People under the smoke that thunders ...

1. ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF ZAMBIA (They control the EIA process and the decision whether to go ahead)
Patson Zulu
Manager-Inspectorate
Tel: 260-1-254130/254023/59
Email: pzulu@necz.org.zm
Website:www.necz.org.zm

2. ZAMBIA WILDLIFE AUTHORITY (They issued the lease, sanctioned or not by their Board)
Dr Lewis Saiwana
Director-General
drsaiwana@zawa.org.zm
zawaorg@zamnet.zm

3. Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources (They are responsible for ZAWA, the environment and tourism)
Justina Wake
Director of Tourism
tinawake@yahoo.com

4. Tourism Council of Zambia (The Zambia private sector body)
J.J. Sikazwe
Chairman
tcz@zamnet.zm

5. Legacy Holdings Zambia (The crowd involved)
J.J. Sikazwe
Chairman
mwizalodge@zamnet.zm
bicon@zamnet.zm

6. Legacy Resorts & Hotels International
Paddy Brearley
Managing Director
pbrea@legacyhotels.co.za

7. JACQUI JANSEN
Marketing Services Assistant
Legacy Hotels & Resorts International
Legacy House, 5 Autumn Street, Rivonia
PO Box 3410, Rivonia, 2128
Tel: +27 (0) 11 806-6800 Fax: +27 (0) 11 806-6806
www.legacyhotels.co.za

8. Legacy Group Holdings Pty Ltd.
Bart Dorrestein (The chap who runs the show)
Chairman (Bwana Mkubwa!)
cklostermann@legacyhotels.co.za

African Insight cannot support ...

To all our Responsible Tourism partners
 
Based on the report copied below
 
Thanks to Travel News Now for keeping the industry informed and up to date.
  
African Insight cannot support the principles of Responsible Tourism and still be seen to be doing business with Legacy Group.  

I think that collectively, as tour operators who have made a commitment to Responsible Tourism, we need to make a united stand against companies that flagrantly oppose the principles on which we base our business models.  We may not change the world but we still owe it to ourselves and all those that respect us for the responsible choices we have made.

Not withstanding the fact that the Legacy Group may have been encouraged by misguided or corrupt officials or office bearers, or even if they are stopped through international pressure - the fact that they would even consider something of this nature shows that they are prepared to make money at whatever cost. 
 
The fact is companies that get involved in these developments do not give a damn about communities, job creation or sustainable environmental management - these are just words they use in a 'smoke and mirrors' game for one purpose - to enrich themselves.  Environmental Impact Assessments and due process mean nothing to these people. 

I would like to think they would never get away with a scam like this in the countries where their shareholders live, even South Africa, so they take advantage of economically deprived countries where short term gains are all they can understand.  Unfortunately the shareholders most probably do not know or even care.
 
I also believe that by taking this approach we send out a very clear message to Legacy, their shareholders and partners, that, as responsible tourism practitioners, although they may 'keep their noses clean' at home we will not tolerate them 'crapping on the doorstep' of another country - just because they can get away with it.  They have a corporate responsibility that transcends borders and governments.
 
For those property owners who have management contracts with Legacy we are saying 'choose your business partners carefully'.
 
Hopefully at the end of the day we will have some companies that we can do business with!!!
 
African Insight, as the ground-handler for many international responsible tourism operators, with immediate effect and until further notice, will not do business with the Legacy Group of Hotels, which includes ALL the following:
 
Bakubung Bush Lodge
Kruger Park Lodge
Tshukudu Bush Lodge
Raphael Penthouse Suits
Castleburn
Hermanus Beach Club
La Cote D'Azur
Wilderness Dunes
Elements Private Golf Reserve
Bookes Hill Suites
Centurian lake Hotel
KwaMaritane Bush Lodge
Labadi Beach Hotel
Sunnyside Park Hotel
Swakopmund Hotel
The Airport Grand Hotel
The Commodore
The Michelangelo
The Portswood
Windhoek Country Club Resort
 

Tribes demands that Legacy Hotels Group stops...

PRESS RELEASE … PRESS RELEASE … PRESS RELEASE … PRESS RELEASE …

29 November 2006

Tribes demands that Legacy Hotels Group stops their planned huge tourism development in a World Heritage Site next to Victoria Falls in Zambia

Tribes, the Fair Trade TravelTM company, announced today, 29 November 2006, that it will boycott use of Legacy Hotels Group of South Africa due to their appalling planned development in World Heritage Site of Mosi-oa Tunya National Park in Zambia, which includes the Victoria Falls.

