,.....

Dear M. Wright,
I thank you for your response. Your understanding of the EIA process somewhat worrying and I quote,” According to NEMA legislation, the Environmental Authorisation process is officially complete, and we have no further obligation in law to notify you or respond to your communication”. The honourable ministers approval quite correctly so yet with two amendments attached. This rendering the process not quite complete yet and still subject to further scrutiny.

My letter dated 14/07 addressed to Mr. P. Wright rendered me little success as far as a reply would do. I then decided
To take up contact with the relevant EIP(practitioner) in order to confirm my understanding of the process as explained to me initially. It was confirmed as correct by them.

Furthermore for your perusal and maybe of interest to you, comments by H. Van Schalkwyk, dept. of Environmental Affairs,..
Dear Mr Essrich

Kindly note that both additional conditions are subject to a scoping and public participation process as per the EIA Regulations, which therefore places an obligation on the applicant to notify all I&APs.

Kind Regards

Heloise van Schalkwyk
Deputy Director: Appeals and Legal Review
012 399 8835
Dear Michael can you please respond and update us regarding the status of this project.
Thank you
Fred

[Richprins]

careful now with the personal conversations, Heartonthesleevicus...I know you mean well...

[H. erectus]

,... It was not personal, many other folk
were CC'd in the reply,...but maybe you are right,
time to chill!!!!

[H. erectus]

Hoity toity shoiwee,...hah hah he,..

Shrewd,..

[Richprins]

Mr Wright requests we advise whether our members feel justified in staying in restcamps yet contesting the new hotels, says H.:


Dear *********, and everyone else who make up the ******** and Africa Wild forums,

Please answer the following question honestly for me:

In the last 5 years, since the EIA process commenced, have you stayed inside the Kruger National Park or any other national park at either the public rest camps, public bush camps, or private lodges?

If your answer is 'yes', then by your acts you actually support such accommodation facilities. Consequently, you do not possess the credibility or integrity to defend your arguments, and I have no interest in discussing matters further with you.

These facilities are no better than our proposed development, most have far greater footprints, most have caused and continue to cause far greater environmental and social impacts (even double-figure multiples of impact), and many are also significantly more 'resorty' than ours.

Furthermore, the site is by no means 'free-of-charge'. It comes with substantial annual fees and you have to freely hand over the asset at the end of 30 years. These are enormous costs.

Kind regards,
Michael Wright

[Mel]

Shrewd indeed

Mr. M. Wright should get a grip

[Puff Addy]

I have come to the conclusion that by supporting SANParks one is de facto supporting these types of developments, so the answer for me is simple - until SANParks alters its current stance on park development, I will not support them by visiting any of their parks again, period.

[H. erectus]

The full run up to this point,....


Hi Fred,

This bit of correspondence, that you have succeeded to raise, holds a lot more value than you may have realized, for, if for no other reason, it has at least shown the arrogance that Mr Michael Wright shows towards the whole process of Nema and the Environmental Estate within this country.
Therefore, it is very valuable that you have succeeded to get Mr Michael Wright to put his head up above the horizon. It comes to me that Mr Michael Wright needs to know the old English Language proverb that “TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT”, but importantly, he should know that “TWO WRIGHTS DO MAKE A WRONG” (this is an opinion) – refer to the letter of the Deputy Director: Appeals and Legal Review.
It should be taken into account that at the Final Appeals Meeting at the offices of the Department of Environmental Affairs, that the Chairman of the 13th January Meeting displayed his ignorance of the extent of the I&APs representation (and public opinion) against proposed Hotels within the KNP. Mr Hassam stated that the extent of the I&APs was very few, being only the five persons attending the Final Appeals Meeting. However, Mr Hassam was informed that both AIKONA and Africa Wild had come into existence specifically to expose the massive opposition to Hotels within the KNP and that the combined strength of numbers of individual I&APs within AIKONA and Africa Wild amounts to close on a membership of 1 000 persons.
Furthermore, I think it is important to make the situation known that there is a substantial docket with the Public Protector which appeals against the processes of the application for the Hotel in the KNP close to Malelane, and opposes all such Hotels within the KNP, and that when this appeal comes to light, there is, in my and other opinions, more than a fair chance that this whole granting of the go-ahead for the Hotel, would be likely reversed and disallowed. So, on these grounds alone, I would advise that it is extremely risky to spend any investors’ monies on a very dubious and unpopular project development.
The above factor does not stand alone as a severe matter of risk. It would be very worthwhile for Mr Wright to read the March judgement of the Constitutional Court – the Nkandla Judgement – and take very close notice of what the Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng pronounced on the Constitutional status of Government Land. It is my understanding that several of the activities of the Department of Environmental Affairs are not within the bounds of the Constitution in relation to Hotels planned for the KNP, and other factors which would make up a bundle of objections in terms of the Constitution.
I am aware of the existence of a whole document of questions which the Minister of Environmental Affairs has refused to answer. However these questions will be presented to the Minister in another forum where she will be obliged to answer the questions – some of which are of a Constitutional nature concerning SAN Parks and the Hotel programme.
There are several factors which, when put together, show alarming indications towards actual ‘State Capture’ or ‘attempts towards State Capture’ of the Department of Environmental Affairs in the manner of some disturbing circumstances such as have occurred over SARS (but rescued), the SABC and the SAA etc. These points of public fear of such alarming happenings will have to be taken to the top Constitutional authority of the land. The dishonesty that took place in I&APs meetings to promote the cause of the Hotel for Malelane is just one of the points in mind.
It is up to us to continue to show up the pitfalls of this assault on the reputation and public dedication of our South African National Parks.
Best wishes,
Nigel.


