iSiMangaliso Wetland Park briefing

Meeting report

iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority
The iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority briefed the Committee on its background and activities. Mr Andrew Zaloumis, Chief Executive Officer, undertook the briefing.

In 1999 the Park was inscribed into the World Heritage List. It was considered a huge achievement and as a World Heritage Site needed to have outstanding universal value. Even the Kruger National Park was not declared a World Heritage Site. The Committee was given insight into the different types of animals, birds, fish species and other living organisms that were found in the Park. The landscape of the Park was also unusual and no other place in the world could be likened to it. Ecologically, the Park was very complex, which was of great global significance. Of even more significance was the deep and painful history of the people in the area. Poverty of communities abounded due to the socio economic neglect in the former homeland. Infrastructure like roads and electricity were lacking. With the current drought hitting KwaZulu-Natal water was also becoming an issue. The key challenge for the democratic SA was how to shift the development trajectory.

In the late 1990s it was agreed that a regional approach to the Park between the three countries SA, Mozambique and Swaziland was needed. This initiative was called the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative. Some of its successes were the upgrade of the N2 national road, the upgrade of border posts and getting malaria under control. On the Park’s redevelopment there were major interventions i.e. major tourism routes, tourism community investment and access roads, park fencing, conservation infrastructure, public access infrastructure and growth and transformation. Park infrastructure had an integrated management plan in place. An environmental impact assessment had to be done and ongoing monitoring was required. The development concept within the Park was to create circuits for tourism growth. The Committee was given insight into what progress government had made in infrastructure in various parts of the Park.

The intention was also to empower historically disadvantaged communities in the area. 640 000 people stayed around the Park. An iSimangaliso Wetland Park Transformation Framework was in place. Its premise was three accesses. The first was on asset ownership where communities could share in percentages of revenue from gate fees, concession fees etc. The second access was on secondary enterprise, which looked at local economic development and procurement. The third access was on asset governance that tried to bring locals on board regarding education, being informed of vacancies and on what private sector obligations were. Members were informed that 72% of the Park’s land claims had been settled. There were co-management agreements in place and to date eight had been signed. There was also a programme for capacity building for co-management.

On rural enterprise development the Park was training and mentoring 185 enterprises. Seventy-nine grants to the value of R5.9m had been awarded. Nine community-owned tourism activity businesses were also supported. On direct jobs created through the Park’s operations the total sat at 1319. iSimangaliso itself only employed 30 persons as it outsourced most of the work. On infrastructure jobs and Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) there were 281 contracts with 164 956 temporary jobs. In addition there were 49 community based contractors with 23 505 temporary jobs. Community Based Natural Resource Management, which entailed the harvesting of natural resources, involved 3000 women each year. The Park had also undertaken arts and crafts programmes that played a huge part in the betterment of lives of community members.

Initiatives to promote and facilitate optimal tourism and related development were done via equity partnerships, activity licences and day visitor facilities. Strict tender criteria were set for public private partnerships and licenses. On tourism activity licences to date 51 had been granted with a total of 204 jobs that had been created. Empowerment initiatives for locally black owned businesses were in place. Tourism skills development in hospitality, chefs training and tour guiding had taken place with 80% of persons trained obtaining employment. Since the year 2000 there had been 6000 direct jobs created. The Park’s occupancy had increased from below national average to above. Gate numbers had increased year on year and so had gate revenue. The Park also had higher visitor numbers than other areas in KwaZulu-Natal.

A major challenge was to bring black business owners into the town of St Lucia. To date there was not one black owned business in the town. The issue was about access. Provision was made for a Higher Education Access Programme that involved 67 students in conservation and tourism related fields. A 95% pass rate was achieved. There were eleven cadets in the Park of which six were graduates. Ten of the eleven would be getting permanent employment. Another challenge was to get university access for students. In order to do more the Park had to partner with the National Department of Tourism (NDT) on issues such as economic ownership, entrepreneur development, training and marketing.

The Park annually received R20m in terms of its Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget.