Whilst the Zambian government have given Legacy a tourism concession here, UNESCO has told the hotel group that their planned development of a massive 18-hole golf estate including two hotels, 500 chalets and a country club would be “irresponsible” and that they would mount a worldwide campaign to discourage tourists from visiting the area. Legacy themselves have apparently admitted that the development will cause “irreversible ecological damage”.

Mosi-oa Tunya National Park is one of Zambia’s greatest natural assets. It includes Victoria Falls – one of the seven natural wonders of the world - as well as a fragile and hugely important area of riverine rainforest, woodland and grassed areas, plus a section of the Zambezi River from 5km below and 35km above the Falls. There are about 400 bird species in the National Park and 30 species of large mammal. It is environmentally and scientifically extremely important.

Tribes is a specialist UK tour operator which works on Fair Trade and responsible travel principles. The company offers tailor made holidays to Africa (including Zambia and South Africa), South America and parts of Asia. They were the Global Winners of the Responsible Travel Awards in 2005 and the Tourism for Tomorrow Awards in 2002.

Legacy Hotel Group is a South African company with a portfolio of luxury hotels, resorts and bush lodges in various countries including South Africa, Namibia, and Tanzania. Their flagship hotel, the Michaelangelo is recognised as one of the Leading Hotels of the World.

Director of Tribes, Amanda Marks, said: “We think that a campaign to stop this development should begin BEFORE it gets underway, and the prime elephant habitat on the banks of the Zambezi is bulldozed ready for such a travesty".

She continued, “We very much hope that Legacy will think again about their plans here, and make the right decision based on ethics and preservation of a World Heritage Site, rather than simply on money. Certainly it would be good for Zambia to have the income and jobs which such a development would bring, but does it really need to be IN Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park?”

-ends-

Zambia: Parley Petitioned Over Signing of TCA

The Times of Zambia (Ndola)

November 27, 2006


A CONSERVATIONIST and concerned citizen has petitioned the National Assembly to thoroughly investigate the signing of a tourism concession agreement (TCA) for a 75-year land lease to the Legacy Zambia Holdings by Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA).

The petitioner also criticised the people of Mukuni Village for accepting to be used by Legacy as potential beneficiaries from employment to be created by Legacy Holdings.

The same thing had happened in the case of Sun Hotels where the Mukuni people were allegedly only employed as casual workers

Mr Kalaluka Mulyokela said in a letter dated November 20, 2006 that since numerous anomalies in the transaction had been brought to the public knowledge, there was need for the parliamentary committee on energy, environment, water and natural resources to probe the matter thoroughly.

Many legal requirements of the Zambian laws had not been followed and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was inadequate as it failed to identify and address the expected negative impact.

"Having gone through the EIA, I am sure that many things need to be addressed and that the path taken by ZAWA need to be corrected before we see many of our parks sold or unjustifiably encroached."

HE said no tender procedures were followed in allocating 220 hecatres of land in the national park to Legacy, which had only won a bid for two hectares initially advertised.

He also said former vice-president, Lupando Mwape, in his speech to unveil the foundations stone on July 29, 2006 allegedly intimidated the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) by saying the Government had already sanctioned the project, which was not correct because the project was subject to approval by ECZ.

Mr Mulyokela also accused ZAWA of not consulting many stakeholders and concerned citizens, resulting in many people being caught unawares by the project.

The EIA scoping meeting also which should have accorded the developer an opportunity to get views from the public turned out to be a muscle flexing forum where ZAWA stressed that it did not need to consult anyone.

It was the custodian of national parks, regardless whether there were other heritage sites controlled by other statutory bodies.

The petitioner also complained that the November 11, 2006 EIA public hearing meeting was allegedly hijacked by politicians as cadres were ferried to the meeting to intimidate objective views deemed against the project and showered racist remarks on those with genuine views.

ZAWA created a problem by allowing such developments in an area meant for minimal developments and insisted that the EIA was not comprehensive and failed to bring out ecological impact and provide practical mitigations.

The expected total cutting of indigenous trees and others was also likely to affect the park adversely.


He questioned why ZAWA gave three per cent of the park and 15 per cent of the river frontage at the expense of other well deserving users to one investor.