Hi Nigel,

Thank you for your email and opinion, the contents of which are noted. Your assertions of 'State Capture' were particularly entertaining, as was your statement that DEA are conducting unconstitutional activities.

As stated previously, we will always abide by and respect every requirement of DEA in regard to information and process.

I note that you enjoy staying at Ngwenya Lodge and likely at many other prviate and public lodges and camps both within and without the Park. In fact, you use them for business purposes and erect bat houses and conduct documentaries around them. This fortunately presents you with opportunities to discover and work with wonderful finds like Giant Yellow House Bats, Angolan Free-tailed Bats, Yellow House Bats and Sundevall's Leaf-nosed Bats.

Imagine Ngwenya and other lodges never existed to provide such opportunities and benefits in scientific research, business, vocational passion, rest and recreation. It interests me that you happily support and enjoy such massive brick-and-mortar resorts, which have had and will continue to have far greater environmental and social impact on the Crocodile River and the Kruger Park road networks and ecosystems than our planned lodge. If I been provided with the opportunity to build Ngwenya and many of the other public and private camps/lodges, it certainly would have been in a far more environmentally sensitive manner.

Many other people also deserve the opportunity to obtain benefits and services from lodges, just as you do. We intend to provide these to people, and so much more. Without ecotourism, the only alternative land use for the maintenance and expansion of our Parks and for the environmental education of all people is mass-scale hunting, wildlife ranching and/or medicinal plant use and harvesting. Would you prefer these activities to sustain our parks and reserves?

You may be surprised to know that wildlife and wilderness are my greatest passions. Consequently, with the permission of SANParks, I am very keen to install bat houses throughout the lodge, as we both know what wonderful and vital creatures they are. When this opportunity presents itself, I will procure the services of someone who supports and truly appreciates the multitude of good the lodge offers, rather than from one who opposes it. Should your attitude change before then, maybe this opportunity could be undertaken with you. I am confident you are a good person, and I am grateful for what you have done for bats and our ecosystems over many years. I suppose this is up to you.

Kind regards,
Michael Wright


My bit,
I have read all of this.
An alternative to Mr Wright – you will have all the support you may require, from me included if you build your lodge outside the Kruger National Park, this was a suggested alternative by AIKONA from the start. The KNP is a conservation area not a holiday resort. The MSR site is in an area which is already overused.
The 24 hour access to the lodge grinds against all conservation ethics.
A con would of course be that the site would not be available free of charge.
When I thought about what I read I am not well convinced of the objectivity of the write up especially in the sentence marked in blue here below, just maybe there is a bit of leverage in the sentence.
Kind regards
Gerhard Smit.


Dear Gerhard, and everyone else who make up the Aikona and Africa Wild forums,

Please answer the following question honestly for me:

In the last 5 years, since the EIA process commenced, have you stayed inside the Kruger National Park or any other national park at either the public rest camps, public bush camps, or private lodges?

If your answer is 'yes', then by your acts you actually support such accommodation facilities. Consequently, you do not possess the credibility or integrity to defend your arguments, and I have no interest in discussing matters further with you.

These facilities are no better than our proposed development, most have far greater footprints, most have caused and continue to cause far greater environmental and social impacts (even double-figure multiples of impact), and many are also significantly more 'resorty' than ours.

Furthermore, the site is by no means 'free-of-charge'. It comes with substantial annual fees and you have to freely hand over the asset at the end of 30 years. These are enormous costs.

Kind regards,
Michael Wright

Hello Mr. Wright,

It sounds as if you were trying to buy Nigel's favour!