Discussion
Mr P Cebekhulu (IFP) noted that the briefing had spoken about there being 220km of fencing. He made special reference to the R22 road and had observed that in certain parts of the Park one could find livestock roaming around; he was concerned that the animals could destroy the property of people. On the development of Sodwana Bay he noted that media reports had stated that land allocations had been sold off to rich investors from cities. He asked what effect the drought in KwaZulu-Natal had on the balance of the ecosystem at Lake St Lucia. What was the current situation?

Mr Zaloumis stated that the R22 was a national road. The National Roads Agency no longer fenced roads. Park fencing was done out of boundary. Fences were protected daily, repairs were done and veterinary certificates were obtained to ensure that it was not harmful to animals. The Park would monitor fences on an ongoing basis. Sodwana Bay was a section of the Park. There were no allocations of land in Sodwana Bay. Outside of Sodwana Bay there had been many allocations through traditional authorities. The Park had taken steps against illegal or unwanted developments. The Park had even interdicted a proposed development from happening. He explained that the Umfolozi River brought in 60% of Lake St Lucia’s water. The fresh water from the Umfolozi River was a huge help given the drought; KwaZulu-Natal needed its summer rainfall. 

Ms L Makhubele-Mashele (ANC) asked if it was correct that most of the land claims in the area had been settled. Apparently the Park had a system in place to compensate people in the area. She referred to the transfrontier arrangement between SA, Mozambique and Swaziland. The Park, whilst preserving the ecosystem, had wished to put up fences. Why was it necessary? The Kruger National Park allowed animals to roam freely across South African and Mozambiquan land. Would fences not hamper the movement of animals?

Mr Zaloumis responded that the Park had settled its first claims in the early 2000s already. Claimants were given title deeds but there were restrictions of title. One of the major challenges was that often claims were settled but title had not been transferred. On transfrontier areas the situation at the Park was very different to that of the Kruger National Park. The Park tried not to have fences where they were not necessary. The Park was linked to Mozambique via the sea. The Park was all for the free movement of game hence the intention was to open up sixteen parcels of land into one. The Park even donated game to Mozambiquan parks.

Mr G Krumbock (DA) asked if it was correct that titanium mining would have taken place in the Park dunes if it had not been stopped when SA became a democracy. There seemed to be a trade off between economic development and preservation. The briefing had alluded to the fact that economic development had taken place in the area through tourism. He asked where the debate on the mining issue was at present. In hindsight was it the correct decision to have chosen preservation over mining. R106m of the R126m revenue received by the Park came from grants, what was the nature of the grants, and to what extent was the Park still dependant on grants? He felt that perhaps the Park was not generating sufficient revenue on its own. The Park’s generated revenue stood at R16m. The briefing had pointed out that efforts had been made to create jobs i.e. arts and crafts. The Committee would ideally like to know how many indirect jobs had been created or what indirect benefits there were.

Mr Zaloumis said that the mining debate was a huge one. At the time when the titanium mining issue came up 500 South Africans had signed a no mining petition. It was even signed by the late then President Nelson Mandela. It was a bitter pill to swallow for those who were pro mining. If the mining had gone ahead then 450 direct jobs would have been created. The Park outstripped this figure many times with its creation of 6000 direct jobs. He was sure that the mining issue would once again come up since mining around park areas was being proposed again. He conceded that the Park was dependant on grant funding. The revenue that the Park generated was not even enough to break even. The grant amount was R105m. It came from different government programmes as well as from the World Bank and other agencies. Lake St Lucia was used by 120 000 families for their livelihoods.

Ms A Matshobeni (EFF) pointed out that on the Committee’s oversight visit to the area there seemed to be a misunderstanding between the Park and the community. The stakeholders complained that the Park was not assisting them. She was surprised when it was stated during the briefing that all land claims had been settled. She asked how the co-management agreements with claimants were working out. It seemed that different things were reflected on paper compared to what was happening on the ground. Communities said that the Park was not assisting them.

