A Greater Addo National Park
Issues, Costs and Policies:
a preliminary review
Tom Le Quesne
Southern Africa Environment Project,
20 Saville House,
Western Road,
Port Elizabeth
Tel/Fax: 041 585 6545
Glenn Calverley
InfoSource,
PO Box 12918,
Centrahill,
Port Elizabeth 6001
Tel: 041 523149
March 1998
March 1998
Contents
I. Introduction
II. Issues
III. Costs
IV. Policies
V. Concluding Summary
I. Introduction
The Addo Elephant National Park has for a number of years been undertaking a process of piecemeal expansion, driven largely by the desire to provide increased habitat for a growing elephant population. Over the last few years, a number of plans have been advanced for this expansion to be accelerated to create a major new park, variously known as the Greater Addo National Park or Greater Algoa Park. These plans were given new impetus by the publication in September 1997 of a research paper, A Proposal for a Greater Addo National Park, by Graham Kerley and Andre Boshoff of the University of Port Elizabeth. The proposal outlined by Kerley and Boshoff has generated considerable interest and excitement, both as a conservation measure, but also as a significant development opportunity.
Briefly stated, the proposal is for the expansion of the existing Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) to create a new Greater Addo National Park consisting of a 341 000 hectare terrestrial zone and a 57 000 hectare marine zone. Such an expanded park would contain six of the seven biomes in South Africa, and would provide habitat for the ‘big five’, along with further charismatic mega-fauna such as the Southern Right Whale and the Great White Shark.*
The Kerley-Boshoff paper focused on the broad concept of the Greater Addo National Park, and in particular on its ecological and conservation status. Integrated environmental management highlights three key areas for analysis - ecological, social and economic. It is in respect of the latter two areas that little work has yet been done on the Greater Addo National Park scheme. This paper endeavors to go some way to remedying that situation by providing a very preliminary discussion of some of the social and economic issues associated with the park. We proceed by identifying the key social and economic issues that the expansion plan will face, including issues such as the relocation of inhabitants of the land and the considerable cost of the purchase of the land. These discussions are then used to inform the consideration of a number of the key policy choices for the expansion plan.
The authors wish to make clear that the assessments and opinions made in this paper are their responsibility alone, and in no way reflect the policies or intentions of South African National Parks. The paper is designed to present the broadest of estimates of costs, and should be read in that context. Similarly, we are aware that many of our assertions with respect to policy options are based on very preliminary evidence. As such, judgments on our part are primarily designed to stimulate debate and further thinking.
II. Issues
II. Issues
a. Socio-Economic Impact
Most commentators who have considered the proposal for a Greater Addo National Park foresee long term socio-economic benefits arising from its successful implementation and management. Notwithstanding the realisable positive impact of the Greater Addo National Park in terms of conservation, economic development, and social upliftment, it is crucial that the processes of planning and implementation are guided by a thorough consideration of the widest range of implications of such a project.
Since many of the areas earmarked for inclusion within the Greater Addo National Park do not currently register significant levels of economic activity, the expansion represents a unique opportunity for economic development. With the decline in the global mohair market, the almost complete cessation of governmental subsidies for agriculture and the limited access to irrigation in many of the affected areas, agriculture is by and large an unsustainable economic activity. It is for this reason that many farmers have already turned to game farming and trophy hunting as a source of revenue from their lands. The Greater Addo National Park implies therefore a consolidation of the most viable form of land use for the area, generating both income and employment and potentially placing the region at the forefront of the global eco-tourist market. The spin-offs for eco-tourism related development in the entire Eastern Cape would be highly positive, with the Greater Addo National Park acting as a critical flagship for the area.
Most of the employment generated by the expansion of the park will be of a long-term nature. The bulk of the prospective jobs will be in fields specifically linked to the high quality demands of the tourism industry. Areas of direct employment will include transportation, arts and crafts, administration, conservation, security, ushering, catering and cleaning. If these labour intensive areas of the new job market are sub-contracted, stipulations may have to be put in place to reserve some jobs - as a compensatory measure - for displaced members of the local community. It is expected that a significant part of the benefits generated will arise from activities peripheral to the park itself. These benefits range from public maintenance to accommodation, transport and curio manufacture. What is particularly appealing about the economic benefits of Greater Addo National Park is that many of the opportunities would be generated in the SMME sector, a key focus in the RDP’s strategy of poverty alleviation. The park will also help to strengthen the rural economy of the region, so reducing urban migration and the attendant social costs. Beside direct employment opportunities, social upliftment strategies have been mooted which include plans to improve community infrastructure and access to opportunities in the eco-tourism industry. Possible policies in this respect are discussed later in the paper.