Regards,
Friedemann Essrich


Thanks Mr Wright,
I am not at all surprised at the vein of your reply.
Who gives you the right to to state that I and maybe others do not possess the credibility or integrity to defend our arguments. This is just another example of your arrogance. You are now attempting to create an escape route for yourself by stating that if we answer yes, then you will have no interest in discussing matters further with me.
Of course the facilities I/we stayed in are no better than what you are planning to offer. There are adequate facilities outside Kruger that will be equal or maybe more than what you are offering. What is currently on offer in our National Parks by SANParks suits the requirements of those visiting the areas to experience the tranquillity and peace they desire. Those who need smoking rooms and spas bars and whatever else is envisaged for the MTC is catered for in abundance outside the periphery of the KNP.
Seeing that you are prepared to move into your current mode – then please make available to me the scientific survey and also the “Need and Desirability study” which indicates that there is a demand for what you have on offer. Just maybe after receiving this from you, I may be in a better position to understand why such development should be permissible in the KNP.
Also please justify to me/us how your 24/7 access will not be harmful to the environment and guarantee to me/us that NO road kills will take place en route from Malelane to the Timfenhene site after dark.
You state that that “Furthermore, the site is by no means 'free-of-charge'. It comes with substantial annual fees and you have to freely hand over the asset at the end of 30 years. These are enormous costs.” I quote from SANParks annual reports that they are expecting R 800 000 per annum from this development for the first few years. R 800 000 is a pittance in return for the sacrifice that is expected to be made by nature/the environment.
Anyone with a good sense of reasoning will quite clearly understand that after 30 years of use there will not be much left of a tent camp to hand over. Of course there are enormous costs but not to you, – from those who you are searching funding from,
My impression is that the MSR/MTC is just a business venture with the expectations to make a pretty penny, I challenge you to prove me wrong by proving to me/us that what you plan will be beneficial to the environment.
I am eagerly awaiting your response together with the requested.
Kind regards
Gerhard Smit
Convenor of the AIKONA group.


Hello Mr. Wright,

I think your argument is flawed as it does not take quantity into account.

Having one lodge in a park does not mean we should add new lodges forever.
What was on a tolerable level of disturbance in the 1980s (visitors, cars, noise and light pollution, water consumption, waste production, land use etc.) is not tolerable any more.

And the severity of threats to habitat and the species themselves have reached crisis levels since the first lodges were built. Yet, we pretend that nothing has changed and that we can keep destroying as if the were all in good order. It is not.

Our attitude must change. Part of this is that nature does not have to earn its survival through our exploitation, as so often argued by hunters, rhino breeders and others who claim to work in the interest of conservation.

Nature deserves to be respected, not cut up and sold in pieces to the highest bidder, and whatever is left can be visited in zoos and other display areas. As Mr. Smit puts it:

*/The KNP is a conservation area not a holiday resort./*

Regards,
Friedemann Essrich


Hello Friedemann, from a fellow natural scientist.

I note your work is primarily paid for by mining companies and the mining industry.

I earn my living from two industries: 1) providing environmental services with the chief aim to mitigate environmental impacts; and 2) providing ecotourism services with the chief aim to promote sustainable and responsible ecotourism activities.


I am acutely aware of the accelerated threats to nature and try to minimize these daily.


None of you appear to understand that sustainable and responsible ecotourism heavily supports and promotes conservation, protected area expansion and environmental education. Second to government-funded conservation services, and perhaps Elon Musk, it is the greatest hope for nature. It is this fact that has caused me to commit my vocational life to this industry. It is my primary interest, and it supersedes any financial interests. We may differ in opinion, but at least understand this fact. When considering the bigger picture, we believe wholeheartedly that this lodge will benefit conservation and the local communities overall. Nothing any of you have stated changes this belief.

Peter and I are far from being irresponsible, careless, money-hungry developers. If we were, we wouldn't be investing enormous time, energy and money into lodges as opposed to other simpler and more profitable developments.

My apologies to all those passive parties who may have unwilling received and endured these e-mails. Should you wish not to receive them please notify me. There is nothing further I actually wish to state.

Kind regards,
Michael Wright

Mr. Wright,
Be it P or M, still has to be established!!??
My oh my, dear sirs once again plenty mudslinging, can be more aptly described as billowing hot air, probably very complementary to global warming and at the same time cunningly avoiding the crux of the matter!!!
I beg to remind you that I am still awaiting your reply regarding the further process of employing an ECO officer to this project, still un- answered!!! You do have obligatory responsibility, toward the, IAP’s(Interested and Affected Parties). !!!!
I dearly wish to spare you the embarrassment of non compliance for what that may be worth to your establishment??
With regard to your comment: "You have requested feedback from Africa Wild regarding whether members visit lodges/camps in Kruger. We are busy getting said feedback, as we believe in a democratic and relevant sampling process as far as possible."
I cannot quite overcome the disposition of thanking you,
However and nonetheless,
Fred de Groot.
Africa Wild