Mr Zaloumis confirmed that the Park entered into co-management agreements with communities. The agreements set out beneficiation packages and communities were entitled to a percentage of the revenue that the Park generated. The relationship between the Park and communities was complex. There were always disputes with different communities in different areas of the Park, different issues cropped up all the time. Given the current drought water was one of the issues at present. The Park tried to deliver as much as it could to communities but unfortunately it could not provide jobs to everyone. Even though land claims were settled they were never 100% settled. There were always internal issues that remained.

Ms E Masehela (ANC) asked whether the Park’s remuneration of interns and temporary workers was in line with the Department of Labour’s requirements, and whether the Park experienced problems with rhino poaching.

Mr Zaloumis said that interns were paid National Treasury approved fees. The Minister of Finance approved rates of payment. Minimum wages were according to Department of Labour criteria.  He conceded that rhino poaching was a problem and rhino in some areas of the Park had been dehorned.

The Chairperson, on additional funding for the Park, asked whether the Park had approached the National Equity Fund for equity funding. The NDT had just launched its Tourism Enterprise Partnership (TEP) to assist SMMEs and entrepreneurship. The NDT also had the Tourism Incentive Programme (TIP). She agreed that land claimants in the area seemed to be up in arms; the Committee would refer the matter to the Ministry of Rural Development and Land Reform. The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform had agreed to deal with the matter. Perhaps the NDT could do something to uplift the Khula Village since it was on government land. She commented that the briefing had not said much about whale watching, and asked how the Park worked together with wildlife organisations.

Mr Zaloumis agreed that the Park’s relationship with NDT needed to be picked up. He would also consider the National Empowerment Fund. The Park had tried to engage with the TEP and would also engage the TIP. The Park together with the NDT could assist the Khula Village. The idea was to get cultural bed and breakfasts to work together; there was scope. On whale watching there were three concessions in the Park. He noted that Ezemvelow dealt with wildlife. He stressed that attempts were made to assist people to tender. The problem was that there were limited opportunities. The issue was about equity for business. He pointed out that in SA there was only one black charter fisherman.

Dr Sibusiso Khuzwayo, Committee Content Adviser, suggested that the Committee raise the issue of concessions with the NDT. He noted that some of the concessions were ring-fenced for communities. Communities complained that the concessions were too expensive for them. Concessions were usually made available on a cyclical basis. People needed assistance on being able to access the concessions. There were genuine community persons who wished to have concessions but could simply not afford it. He suggested that perhaps persons could be assisted via the Social Responsibility Programme. He urged the Committee to take the matter further. 

Mr Zaloumis pointed out that the number of concessions given were limited. Tenders did contain empowerment criteria. Tenders however had to follow National Treasury processes and criteria had to be met. If a tender bid was not good enough then it had to go out on retender. On assistance to communities the Park did have an entrepreneurship programme and transaction advisers. The biggest challenge was that there were not enough concessions to go around. Due to limited demand the Park had an ecological and viability cap.

Mr Cebekhulu felt that the Park’s gate fees were far too high for local communities. He asked what the rationale was for the Park to limit the number of persons that may travel in a vehicle into the Park.

Mr Zaloumis responded that when people entered the Park in a vehicle then they had to comply with the number of people allowed in such vehicle as per its licence. If a van was licensed for 12 people then only 12 people should be allowed in it. The Park’s gate fees were much lower than other parks. The Park’s revenue paid for the maintenance of roads and fences. He impressed upon the Committee that equitable access did not mean free access. Persons could buy a loyalty card that was R500 per annum in order to pay less gate fees. There were sections of the Park that were free. For access to the Park to be free then a greater grant was needed or more activities should be on offer.

Mr Khuzwayo suggested that the Committee communicate formally with the NDT regarding the Director General of the NDT needing to meet with the Park to sort out issues like concessions. The NDT needed to be brought on board.

The Committee agreed to Mr Khuzwayo’s suggestion. 

Committee Minutes
Committee minutes dated the 11 September 2015 were adopted as amended.
Minutes dated the 16 September 2015 and 20 October 2015 were adopted unamended. 

The meeting was adjourned.