The Kruger National Park (KNP) spans a massive two million hectares ⁽²⁾ and boasts an array on wildlife, including the Big Five.⁽³⁾ In 2010, the KNP attracted 4.5 million visitors.⁽⁴⁾ The KNP has been described as a common heritage ⁽⁵⁾ for all South Africans, and one which crosses cultural, racial and political lines. It is therefore essential for plans and activities regarding the Park to be made known to the public, to be considered and discussed at length.

The South African Government recently endorsed the construction plans of two international class hotels in the KNP. Much debate has arisen as a result of these plans, chiefly around the issue of biodiversity versus tourism, and conservation versus economic interests. South African National Parks (SANParks) claims these developments are essential to the sustainability of the Park and the wider group of national parks managed by SANParks. According to SANParks, only five of the 17 national parks generate a surplus income and thus have to fund the other parks.⁽⁶⁾ The KNP is one such park which generates the scale of income that allows it to contribute towards sustaining other smaller parks, and is hence aptly regarded as the main “bread winner” of SANParks.⁽⁷⁾

This CAI paper discusses the facts available at this early stage of development, and, primarily drawing on reports and studies by the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA), considers the benefits, as well as the concerns related to building two luxury hotels in one of the largest ⁽⁸⁾ nature reserves in Africa.

Between conflict and consideration

The Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) articulates that “in order for [the] Government to benefit future generations, it invests adequately in education. The same principle should be applied for conservation.”⁽⁹⁾ However, the reality of the situation, as noted by SANParks Chief Executive Officer (CEO), David Mabunda, is that no government places conservation at the top of its priority list. Managing South Africa’s conservation parks costs around a ZAR 1.2 billion (approximately US$ 163 million) per annum.⁽¹⁰⁾ SANParks generates 85% of its funding through “responsible tourism” operations.⁽¹¹⁾ While this is a commendable achievement, it means that the Government is required to only contribute 15% to the required funding. This becomes a “convenient way for government to abdicate its responsibility of securing South Africa’s national heritage to its citizens.”⁽¹²⁾ However, WESSA says that the expense does not justify the commercialisation of South Africa’s protected areas as this places unrealistic demands on the parks and allows the Government to slack on its responsibilities.

Opponents of SANParks’ decision to put up hotels in the KNP argue that the function of SANParks has shifted from focusing on biodiversity to tourism. WESSA maintains that the primary objective of SANParks is, and should remain, conservation. Thereafter, SANParks can weigh up socio-economic benefits.

A closer look at the plans

Development plans have been set in place to build two luxury hotels in the Kruger Park. According to Mabunda, the “safari lodge development is a well thought-out initiative aimed at diversifying the self-catering traditional rest-camp product with a smaller-footprint, lodge-style development that will provide a fully serviced experience.”⁽¹³⁾ The first hotel will be located 4km from the Malelane Gate. This Malelane facility will be open from 2013.⁽¹⁴⁾ The second hotel will be located in the main camp of the Kruger, Skukuza. These two hotels will provide an additional 400 beds for guests wanting to stay within the Park. The Malelane hotel will be built on new undeveloped land while Skukuza’s will be built on existing infrastructure within the camp, minimising the impact on the environment. These hotels will be geared at a four-star grading and feature the best green principles. Rain-water harvesting, solar energy for water heating, energy-saving lighting mechanisms and water-saving toilets, are among the features these hotels will possess.⁽¹⁵⁾

International hotel groups, Rezidor and the Radisson Blu, have invested in these plans which Mabunda calls, “responsible tourism as a conservation strategy.”⁽¹⁶⁾ As set out in the plans, guests of the hotels will be obliged to leave their cars at the Malelane Gate and use the 24 hour park-and-ride facility, thus minimising the concerns of added traffic in the Park.⁽¹⁷⁾

The concerns of such a development

The fundamental complaint WESSA has regarding the hotel developments is that SANParks is shifting from its core obligation and priority, namely conservation, to a focus on financial gain.⁽¹⁸⁾ Furthermore, WESSA is concerned that these hotels will be an easy way for the Government to avoid fulfilling its responsibilities.

