"Answers" finally from Sanparks re Hotels... - Tue Sep 20th
Posted: 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
And the Leopard Creek site was moved to sugar cane fields!?!?!?
(Glad I'm banned, and even more scared at Sanparks' arrogance and incompetence!