Mr Mulyokela said the area in question was within the 30 kilometre radius of Zambia's only world heritage site the Victoria Falls and giving it out without consultation with other international stakeholders was an affront to international treaties that Zambia was a signatory to.

"UNESCO in whose classifications and management guidelines are drawn has indicated in not uncertain terms that they will down grade the Victoria Falls and further decampaign Zambia as unenvironmentally friendly tourism destination.

Zambia faced with losing world heritage status of Victoria Falls: UN

LUSAKA, 11/24 - A United Nations joint mission to the Victoria Falls world heritage site has warned that Zambia`s failure to stick to the joint management of the falls and protection of the world heritage site will endanger the global recognition of the world wonder.

The mission team has also questioned the legality of erection of the Legacy Holding`s foundation stone in the area without consulting other stakeholders like Zimbabwe, Times of Zambia reported on Friday.

The mission, comprising the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Heritage Center (WHC) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (INCN), are inspecting the world heritage site both in Zambia and Zimbabwe and expressed concern that the two countries, despite committing themselves to the recommendations of 2002 on the joint management of the falls, even have not ratified the protocols, which has signified their lack of seriousness.

WHC deputy director Rao Kishore said on Wednesday in Livingstone, the capital of Southern Province of Zambia, where part of the falls is located, that the joint mission has decided to take stock of the state of heritage site.

The results of the joint mission`s findings and decisions on new developments in the heritage site will be announced soon. This is the third time this year that UN agencies warned the two countries over the management and protection of the falls.

Zambian side of Victoria Falls and the adjacent bank of Zambezi is called the Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park.

Victoria Falls is a world heritage site UNESCO declared in 1989 because of its scientific and tourism value.

Chiinga Siavwapa's submission to ECZ

NOT ALL THAT GLITTERS IS GOLD
One good thing about history is that we learn from it and based on it, make wise decisions.
Montego Bay, Jamaica, a place which started as a small fishing area is now characterised by
big resorts and human activities which have upset the environment. Original inhabitants were
displaced as they benefited little but for a few who could find jobs.
An example back here at home is Itezyi-Tezyi dam. Have the locals benefit from it ?
I bet you the few can be counted on your fingertips. Kariba dam is still an issue as
government tries to, after decades, appease the valley people.
My point is, throughout history "developments" like the proposed Legacy have taken place whether necessary or not. We can learn though from developed nations who out of necessity or sheer negligence in some cases (negligence in context of disregard for environmental effects) invested in industries and structures bringing them to the current status. Today many tourists come from the developed world to view our wildlife and general environment. Some come from countries where once upon a time, they had almost similar environments and wildlife. As a tour guide in the Mosi-O-Tunya park my young clients have many times echoed that they have seen wildlife before but in zoos though it is a whole different experience and feeling to see it in its natural habitat.
I, for one, would not want my great grandchildren to hear tales of how elephants and other forms of wildlife used to be seen crossing the Mosi-O-Tunya road. How the falls used to have a greater volume of water and how the Zambezi Waterfront used to be accessed by ordinary people to appreciate what was their natural inheritance. The pace at which concerned authorities sanction some projects though is worrying and might make my worst fears a reality. Even before I become a grandfather. These fears are not unfounded.
Is it really necessary to built Legacy on the proposed site given the facts that the area supports wildlife, flora and fauna, insects and most importantly one of the seven wonders of the world - the Victoria falls ? Note that the environment around the falls helps sustain them. One does not need to be Mr. Brown or West to prove that every tree that will be cut to facilitate a Golf course will have a negative bearing on the environment. Is it necessary to build there when there is abundant land which can be alternatively used ?
While in a hurry to accelerate economic growth, which I am all for, we should be ready to take up the challenge and responsibility of seriously scrutinizing what we term development. Be it in the form of investments of Legacy's magnitude.
Government has opened doors to investors; big and small, local and foreign, and that is a welcomed move. What should be borne in mind is that investors are business people whose primary interest is to make profits. Government has therefore to wear a business suit and strike the best deals for its people based on moral responsibility and regarding long-term effects even on the environment. Even more so at this time and era when worldwide, preserving mother nature is a loud cry as we have hurt her so badly she is turning aggressively against us through global warming and hurricanes but to mention a few natural disasters.
This Legacy issue has in fact a moral aspect to it. I see a lack of moral responsibility by government for laying a foundation stone prior to consulting the locals and carrying out an environmental impact assessment. The environmental impact assessment was only carried out recently and to my disappointment, spearheaded by a company contracted by Legacy.