While an estimation of the employment generation of Greater Addo National Park will be at best very vague, we feel that it is important to make such an estimate to indicate the level of benefits that could be expected from an expansion. The existing AENP has one residential camp. Under the planned expansion, there will be five such camps. If the number of foreign visitors were to increase in line with this, foreign visitors to the park would rise from the current figure of 40 000 to a figure of 200 000 annually. A widely used figure, and one used by Kerley-Boshoff, estimates that one job is created in the local economy for every ten foreign visitors. On this basis, the Greater Addo National Park could generate in the region of 16 000 jobs in the Port Elizabeth area. While much further work is needed to accurately quantify this figure, it provides a reasonable idea of the scale of the benefits of the proposal.
Notwithstanding these aforementioned positive socio-economic impacts, it is important to recognise that farm workers and their dependants currently living within the affected areas will lose their homes, jobs and the food supplies which are provided as part of an agricultural livelihood in most parts of South Africa. A number of these job losses will be countered by new jobs, opportunities and other benefits created by the expanded park and its related eco-tourism industry. It is crucial that a concerted effort is made to ensure employment under an expanded park for all those whose current jobs are lost through its implementation. Despite this, for many farm labourers, job losses will entail the difficulties of adapting to urban life and the struggle to find employment in a sector of the economy that would be largely alien to their experiences and skills. This fact places training programmes for the local community at a premium, if indeed they are to be capable of fully taking advantage of the potential opportunities created by the expanded park.
A further key socio-economic issue is the relatively productive dairy farming zone of the Alexandria district, part of the envisaged coastal grassland/forest section of the Kerley-Boshoff proposal. Dairy farming in the area is both lucrative and labour intensive. Furthermore the Alexandria area is one of the most densely populated of the areas subsumed within the designated areas of the Kerley-Boshoff Greater Addo National Park proposal. Due to the economic value of the dairy industry, the consequent value of the grazing land and the potential extent of the social impact on the area, it does not appear to be a viable option for inclusion within the greater park. Alternative measures for the partial inclusion of these types of areas are considered in a later section of this document.
The proposed marine section of the park includes a number of important and popular fishing grounds, both for commercial and recreational fishermen. For example, the waters around Bird Island are considered as the best yellowtail fishing on the East coast of South Africa. The socio-economic consequences of the demarcation of the entire 57 000 ha marine reserve as proposed by Kerlet-Boshoff as a no-go zone for fishing are unclear at this stage. While Kerley-Boshoff are of the opinion that the marine reserve would act as a base for the regeneration of depleted stocks, there are potentially significant negative impacts of the cessation of fishing throughout this area. This issue needs considerable further attention and consultation.
The success of Greater Addo National Park will depend in substantial part on sound and integrated environment and development management for the sub-region as a whole. The overall character and aesthetics of the area will significantly affect the appeal to visitors of Greater Addo National Park. Of considerable concern in this regard is the proposed Coega Industrial Development Zone. The harbour would have significant impacts on the aesthetics of Algoa Bay and, according to some critics of the project, the viability of the marine reserve. The IDZ is designed as the site for a large, high pollution zinc refinery and to attract other similar "dirty" industrial facilities in the metals benefaction industry (a manganese smelter, iron and steel plant, foundry, battery plant etc.) Such facilities risk adverse impacts on the visibility of this pristine "clean air" area and to detract from its natural quality. The visual impact of the zinc smelter and related waste dumps was considered in the Gencor zinc refinery EIR and acknowledged to be significant. Such impacts have not been considered for other facilities that are sought for the IDZ. Increased industrial traffic and waste disposal activities in the area, which visitors to Greater Addo National Park would go through to get to Addo, could further affect the desireability of the area as a tourist venue. Similarly, the development would detract from the possibilities for edge of park developments along the coast, hence removing one of the largest potential benefits of the park expansion. To date, no proper analysis has been done of the potential impacts of the Coega development on either the AENP as it now exists or the proposed Greater Addo National Park. Should it proceed, the impact of the Coega development may require a reorientation of the core of the park so that tourists are not exposed to a view (or any other aspect) of the IDZ en route to the park. There is urgent need for these issues to be addressed before a final decision is made on Coega in August of this year.