WESSA’s protests against the hotel developments centre on the “fundamentally flawed” Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). According to WESSA, the report of the hotel development plans is filled with inadequacies and information gaps.⁽¹⁹⁾ WESSA stresses that developments of this size will have major impacts on the environment. Because of these impacts on nature and the surrounding wildlife, an open and transparent EIA must be conducted, with adequate public consultation. WESSA feels SANParks has failed in this regard.⁽²⁰⁾

In addition to the above, the availability of water is a major concern.⁽²¹⁾ The Crocodile River is the only source of water to the area and is dried up much of the year. Whether boreholes, to make the underground water available, are suitable still needs to be determined. The VIV is also concerned about the additional disposal of sewage and the collection of refuse.⁽²²⁾

According to a Malelane lawyer, Chris Engelbrecht,⁽²³⁾ the two hotels will increase overcrowding and create service delivery problems. The luxury hotels, Engelbrecht argues, will be unfair competition to the existing businesses inside the reserve. He also agrees that the water issue makes the entire project unsustainable.

The benefits of such a development

Those in favour of such developments have argued that the Kruger Park needs this.⁽²⁴⁾ A fundamental reason is because the Government funding only constitutes about 15% of the total funding required for the maintenance of South Africa’s conservation parks. Furthermore, because many parks fail to generate surplus earnings, development is essential.

Hotel developments will generate much needed employment to the people of the surrounding impoverished areas of Nkomazi and Bushbuckridge. It is anticipated that ultimately 230 permanent jobs, along with many temporary jobs during the construction phase, will be made available.⁽²⁵⁾

The luxury hotels will appeal to a new market, something SANParks is trying to break into. SANParks wishes to increase the black market visiting the Park as currently only 27% of the visitors are black. Since 1994, however, this percentage has grown from 7% to its current 27% of the total domestic visitor base.⁽²⁶⁾ The tourism product, SANParks claims, must be redeveloped in order to tap into this black emerging middle class target market.⁽²⁷⁾ These “four-star facilities aimed at catering primarily for ‘black diamonds’”⁽²⁸⁾ will undoubtedly benefit the KNP from a tourism and financial perspective.

Mabunda says these developments fall well within the lines of legislation. The National Environmental Management (NEMA): Protected Areas Act No 57 of 2003 (PAA), Section 55(2)(h) mandates SANParks “to provide accommodation and facilities for visitors, including the provision of food and household supplies.”⁽²⁹⁾ Mabunda notes that the Act does not exclude hotel developments or any other form of tourist accommodation.

Mabunda maintains that there is no scientific proof that these developments will have a negative impact on the biodiversity of the Park. He stresses that “it is important to note that hotels in parks are not new and they will never be like those found in the city. We are already in a hotel business of a different kind that suits our purpose of existence and not that of a city or the beach.”⁽³⁰⁾

There are several parks across the African continent which have similar safari lodge style developments and have proved to be a sustainable success. The Hilltop at Hluhluwe Umfolozi in Kwa-Zulu Natal, the Golden Gate Hotel in Clarence, Bilila Lodge in the Serengeti, Tanzania and Chobe Game Lodge in Botswana are such examples.⁽³¹⁾

On the topic of development and progression, Mabunda confidently says, “Today we have better tools to plan tourism products than 20 years ago, including usage of expert planners who have due regard for the environment as much as ecologists and rangers who gave us the previous models, so what matters is not the type of accommodation provided, but how it is crafted to match environmental ethos and how visitors will be managed.”⁽³²⁾

The EIA, as conducted by SANParks, is available to the public on the SANParks website and appears to be in accordance with the National Environmental Management Act.⁽³³⁾ Whether there is public knowledge of its availability remains unknown. It addresses all the specifications of the Act, which are also the concerns of those opposing the developments. Electricity, construction and the transportation of sewerage specifications all need to be considered by the Department of Environmental Affairs and are stated as such in the EIA. The EIA considers the issue of waste management and the required waste management license. While it appears to include all the necessary elements of an assessment report, the hope is that the developers work strictly within these borders.

Final questions

Considering the issue at hand – that SANParks claims development is needed for the sustainability of South Africa’s parks – one is forced to ask what else can be done to keep our national parks in their pristine condition. In modernity, where everything is governed and determined by capital, does conservation not inevitably become a socio-economic issue? Is the ethos of conservation timeless or should it adapt and develop as all things in life? The reality is that in order to uphold conservation, money is needed. Perhaps then Mabunda is right, responsible tourism is a conservation strategy.