I thought the role of the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) is to spearhead such ventures, if not independently carry out the research themselves. If I paid someone to do a job for me (which is what Legacy did to this company of environmental impact experts) I expect them to rule in my favour. For those who have not read the voluminous document prepared by the company which carried out the research, its epitomised version is that irreparable damage will be caused to the environment They think 3000 jobs are better than preserving the environment. In other words Legacy is a viable project which will yield profits and the environmental damage matters less. Need this be debated further by any seriously minded person ?
Yes, employment is desperately wanted and 3000 jobs may sound good on paper but one need not search far and wide to know that not all of it will be meaningful employment. Caddies, gardeners, cleaners, etc. employed on casual basis can hardly be called meaningful income jobs. Most managerial jobs might be taken by foreigners of equal or lower qualifications than some unemployed locals.
We cry over a leadership crisis in Zambia but 1 think what we lack is in fact role models. To have leaders who exhibit a lack of responsibility as seen on this Legacy issue is a shame. Youths of today are more informed even on matters concerning the environment. Leaders, who at the sound of 3000 jobs to be created, jump at the opportunity to gain political mileage at the expense of future generations is not what we are looking for. You have a bigger task of first making reasonable labour policies that will not enslave us before inviting investors.
Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) should not be seen to be like a donkey allured by a carrot. Short-term benefits that will yield adverse long-term effects will get us nowhere. I know the pressure to be an economic contributor on ZAWA is real. That though should not cloud rational thinking to an extent you divert from your primary and most cardinal responsibility of preserving our parks. Major strides have been taken which have seen you make a staggering approximated value of ZMK 15.3 Bn in the recent past. This shows a steady growth. So why not go steadily up without haste decisions just to make more money ? Be careful, haste climbers have sudden falls. Keep your eyes on what makes you tick. And which is, above all other factors, none highly commercialised parks. Tourists in my experience believe we are unique because apart from a few parks in other countries, ours look pretty much undisturbed by human and tourist related activities. We need money but be mindful of setting a balance between ecology and financial resources. Some "developments" are destructive. What will be the case when you have another big resort right in the park area? How many of its guests will actually visit the fenced off area to view game ? Mind you, Legacy will be a town within town. A resort! I wonder how this will directly and positively impact on the locals apart from the claimed 3000 jobs to be created. I wonder how many taxi drivers will be allowed to make transfers to and from this resort. How many local tour operators will be engaged by Legacy ? Will their clients be encouraged to visit surrounding areas or confined to their resort in order for the hotel to maximise profits ?
ZAWA please, let us maintain our unique status. Many would not, especially tourists, love to see our parks look like, for instance the Kruger park in South Africa with tarred roads, big hotels and activities which make it look like a town.
At the moment I am still at pains trying to figure out the role of local authorities. Why is it that when it comes to make major decisions that directly affect them and their residents, they are ignored by central government ? Why do we see hypocrisy on the part of those in higher offices, the so-called "implementers" who have guidelines on such issues and

do the opposite ? To me, that is corruption. For corruption is the mismanagement of ones
mind believing what is wrong to be right even when all evidence points to the contrary.
It would be a lie for those in higher offices who directly demonstrated to be pro the proposed
site to express ignorance on normal procedures which should be followed before allocation of
land.
The office of the minister of lands has surprisingly been quiet on this matter. Why ?
This issue should be a wake up call to all concerned Zambians and the general public. Investments are good as long as they do not upset the environment and disadvantage the affected locals. Legacy will be a good investment if located at a site that most people will be comfortable with. Loop-holes in investment policies should be sealed or else we will wake up one day only to find the falls sold out to an investor. Most importantly, local authorities and the general public for whom any "development" is made should first be consulted.
Chiinga Siavwapa
Tour guide & Artist Livingstone resident

Sakwiba Sikota, Livingstone M.P.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Parley must revisit heritage sites laws, says Sikota
By Times Reporter