A project of this kind should be seen in the context of a global tourism market with specified codes of conduct and procedure requirements. An insightful guide in respect to the issues raised by the proposed Greater Addo National Park is the Joint Declaration of the World Tourism Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme (WTO and UNEP, 1982). In essence the Declaration argues that;
"The protection, enhancement and improvement of the various components of the human environment are among the fundamental conditions for the harmonious development of tourism. Similarly, rational management of tourism may contribute to a large extent to protecting and developing the physical environment and the cultural heritage, as well as improving the quality of life…"
In other words, both the WTO and UNEP regard successful tourism development as an integrated process requiring a comprehensive planning initiative that involves the complete list of stakeholders. From these foregoing statements, it is clear that if the Greater Addo National Park is indeed to achieve the full extent of its resource potential, it is vital that the processes of capturing economic rewards via the project are consistent with the aims of conservation and social upliftment.
b. Demographic Impact
The primary demographic impact of the Addo expansion is the dual processes of depopulation and displacement. In order to achieve the unique conservation aims as proposed by Kerley and Boshoff, both farmers and members of the local community must be relocated. Since the formation of positive perceptions amongst the local communities concerning conservation has been hampered by previous authoritarian policies, it is vital that the expansion project takes the social impact upon the entire community seriously. The effect of depopulation and displacement raises a number of difficult and pertinent questions, such as whether people do in fact wish to leave the area and if so where do they go; if not, what will happen to them or to the proposed expansion plan? Some of the implications of these questions have already developed into challenging issues for the Kerley-Boshoff proposal and for the National Parks in their capacity as the implementing body. It is important to remember that depopulation implies a loss of home and livelihood for members of the local community and that the small impoverished towns surrounding the expanded park will be forced to absorb the displaced. If the process of displacement is not carefully managed it will undoubtedly become a source of immense discontent for all the role players and specifically for farmers and members of the local community.
While detailed figures concerning the number of inhabitants are not available at this stage, we believe that a vague estimate can be of some use. Accordingly, we estimate that there are approximately 400 people living in the karoo section; 100 in the mountain section; and 2000 in each of the forest and bushveld sections. Far higher numbers of people live within the proposed coastal section, one of the reasons that we do not believe that this section can be feasibly incorporated into the Greater Addo National Park.
For farmers whose land falls within the designated areas of the proposal, leaving the district raises a number of sentimental considerations. Along with an attachment to the land, certain farmers have expressed a concern about family cemeteries and other historic sites within the affected area. National Parks accepts the validity of these sentimental artefacts and arrangements can be made with farmers for their recognition and protection. Alongside those farmers who are unwilling to vacate their land, there are some labourers who may claim a right to tenure if they have lived on the land for longer than ten years. Head Warden of Addo National Elephant Park, Mr Fundisile Mketeni, has explained that National Parks has no desire to exercise their right to expropriate farmers or members of the local community from the designated land. He regards it as a challenge to find fair settlements of land disputes. A possible use for homesteads that have been depopulated is as scientific research stations or historical sites and/or museums highlighting the considerable cultural history of the area.
c. Institutional Impact
It is evident that concurrent with the new opportunities generated by the expanded park, increased demands will be imposed upon local services provision. The maintenance of roads, the provision of public services, pollution control, safety and security measures will each require elaboration in order to cope with the influx of tourists and the new concentrations of the local population. A great deal of attention will have to be paid to planning, zoning, infrastructure, and service delivery (including maintenance) of the entire sub-region if the eco-tourist market is to be successful. A matter of some urgency will be the housing and integration of displaced members of the local community. Moreover new demands will be placed on schools and other public facilities to cope with the predicted sub-regional development. Attention will have to be given to the source of funding for the upgrading of local institutional capacity. With the depopulation of the designated areas, some facilities will, on the other hand, fall into disuse and services in these areas will no longer be required. Materials and resources may be redistributed in such a manner as to accommodate the requirements of economic development in the area.
III.
CostsA number of costs will be associated with the implementation of Greater Addo National Park, primarily the cost of purchasing land. Further costs, such as the construction of the fence around the perimeter of the park, have been identified. We have approached estimation of the costs by dividing the proposed expansion into five zones, delineated on a geographical and ecological basis: karoo, forest, mountain, bushveld, and coastal forest/grassland. The map on the following page lays out each of these areas. The park expansion need not include all of these zones, and so a dis-aggregation of the costs into zones in this manner allows for the estimation of the cost of a number of different expansion options.
