The concrete jungle in Kruger National Park: is it going to be that bad?

Posted on 27 May 2011

The Kruger National Park is very special to me. It is more than likely special to you too if you are reading this. In fact, we should just be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that the Kruger National Park should be special to each and every person in this country.

Let’s begin by looking at this metaphorically: the Kruger National Park can essentially be viewed as a common heritage we all share. It’s a heritage that crosses social and cultural boundaries and is something metaphysical at the same time. It is loosely referred to as nature, and quite a large proportion of the world’s population seem to believe that we have some or other deep and intimate connection with it. The word has the power to bridge divides amongst people and has been personified into a power that we know we don’t have any control over. Words like fierce, beautiful and enormous come to mind. The word wrath, like a hungry horsefly, also keeps hovering and waiting for an opportune moment to strike itself into the conversation. And, just like a horsefly’s bite, some may not appreciate the outcome of the painful needle-like bite, so, what if I said the proposed developments for hotel and conferencing facilities in the park need to go ahead?

There will be one hotel built in the Malelane area of the park, and a second in the Skukuza camp. The first is scheduled to open in 2013, which isn’t very long from now.

Right from the moment this issue became public knowledge and entered the public and media boma, it was always going to be one with two polarised arguments matching up like lions and hyenas. The two arguments for and against the planned developments have been at loggerheads since. Understandably not many people chose to argue in favour of the proposed developments beside the level-headed management staff at SANParks, who tended to stay out of the mud-slinging match. Those that disagree however really should look at the matter objectively though: Kruger needs this.

Those in the opposing corner have mostly argued according to laws governing national parks locally and worldwide, and the fact that this kind of development simply cannot take place. If the hotel developments go ahead, part of that argument is that Kruger would no longer be classified as a national park. Consequently, their argument claims that in order for the planned hotels to proceed, Kruger would have to be downgraded because of excessive development, in much the same way as Yellowstone Park in the US.

This assumption, according to Dr David Mabunda, SANParks chief executive officer, is utterly incorrect and the law has been misinterpreted: ‘… based on a poor understanding of legislation governing SANParks and is grossly misleading the unsuspecting public.’ In terms of the National Environmental Management (NEMA): Protected Areas Act No 57 of 2003 (PAA) as amended, Section 55(2)(h) mandates SANParks ‘to provide accommodation and facilities for visitors, including the provision of food and household supplies.’ We need to take into account what Mabunda has said because this interpretation of the act wouldn’t have been a naive one with investment coming from investors such as the Rezidor Hotel Group and Radisson Blu. Dr Mabunda continues: ‘The Act does not specify types of tourism accommodation to be built, nor does it exclude hotels or any other form of tourism accommodation.’ I think this is a good time to start moving away from the stereotypical personification that the word ‘hotel’ conjures up.

I can recognise the fact that the real fear is one where a visitor worries that they will drive into Skukuza in a couple of years and be hit by a theme park and twenty-something storey hotel frothing with tourists. Not so though, says Mabunda: ‘In an actual fact, hotels in the bush bear the hallmarks of environmental sensitiveness as opposed to the bling of multi-storied, neon lights and noisy disco entertainment of city hotels.’ And he is correct – the developments have thus far always been designed to stay below the tree top canopy.

Anyone who has visited the park in the last few years would have noticed the new developments at entrance gates and some of the bigger camps. The greater public also need to be aware that the SANParks commercialisation policy which was initially approved by Cabinet back in 2000 was a long and tedious consultation process which included many different stakeholders bringing forward their views. This included those who were opposed to the idea.

This policy gave rise to the beginning of some of the luxury concession camps now operating within prescribed areas of the park, which, according to Mabunda, are entitled to being called hotels themselves. He offers his reassurance on the matter: ‘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.’ But, as I said, let’s try to find a different word to use instead of “˜hotel’. Environmentally friendly bush office, for example, already makes it sound better.

The fact of the matter is that these developments will go ahead and the Kruger National Park needs them. Whilst SANParks will receive finance from government to the tune of about R700 million over the next few years, this figure only constitutes approximately 20% of total funding necessary to keep the various parks around the country in pristine condition. One must also remember that SANParks manages a number of parks around South Africa and that these parks don’t always have the capacity to generate surplus earnings, if ever in some cases. This unfortunately leaves other parks like Kruger to bare this financial burden and be the bread winner for the rest.

It’s unsurprising to learn that the Kruger business model was not too long ago one on a path toward decomposition, like a ball of dung on its way to a dung beetle’s nest, and was one in desperate need of revitalisation. This has changed and there are countless people now working to its betterment.

I should assure you that from communication with Mabunda, both he and his management team have the matter under control. I refer to a press release from the end of March: ‘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.’

One also simply cannot afford to look past the very real fact that in order to attract the new and untapped black target market, their needs must be catered for too. Currently, black visitors total about 27% of visitors to the park. With these number likely to increase in the coming years, the tourism product (which this market isn’t all too pleased about – according to surveys) just simply must be redeveloped. ‘It is now up to SANParks to find sustainable methods to fund the operations and protection of the entire national parks system and hence SANParks views responsible tourism as a conservation strategy,’ explains Mabunda.

Standard tourism guidelines dictate that national parks around the world could be developed to 10% of their total size. Given the fact that the Kruger National Park covers some 2 million hectares, and that approximately only 6 285 hectares have been developed so far, a figure representing roughly 0.3% of total land, Mabunda’s reasoning begins to become clearer.

The development consultation phase has been a comprehensive one at that; visitor numbers to the new developments will be strictly controlled and visitors to the Malelane development will be locked in, as it were: ‘The implementation of a ‘park and ride’ facility at the Malelane gate will result in the restriction of any guests to make use of self-drives and that will limit the impact on the existing congestion levels as the guests will do all their game drives in formal open safari vehicles.’ Another fact to keep in mind about the Malelane development is that this development will be built on new land away from the existing accommodation areas.

As for the Skukuza development, well, it’s to be built on and near existing infrastructure at the camp, thus further minimising its impact on the environment. Conferencing facilities, the main objective behind both developments, needs to be viewed as an exceptional marketing opportunity for the park, both locally and internationally. Currently the park enjoys a high occupancy rate and numbers of visitors are still very strictly controlled by management, but, sometimes this is how you have to run a business.  These new developments present an opportunity to tap a previously unattainable tourist market that would have gone elsewhere, it’s also an opportunity for further exposure for the park and the country’s tourism industry as a whole.

Maybe the real concern should arise when journalists like myself and others begin to build the links and uncover facts such as that of Kuseni Dlamini, the current Chairperson of the SANParks Board, also acting as an independent non-executive director on the board of the Mvelaphanda Group. Mvelaphanda is in partnership with the Rezidor Hotel Group, who will run the new Malelane Hotel. The development really just doesn’t need to be overshadowed by the emergence of any tenderpreneuring having taken place.

So, as national parks move forward into the future, their business models simply need to adjust too. This is a realisation that we all need to accept if we are to maintain the heritage and nostalgia these parks create for us moving forward.






yoast-primary -
tcat - Conservation
tcat_slug - conservation-environment
tcat2 -
tcat2_slug -
tcat_final - environment