LIVINGSTONE Member of Parliament (MP), Sakwiba Sikota, has pledged to ensure that Parliament revisits legislation dealing with heritage sites in Zambia.
Mr Sikota, who is United Liberal Party (ULP) president said in an interview at the weekend that more needed to be done to streamline measures aimed at protecting heritage sites in the country.
“The current laws dealing with heritage sites have many loopholes such that people can temper with the heritage sites at the expense of the rest of the country,” Mr Sikota said.
He observed that there was need to have laws in place that protected heritage sites from projects such as the controversial construction of the Legacy Hotels.
Mr Sikota said he was determined to use all necessary legal means to block the project.
He said if allowed by the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) the construction of the hotel would affect the status of the mighty Victoria Falls as one of the seven natural wonders of the world.
“As area MP and councillor, I am aware that the Livinsgtone city council is considering giving Legacy Hotel alternative land if the request is made,” he said.
“These people usually promise to create employment but what usually happens is that they recruit people as casual workers.
“They even talk of the spill over effects to the business community but what is happening is that almost all of the contracts to supply goods and services including the maintenance is done by foreign companies and not local ones,” Mr Sikota observed.
The construction of an ultra-modern hotel and golf course by the Legacy Hotels has sparked controversy among local people and environmentalist groups in Zambia and Zimbabwe seeking to protect the falls and wild life in the game park in the area.

Kalaluka Namasiku Mulyokela's EIA submission to ECZ

SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF ZAMBIA ON THE ENVIONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED “MOSI-OA-TUNYA HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB ESTATE PROJECT” IN THE MUSI-OA-TUNYA NATIONAL PARK IN LIVINGSTONE, ZAMBIA

I am a Zambian citizen and resident of Livingstone for 15 years; I am not only gravely concerned about the proposed golf resort development by Legacy Holdings Limited in Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park. But also very disappointed by the failure of the so many professionals in ZAWA to stand by what they are best trained in and practice.
My submissions are from three perspectives that are: as Livingstone resident, a concerned and informed citizen and as a conservationist.
I have read through the Environmental Impact Assessment Report very carefully and have the following issues of concerns:
• The EIA public meeting a disaster

To make no comments on this meeting will be like hiding some dirty in one of the most important process of the EIA. The public hearing was turned into a political event and very few people who attended knew what the EIA was. Legacy took centre stage as we were told that it was a question and answer session. This was not respected as some people were given more time to speak especial those who were in support.
It was the worse meeting of this kind ever made in Livingstone as the MMD and Mukuni cadres, and drunken youth mostly speaking Toka took the stage making noise. This meant that people with genuine concerns and comments were shouted at and intimidated into not even trying to say anything. Openly racist remarks were made more especial to one group of whites who were sitting just in front of the high table.

Although it was supposed to be an ECZ meeting, they were nowhere to be seen. After presentations by five different Legacy officials, the meeting was conducted as a "question and answer session between Legacy and the Public", not as "submissions from the public to ECZ concerning the EIA document". Most of those who spoke in support made no reference to the EIA but only said people wanted jobs forgetting that the meeting was meant to receive submissions from the public on the issues brought out in the EIA
Honestly speaking, ECZ was a shame and they owe the public an explanation why such intimidation was allowed while they sat and watched the abuse of people who tried to give their views rightly. We all had the right to speak and spent money to drive to the site yet ECZ and its cohorts let such acrimony to over take the events.
I urge ECZ to do a better job next time before people term you a toothless and compromise institution especial with what happened on the 11/11/2006.Do not trivialize national issues.

• Implied Consultations:

The Mosi-o-Tunya National Park as a protected area owes its existence to the people in this regard all it means is that all communities in L/stone and its surrounding areas inclusive. This is so because its entire management programmes and its ultimate vision are centred on the Zambian people. It is important and not questionable that the full consultations of people in all walks of life are consulted when a General Management Plan is being prepared. The Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park was established to protect all biophysical resources that will enhance its management objective and our lives. Among such resources is the Victoria Falls locally known as the Mosi-oa-Tunya Falls. Admittedly the park draws its name from the falls signifying its importance as a unique resource value for the park. Many other resources of local, regional and international significant are also found within the park. It is therefore very important that any development to come gives all the interested, affected and concerned individuals and institutions alike a greater chance to participate more meaningfully. Many other resources in the park come under different management authorities most notably National Heritage Conservation Commission (NHCC) which is now managing the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site. Within the same areas there are other resources of very importance like archaeological sites, cultural and historical site of substantial importance from a traditional and tourism perspective.
During what one can call comfortably a fake scooping meeting the evidence of ZAWA taking the show alone came out very evidently from the following observations.
a) Senior, dedicated and long serving conservationists from NHCC were getting to hear about this development and what ZAWA had done in this meeting for the first time.
b) The Livingstone City Council was learning this for the first time when land was given already.
c) The Representatives of the Livingstone Tourism Association were also hearing this for the first time.
d) Most concerned public present were not aware of this.
e) The Wildlife and Environmental Society of Zambia a very cardinal partner and watchdog in conservation with a local office were not consulted.
f) The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) finally accepted when asked that the park had no approved General Management Plan (some weeks later ZAWA was in a hurry to mend the loophole and called for some meetings where a management plan was to be finally prepared) Where then were they drawing the power even within their law of apportioning such a large piece of land in an areas where even other recognised authorities have set limits of acceptable use for any development on the areas?
g) IUCN and UNESCO are international agents that have vested interest in this area in particular the Victoria Falls and its surround areas within the park on behalf of the international public. It is very clear and undisputed that ZAWA had not at one time consulted them.
h) Zambia as party to many international treaties is obliged to play by the rules of such laws. Many UNESCO regulations as regard to the sustainable management of the Falls and its surrounding and any developmental plans in future have been abrogated by ZAWA
i) At what was called as a scooping meeting there was restriction on who to be there. Surely if there was to be transparency, why should there be such conditions when they were just paing for the hall not food to those attending the meeting. One needed to be invited to attend. What was Legacy and ZAWA afraid of? This was a way to limit people with a view to use such a forum as a rubber stamp that people were consulted.
For ZAWA to have gone it alone in apportioning this land without a wider consultation even abrogating their own requirement in terms of developmental zones and their limits of acceptable use then it means there were other not well meaning forces at work that is:
• There was heavy political influence to the extent that professional advice was over ridden as we know in many such things. This has made both the executives directors of ZAWA and NHCC to remain mute and give in to such professional suicide. I am not blaming them because they are dancing to the tune of their appointing authorities and protecting their jobs.
• The level of audacity by ZAWA to go it alone is a sign of desperation on ZAWA for money to keep them afloat.
• With these clear omissions and deliberate efforts to irresponsibly mismanage public resources how can we rule out corruption, compromise and lack of foresight by those in position that have given such a go ahead from Govt to professional levels?
• Finally the monster which is ZAWA created willingly by the Govt will do anything to make money for itself hence conservation of the resources on behalf of the people of Zambia is a secondary and tertiary issue (make money first should be their motto). With this ZAWA want to dare and ignore that people have the rights to have their resources managed in the most responsible way not this management by crisis where even a plan is not there.
Given this scenario, and the magnitude of the development and subsequent lack of thorough and objective consultation, the area in question was not suppose to be given out without the consent of ALL stakeholders sidelined by ZAWA local and international. As a joint venture, ZAWA would have engaged their Zimbabwe counter parts but this has not been done. What do they think they are to bulldoze this common resource without regard for other stakeholders? ZAWA has no financial capacity to either stomach the consequence of isolation nor combat the effort of negative attitude in management of our local resources should the public retaliate or frustrate their efforts.
They should not forget that their existence is as result of good will and support from the people not that they are using the law and guns and hence in control. It is therefore unacceptable for ZAWA and Govt to take the public for granted but act reasonably by examining the merits and stand taken by the opponents of the Legacy Project some who are not Zambians but well informed, competent and concerned people.