Preliminary Cost Estimates:
|
|
Area Ha |
Cost R/Ha |
Land Cost R millions |
Fencing Distance |
Fencing Cost |
Total Cost R millions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karoo |
120 000 |
400 |
48 |
135 km |
R13.5 m |
61.5 |
|
Forest |
30 000 |
1000-1200 |
30 – 36 |
40 km |
R 4 m |
34 - 40 |
|
Mountain |
60 000 |
800-1000 |
48 – 60 |
75 km |
R 7.5 m |
55.5 - 67.5 |
|
Bushveld |
45 000 |
1000-2000 |
45 – 90 |
65 km |
R 6.5 m |
51.5 - 96.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
255 000 |
- |
171 – 234 |
315 km |
R31.5 m |
202.5 -265.5 |
The coastal forest / grassland area of the park has not been included in the above calculations as we do not consider the incorporation of this area as a whole into the expanded park, as envisaged by the Kerley-Boshoff proposal, as feasible. As discussed above, the density of population in some of this area is far greater than in the rest of the proposed park expansion. The social consequences of relocation on such a level are likely to be unacceptable. The financial cost of such relocation is also likely to be prohibitive. Similarly, there are patches of highly productive dairy farming in the area. For such areas, land prices may be prohibitive for expansion over the entire area envisaged by the Kerley-Boshoff plan.
Despite this, the coastal area has a very high status both from a conservation point of view and from an eco-tourism perspective, and it is important that the area should be incorporated in some form into the concept of Greater Addo National Park. We therefore introduce below the idea of a biosphere reserve, a concept which will allow for the highlighting of the conservation based development opportunities in the areas surrounding, but not integral parts of, the expanded Greater Addo National Park.
It is important at an early stage to make an estimation of the maintenance costs of the proposed expansion, as these could be prohibitive to the expansion. The maintenance costs are estimated on the basis of expansion into the four zones outlined above, resulting in a 310 000 hectare National Park. The major costs that have been identified are:
While there will be many other costs associated with the maintenance of the park, these appear to be the major considerations. We do not intend to consider the income generating structure and potential of the park in detail. However, it would appear at this early stage that the maintenance costs of the park can be met through a combination of park entrance fees and concessions paid to SANP by private operators within the park. In this respect, SANP will have to give the strongest consideration to the introduction of a tiered pricing structure for domestic and foreign visitors to the park.
IV. Policies
The two key challenges that the Greater Addo National Park scheme faces are the substantial start-up costs - estimated at over R200 million - and the necessity of providing socio-economic benefits to all of those living in and around the proposed expansion. It is these two considerations that will help to frame the policy options discussed.
a. Extent of expansion
While the extent to which it is possible for the park to expand will depend to a large measure on the availability of funds, there are a number of other considerations which need to be weighed. The preceding discussion has made clear that the full implementation of the Kerley-Boshoff proposal is highly unlikely to be feasible. We have divided the proposal into a number of sections: karoo, forest, mountain, bushveld and coastal forest/grassland. Of these sections, we consider that the full implementation of the coastal/forest section down to Alexandria will not be feasible because of the high social and economic costs that would be entailed, as discussed in the preceding sections. Despite this, the Woody Cape Nature reserve may be incorporated into the core park, along with the marine reserve.
We believe that there are strong reasons for implementing the proposal in a one-off expansion, rather than on an incremental basis. Expansion in several phases raises the problem of construction and removal of fences as the park expands. By way of example, the boundary between the mountain and karoo sections is approximately 75 km, with a construction cost of R7.5 million. If the karoo section is added later, this portion of fence would need to be removed, although some of the material could be re-used. The social and economic costs of the uncertainty generated by incremental expansion are also undesirable. For instance land is left temporarily depopulated until it can be properly incorporated into the core park. Land and property thereby becomes vulnerable to theft, vandalism, snaring and poaching. Similarly, the incrementalist approach encourages speculation in the areas around the park, raising the costs of land purchase.
An aspect of this speculation is the clearing of virgin bush by farmers, who then claim a higher value for this land since it is supposedly cultivated land. The momentum and energy focused around a one-off expansion would also seem to provide opportunities for raising funds that an incrementalist approach does not.