NOTES:

(1) Contact Louise de Bruin through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Enviro Africa Unit (enviro.africa@consultancyafrica.com).
(2) ‘Glenn’s answers re Malelane development’, 3 February 2009, http://www.sanparks.org.
(3) The “Big Five” refers to the elephant, rhino, buffalo, lion and leopard.
(4) Hopewell Radebe, ‘State okays 5-star Kruger Park hotel Government endorses plans for first five-star venue in the Kruger National Park, lodge-style hotel to be situated 4km inside park close to Malelane Gate’, Business Day, 8 August 2011, http://www.businessday.co.za.
(5) Damon Crawford, ‘The concrete jungle in Kruger National Park: Is it going to be that bad?’, Getaway Blog, 27 May 2011, http://blog.getaway.co.za.
(6) Hopewell Radebe, ‘State okays 5-star Kruger Park hotel Government endorses plans for first five-star venue in the Kruger National Park, lodge-style hotel to be situated 4km inside park close to Malelane Gate’, Business Day, 8 August 2011, http://www.businessday.co.za.
(7) ‘Insight: The Kruger National Park Hotel Development Saga’, 2 June 2011, www.2oceansvibe.com.
(8) ‘Kruger National Park’, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org.
(9) ‘Flawed report says WESSA,’ 5 August 2011, http://www.chroniclesa.co.za.
(10) David Mabunda, ‘Misconceptions about hotels cleared up’, 24 June 2011, http://www.looklocal.co.za.
(11) ‘Flawed report says WESSA,’ 5 August 2011, http://www.chroniclesa.co.za.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Ibid.
(14) Damon Crawford, ‘The concrete jungle in Kruger National Park: is it going to be that bad?’, 27 May 2011, http://blog.getaway.co.za.
(15) David Mabunda, ‘Misconceptions about hotels cleared up’, 24 June 2011, http://www.looklocal.co.za.
(16) ‘Insight: The Kruger National Park Hotel Development Saga’, 2 June 2011, www.2oceansvibe.com.
(17) ‘Another bone of contention in KNP development’, 7 July 2011, http://www.l2b.co.za.
(18) Elise Templehoff, ‘Geldmaak hoort nie by SANParks’, 3 August 2011, http://www.beeld.com.
(19) ‘Flawed report says WESSA,’ 5 August 2011, http://www.chroniclesa.co.za.
(20) Fiona Macleod, ‘Kruger row becomes 'racist game'’, 1 July 2011, http://mg.co.za
(21) Kelsey Wiens, ‘New hotel in Kruger National Park: environmental disaster or necessary addition to the park?’, 15 March 2011, http://blog.getaway.co.za
(22) Ibid.
(23) ‘Another bone of contention in KNP development’, 7 July 2011, http://www.l2b.co.za.
(24) Damon Crawford, ‘The concrete jungle in Kruger National Park: is it going to be that bad?’, 27 May 2011, http://blog.getaway.co.za.
(25) Aliche Bezuidenhout, ‘Opposing points of view about new KNP hotels, another group expressed dissatisfaction over how it was ended’, 9 June 2011, http://www.looklocal.co.za.
(26) ‘Glenn’s answers re Malelane development’, 3 February 2009, http://www.sanparks.org.
(27) ‘Insight: The Kruger National Park Hotel Development Saga’, 2 June 2011, www.2oceansvibe.com.
(28) Fiona Macleod, ‘Kruger row becomes 'racist game'’, 1 July 2011, http://mg.co.za.
(29) ‘Insight: The Kruger National Park Hotel Development Saga’, 2 June 2011, www.2oceansvibe.com.
(30) Ibid.
(31) David Mabunda, ‘Misconceptions about hotels cleared up’, 24 June 2011, http://www.looklocal.co.za.
(32) Damon Crawford, ‘The concrete jungle in Kruger National Park: is it going to be that bad?’, 27 May 2011, http://blog.getaway.co.za.
(33) ‘Notice of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process,’ http://www.sanparks.org.

Written by Louise de Bruin ⁽¹⁾