Africa Wild

Not a very creative bunch of hob knobs in charge of the parks!!

Most are very creative, H.! Especially financially!

Richprins wrote:Thanks, Toko!

Still can't copy and paste!

Here we go: download PDF

SANParks funding plan ‘will stand up to scrutiny’

BY SUE BLAINE, 28 MÄRZ 2013, 08:36

A NEW plan by South African National Parks (SANParks) to use environmentally and culturally conscious tourism to make up an expected R600m-a-year funding shortfall for the day-to-day running of its 22 parks is well researched and likely to stand up to public scrutiny, Southern African Tourism Services Association CEO Mike Tatalias said on Wednesday.

SANParks estimates that while profit from tourism will exceed R800m by 2022, its parks’ running costs will top R1.4bn a year. Meanwhile, government funding for SANParks has been greatly reduced and is increasingly project-based, meaning it must foot the bill for its own operational costs.

Glenn Phillips, tourism development and marketing executive at SANParks, said it had been forced to look at funding outside government grants because it already cost about R1bn a year to run the parks, he said.

"We are not only seeing visitors’ needs and expectations changing, but government funding for national parks is also changing," he said.

While there would always be space for "visitors who yearn for a simple life, a tent and a fire, the great silence of the bush", there would be more opportunities for hiking, mountaineering, cycling, swimming, canoeing and dining under the stars, Mr Phillips said.

The parks will also take advantage of the growing business tourism industry, from which SANParks generated R12m in 2011.

The parks will ensure better relationships with adjacent communities, with some agreements already allowing the controlled harvesting of medicinal plants in parks, timber in the Garden Route National Park and mopane worms and thatching in the Kruger National Park.

Mr Phillips said the new plan had been developed within the boundaries of the principles and minimum standards of nature-based responsible tourism that SANParks adopted in 2011. It incorporated the aims of the National Tourism Sector Strategy that aimed to position South Africa as one of the top 20 tourism destinations in the world.

Mr Tatalias said some would criticise SANParks’ plan because it focused on revenue collection through tourism, but SANParks’ particular financial constraints had to be understood.

"There are those who will be upset and grumpy because they believe that any intrusion on (pure) conservation is a bad idea.

"(The parks) have to be self-funding and they get the majority of their money out of (the) Kruger (National Park), yet they have so many other projects across South Africa ... I think the plan will stand up to scrutiny," he said.

Mr Phillips said while tourism revenue had grown 235% over the past decade and operational costs increased an estimated 229% over the same period, tougher economic conditions had seen a decline in the number of international visitors over the past two years, and natural disasters such as fires and floods had "contributed to the bleak overall picture of escalating costs".

Also, the fight against rhino poaching was drawing significant funds, he said.

SANParks has grown by 558,000ha since 2000 and has to fund conservation, research and operational costs such as the maintenance of 4,233km of tourist roads.

Mr Tatalias needs to do more research.

Molewa said SANParks has also received additional funding from the Treasury to increase security in the Kruger National Park.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/ ... VRqjzdqBC0

I can't find the exact amount, but it's plenty. Also, the Army and Police involved pay their own way, so including donations of high-tech equipment etc. SANParks should just do their normal patrolling and explain in more detail why rhino poaching is draining their finances?

Extra personnel were trained to release field rangers for rhino-related activities, but that is about it, and the mere fact that Treasury has already realised the seriousness and unexpected budgetary expenses negates SP's moaning about funds!



Mr Phillips said while tourism revenue had grown 235% over the past decade and operational costs increased an estimated 229% over the same period, tougher economic conditions had seen a decline in the number of international visitors over the past two years, and natural disasters such as fires and floods had "contributed to the bleak overall picture of escalating costs".


I wish Mr Phillips would put all the excuses into one press release at a time!

The fires are no excuse whatsoever...Kruger is set to napalm certain areas again this year, so what does that have to do with losing money?

The flood damage should largely be paid for by insurance, and SP said they applied for disaster relief to cover the balance and more...so they should focus on getting that money from Government ASAP, instead of using it as an excuse for commercialisation. The "10 year plan" was decided upon long before the floods!

Regarding the decline in international visitors...the reasons therefore remain to be proven. Many would tell Mr Tatalias they are simply going elsewhere because the quality of ill-maintained accommodation and service in SANParks does not justify the prices!


We are not stupid, and not "grumpy" either...

Idiots!

There will be 10 000 negatives but somewhere a positive
will always pop-up!!!

Richprins wrote: Especially financially!

Indeed Rp that's just a fact of life!!! HHeee hi,

My word I shake my head so much lately that I am
surprised it has not fallen from the shoulders yet,...

Heh heh...

RP all these things mentioned by Phillips that takes extra money, being anti poaching, fire or floods is just an excuse and reason for them to have a reason to get their money making plans excepted by gov and tourist end of story . They will come up with all sorts of plans to keep them in good money

What are we talking about when it comes to raising all these "much needed" funds.

1) the massive draw card of having McDonalds & Spur in camps which will get people flocking to our parks.
2) increased tarrifs
3) extramural activities such as walks, absailing, canoeing, cycle challenges, mountain climbing, 4x4 trails, dinner under the stars, what have I forgotten? Baring in mind that all of the above activities are already happening in the various parks.
4) a jammed packed conference schedule with a spa nogal to accommodate those .gov officials' fat mammas.
Some where hidden in there are a handful of people that may want to see the wildlife and try to find some solitude if this is possible anymore in our parks, but maybe you will have to pay to go on a game drive vehicle whilst your car sits in some huge parking lot.

So, if we look at the above, what does it boil down to.......increased visitors to the parks and with the existing camps already full (you have to book almost 1 year in advance) they have to build more facilities to accommodate the extra millions of visitors that will come flocking just to taste a Big Mac with flies (thanks Dewi). Oh dear, there may just be a need for a hotel or two.
The sad thing is that the .gov might be stupid enough to be sucked in by all of this garbage.

Over and above quite correct but also the
loss of revenue from those whom always
visited the now seeking the bush elsewhere!!
Those that have become fed-up with the
commercial attitude that Sanparks have
adopted.!!!

There are many old faithful's that will turn
their backs to this ridiculous notion. They
will seek bush experience elsewhere.
This even includes some very staunch folks
such as "there" famed support by the Honorary
Rangers

Agreed!

As said before, the goose that has been laying the Golden Egg for 60 years may disappear...

Neighbouring tourist destinations are perfectly aware of this, and even neighbouring countries!