From a conservation perspective, the karoo section of the park would be afforded the lowest priority. Hence, if funding is a potential constraint, there may be a temptation to exclude this section from the proposal so reducing the costing requirements. We feel that strong efforts should be made to incorporate this section in the park. While no efforts are made in this paper to estimate the income generating possibilities of the park as a whole, the karoo section should be singled out for comment. The relatively cheap cost of land in this section of the park and the appeal of plains game to foreign tourists suggests that it will offer a particularly strong income relative to the investment required. While this section of the park would be afforded the lowest priority from a conservation perspective, it would have a higher priority from a development and financial perspective. In addition, this section will be able to cross-subsidise those areas of the park which do not generate income as strongly. We therefore feel that greater weight should be afforded to the incorporation of this section than might accrue from a conservation perspective alone. A few possibilities for private sector development of this section are suggested below in the eventuality of funding constraints.
b. The involvement of the private sector
The involvement of the private sector spans a number of possibilities. At one extreme, all of the land, accommodation, infrastructure and additional economic activities within the park would be owned and operated by SANP (option 1, below). To enable this, a considerable injection of funds from either international sources or national government will be necessary. At the other extreme, the expansion would occur on a contract park basis, with no role for SANP beyond co-ordination (option 3). While we do not believe that either of these extreme options is feasible, there is a strong need to examine the extent of private sector involvement in the park expansion and the variety of options in this respect.
For reasons that we set out below, we favour the ownership of land by SANP, with the franchising of as much economic activity as possible to the private sector (option 2). If there is a constraint on funding available for the purchase of land, then alternative models may offer solutions. Under one such alternative, the Greater Addo National Park consists of a core park owned by SANP, with the karoo section owned by a single private investor and operated as a contract park in conjunction with the Greater Addo National Park (option 4). Under another alternative, SANP sells off the rights to operate, in perpetuity, accommodation and other economic activities to the private sector, hence raising capital for the purchase of the land for the expansion (option 5).
Option 1: SANP ownership of land and operation of economic activities. If constraints on land purchase funding do not exist, then the Greater Addo National Park will be able to proceed with the land under the ownership of SANP. The economic activities attendant on the park, in particular construction and operation of accommodation, can then be run by SANP with the profits helping to maintain the park. While this is the current procedure at AENP, the scale of economic activity under an expanded park would be vastly greater, with several lodges/camps.
Option 2: SANP ownership of land; private sector franchising of economic activities. The area of the park expansion in which private sector involvement will be most beneficial is with respect to the construction and running of accommodation and other tourist services. SANP should be encouraged to retain control of those activities in which they have expertise. Such activities consist largely in the management of national parks. There are private companies who can run the economic activities, for example lodge accommodation and safaris, with more efficiency than SANP. Hence, we suggest that SANP franchise the right to operate accommodation, safaris etc. to private companies. Because of the monopoly power that such franchises will confer, private companies will be willing to pay a rent to SANP for the franchise. Such rents will form a key part of the income necessary to maintain the park and to allow for community development. Such private franchising will, in the final analysis, allow for more resources to be devoted to the maintenance of the park and the economic upliftment of the surrounding communities than option 1. Initial longer-term franchises may also be able to contribute towards establishment of the park.
Option 3: Contract Park expansion - private ownership of land. It is clear that the main constraint to the development of the expanded Addo National Park is the availability of finance for the purchase of the land and the attendant costs of the incrementalist approach to this purchase. In the light of this, a possible solution is to encourage the expansion on a contract park basis. Such an approach recognises and tries to build upon the economic viability of eco-tourism and game farming as a land-use. On such a basis, private owners would buy land in the proposed expansion, and would own the rights to the economic utilisation of that land through eco-tourism. However, in order to become incorporated into the Greater Addo National Park, management of the land would be under the control of SANP. Hence, land is brought under the control of SANP, with the ensuing conservation benefits, while the private sector ensures developmental benefit.
While such an approach has appeals, it also has significant problems, and SANP are unwilling to proceed in such a manner for a number of good reasons. Firstly, the incorporation of many contract parks into a single Greater Addo National Park under SANP management would raise considerable and possibly insuperable contractual difficulties. There exists the very real possibility of conflict between SANP and private owners, as well as between the private owners themselves. Secondly, it is not clear that eco-tourism is the most viable form of land-use in all areas of the proposed expansion, particularly when certain forms of game utilisation will be prohibited under SANP management. Finally, we have noted above that many of the economic benefits of the proposed Greater Addo National Park will accrue in the surrounding communities and region. As such, they cannot be internalised into benefits for the private contract park owner. Relying on the private sector alone is therefore likely to lead to a lesser expansion than the ideal from both conservation and development points of view.
Option 4: Private purchase of one section of land (karoo). One possible form of private sector involvement in purchasing park land which avoids many of the above problems focuses on the stronger predicted economic returns of the karoo section of the park. Accordingly, a single investment opportunity could be created for the karoo section of the park. Under such an approach, an investor would purchase the land and fencing for this section, in the region of R60 million, and establish a contract whereby the land would be managed by SANP. The private investor would then be allowed the economic utilisation of this land. The possibility of economic utilisation conflicting with conservation goals would be constrained under the initial contract drawn up with SANP. The remaining park expansion would be financed by international agencies or government, and owned by SANP.
While we believe that option 4 is workable, there are a number of problems which suggest that it is not entirely desirable, not least SANP resistance to the concept. Prominent among these problems would be the on-going possibility of disagreement between the private investor and SANP. Repeated experience of regulation in a variety of contexts illustrates the considerable problems and frictions that arise, and the difficulty of drawing up any contract capable of dealing with the problems. On this occasion, the management priorities of SANP may well conflict with the aims of the private investor.
Option 5: SANP ownership of land; sale of rights to economic activities within park to enable land purchase. In the light of the potential problems outlined above, a middle way between the models we have sketched may help solve the financial constraints on the purchase of land while allowing SANP to retain ownership of the land within the Greater Addo National Park. Such a middle way recognises that the value to the private investor in a contract park does not lie with the land itself, but with the economically productive activities. Hence, it is the right to operate accommodation and safaris within the park that is the source of economic benefits. In theory, a private investor should be prepared to pay the same sum to own the rights to all of the permitted economic activities within a section of the park as they would be prepared to pay to buy the land itself. While this equivalence may not hold in reality, it suggests that SANP will be able to raise considerable sums by selling the rights to economic activity within the expanded park.
By way of example, the Kerley-Boshoff proposal suggests the construction of a further five camps within the park. Because of the demand for accommodation within the park, the rights to operate each of these camps will be worth a considerable sum of money to private investors. By selling the rights to operate these lodges, SANP will be able to generate capital towards the cost of expansion. While much further work is needed to specify the level of finance that could be generated by such sales of rights, we believe that it could make a significant contribution to the financing of the purchase of the park.
One drawback to such a method of helping to finance the park needs to be raised. Under a model where SANP franchises economic activity to the private sector, SANP continues to receive an income from the private sector for these franchises. This income can be used to aid the maintenance of the park and to provide benefits to the local community. Where the rights to economic activity have been sold outright, no such continuing income accrues to SANP. As a consequence, the funding available for communities and park management will fall. Hence, where funding for the purchase of land is not a dominating constraint, we favour option 2 - the ownership of land and economic rights by SANP, with economic activity franchised out to the private sector.
c. Community involvement
According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987), "the pursuit of sustainable development requires a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making". Fundamental to facilitating the management of the impact of the Greater Addo National Park on both farmers and the local community is the establishment of some form of public participation forum which takes as its basic principle the objectives of sustainable development. From the preceding points raised in this document, it is clear that without an adequately participative process a number of undesirable social consequences may arise from the proposed expansion of the park. The implementation of Greater Addo National Park must therefore be guided by a participative process which aims to establish a consultative forum representing as many of the relevant role players as possible.
The role players in the Greater Addo National Park can be listed as follows:
The two immediately identifiable role players who would be primarily affected by the implementation of the proposed Greater Addo National Park are the land owning farmers and the remaining local inhabitants of the region. An environmental impact assessment, including a social impact assessment, for the proposed expansion will allow for the genuine and informed participation of these parties in the development plans.
As has repeatedly been stressed in this paper, there is a significant need for community involvement and development in a Greater Addo National Park. Experience from many countries has demonstrated that community benefits from conservation initiatives are crucial to their success, both from a conservation and a development point of view. There is no reason to believe that the situation is any different for the proposed Greater Addo National Park. AENP is already keenly aware of this aspect of their role, and have been running the Mayibuye Ndlovu Project in association with the local community. The project has focused on community-based development, and AENP has provided the local community with a number of benefits, including unneeded building material, firewood from exotic trees, craft materials from within the park etc.
The scale of the proposed expansion provides both an opportunity to build on this, as well as a number of challenges that have been noted above. For the community to truly benefit from the expansion, training in a variety of areas, for example entrepreneurial skills and craft work, is critically needed to allow for the full development of enterprises. Re-training of those who lose jobs through the expansion will be necessary. In other cases, start-up capital and loans for small and micro enterprises will be necessary.
In the light of these needs, we recommend the establishment of a Greater Addo Community Development Bank, or similar structure. The Bank could provide both loans and training to the local communities to allow them to actively participate in the benefits of the expansion. In addition, where funds are available, the bank may be able to back more major capital projects, for example training centres, clinics etc. Clearly, the decisions as to how the funding should be used must lie with the communities themselves. There are many models of successful community banks of this nature, and we believe that the economic possibilities of the Greater Addo National Park expansion would provide an ideal base for a successful scheme of this nature.
We are strongly of the opinion that in the longer term the level of income to the bank, and hence benefits to the local community, should be correlated to the success of the park. Hence, we recommend that the Development Bank be financed as a proportion of the income of the park. In this manner, the greater the success of the park, the greater the level of benefits to the surrounding communities. Not only does this provide the communities with incentives to ensure the success of the park, it also allows them to feel that the park is directly contributing to their lives. A direct correlation of this nature, where communities can clearly perceive the benefits of the increased success of the park, can go a long way to overcoming the attitude of many to wildlife, an attitude born out of many years in which local communities have been denied access to wildlife resources. It is important that the ongoing funding of such a programme is included in the income considerations of the park.
An exception may have to be made to this approach to the funding of the Bank in the initial stages of the project. There will be a strong need for the opportunities offered by the Bank in the earliest stages of the project, for example for the retraining of those individuals who lose their current jobs due to the expansion. At the early stages, the income accruing to the Park and hence the Bank will not have built up. We therefore suggest that a start-up grant for a Community Development Bank may be a necessary part of the establishment costs of the park.
e. Bio-sphere reserve
In the preceding discussions, we have expressed the view that the full implementation of the Kerley-Boshoff proposal is probably not feasible, in particular in the Alexandria region. However, this is not to deny the crucial environmental significance of much of this area, as well as its eco-tourism potential. Similarly, we have noted that there are already a number of game farms in the area surrounding the proposed Greater Addo National Park. In order for the expansion plan to fully maximise the conservation and development benefits to the region, these areas that lie outside the core park need to be incorporated into the Addo concept in some manner.
We therefore suggest that the development proceed under the concept of a bio-sphere reserve. A bio-sphere reserve consists of a core zone, surrounded by areas in which conservation based development initiatives are encouraged. Such would be the case for an Addo bio-sphere reserve. The expanded Greater Addo National Park would be the core zone, while the Alexandria area, including the Woody Cape Nature Reserve, and game farms in the area would be part of the
peripheral zones. This will allow for the full development of the region as an eco-tourist destination, with the expanded core park acting as the key flagship. It is again important to note that possible industrial developments in the area would profoundly weaken this concept and, in our opinion, significantly reduce the development and conservation benefits of a bio-sphere reserve based on an expanded Addo.
It is abundantly clear that any Greater Addo National Park concept would be attended with a wide variety of environmental, social and economic impacts. These impacts, both positive and negative, must be fully analysed and made clear to all interested and affected parties before the development can proceed. The key method of facilitating such a process is through a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA). An EIA not only allows for a thorough-going investigation of the impacts of the proposed Greater Addo National Park, but also provides a mechanism for the dissemination of information to, and incorporation of input from, all involved parties.
As part of such an EIA, we believe that special focus needs to be given to a Social Impact Assessment. The purpose of a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is to determine the social consequences of any proposed scheme. The scheme is treated as an interaction amongst a variety of relevant role players. From amongst these role players are identified a limited number of distinct social groups who are characterised by the fact that they would be directly affected by the implementation of the proposed Greater Addo National Park. It is these immediately affected groups who would be the subjects of a Greater Addo National Park SIA. Such an SIA is a key step in the Greater Addo National Park process because of the scale of impacts that a development of this nature involves. The development must be pursued in such a manner that allows for the full inclusivity of social, economic and conservation considerations.
V. Concluding Summary