• Ecological over sight
The consultants have failed to even assign the correct term to the area given to Legacy. They are constantly referring to the area as an animal corridor. This is professionally misinformed at its best and deliberate misrepresentation of facts at its worst. All can be summarised that the consultants on the ecology and wildlife did not know what they were doing as they failed to address the following conspicuous and critical issues relative to the area.
a) The whole area given out has never been a corridor instead and rightfully it is a habitat for not only semi-seasonal elephants but other wildlife species that have existed in that area for a long time. Their shallow idea therefore that they create a 250 meters elephants corridor along the Maramba River is a shallowest alternative a professional and qualified wildlife manager can give to such an area. They have failed to identify other key species in the area from a simple niche to the visible habitat characteristics. Is the same corridor they will create going to be used by baboon, monkey, insects, reptiles and other species or to them all they know is that area is just home to elephants.
b) The EIA has failed to show a practical, realistic and objective ways to mitigate the effect of the lack of access to the area by wild animals. (Especial elephants, hippos, birds and the two species of primates locally found there, that is baboons and velvet monkeys).They have very narrow if any knowledge about Man and wildlife conflicts which has been around the national park in general and how they relate to the now diminishing habitat . Human lives have been lost, crops damaged and property destroyed they have no single points that relate to this issue. Why? They have failed to indicate and relate this to the whole developmental process and how this will impact the local community adjacent to the area and beyond. This academic approach taken by Legacy consultants is a breeding ground for serious man and wildlife conflicts which they have decided to conceal or carefully neglected to bring out for fear of being pinned down. Unless ZAWA is telling the public that Govt is aware of the unavoidable increased human loss due to the huge amount of money that they will get as Govt and ZAWA at the expense of human life
c) The consultant/EIA has failed to point out that as a result of the development; Legacy is creating a very PERMANENT a biogeography barrier between the eastern part of the park and the western park. It means that with such development the park will be ecologically isolated. With the inbreeding already there, they have failed once again to tell the public and professional justify this and how the issue of the biogeography barrier will be handled. It is from this perspective that both the team leader of the consultants who is a director in Legacy Company and his team have carefully decided to hide this information from both the public and Govt. For ZAWA to allow this type of barrier and isolation with serious implication just confirms the fact that they are truly a commercial entity existing to make money than responsibly and wisely conserve our resources professional. This is betrayal of the people at its best and misinformation of Govt and other agencies at its worst.
d) The vegetation of area has not been put in the right perspective. That area represents one of the very viable and high diversity probably in the entire park. The importance of this vegetation in ensuring that the riverine vegetation is significant to the sustainable management of the falls area has been underrated. Other interested authorities like IUCN have indicated through their studies that no trees should be cut in that are. The IUCN report states that no mature trees or riparian vegetation should be cut down. For ZAWA those existence depend on such resources to give such area out which will promote massive cutting of trees is the most ridiculous things to come and be promoted by a Government conservation agent anywhere.
e) The area supports a number of avifauna which range from aquatic, arboreal and terrestrial. Over 70 species depend on the riverine and the immediate habitat. The Livingstone Museum recorded in it’s over a year research about 53 aquatic bird species within the same area. In recognition of its significance as a habitat for both migrant and local/resident at varying densities, population size in time and space, Birdlife International has identified and designated the Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park and its gorges area as an Important Bird Area (IBA). The IBA programme as an international organisation protects a global network of sites critical for the long-term survival of bird species and their habitats wherever they occur. Why have the EIA and the consultants in particular failed to bring out all these aspects and find practical mitigation measures? Are these facts just concealed deliberately by Legacy with the help of ZAWA to deceive the public and Govt or they actually do not know these facts? It is clear on the other hand that the EIA is full of quotations which the consultants are using to hoodwink the public that they had done a thorough job when they are actually cheating and very ignorance about the area.
f) The area is a very important grazing and browsing area for not only wild animals but also livestock from the surrounding areas. In the dry season some cattle from Mukuni’s Songwe area and the surrounding areas have used the same area as grazing ground and water drinking points. Among the most conspicuous wild species that use the area are the hippos, waterbucks, bushbucks, baboons and monkeys, kudus buffaloes, impalas and to less extent the common duikers. ZAWA over time has failed to meaningfully manage and protect that area and in turn it is depleted of many of these species. The EIA has failed to capture such critical information and make it known and give mitigation measures. When these animals are denied access in such areas where does ZAWA and Legacy want them to go. They will relocate into human occupied areas and increase conflicts. Human lives will be lost, crop will be damaged including property will be destroyed. Surely our learned consultants should have brought these straight forward issues very openly. With such concealment of facts it is clear that indeed the EIA is not based on facts and that Legacy consultants have done a shabby work which can lead to misrepresentation of facts and distortion of truth.
g) Promises of re-stocking the park with wildlife should not be a bait to give in. The EIA has made no point how this will be done. It has no mention of the implication of such management intervention. Surely ZAWA would like such gift but do they have the capacity to objectively put such resources to good use, the answer is definitely No. Some two years ago ZAWA sold some live animals from the park. Today some of such animals have moved out of the fence. Legacy promises are a waste of resources and can not therefore be used to defraud public use of the area.
h) ZAWA in Livingstone has shown no interest, professional capability nor institutional commitment in the protection and management of some resources in the park. From January to December 2005 a total record 140 of Velvet monkeys have died within the Sun International Hotel area. From January to June 2006 an alarming record of 85 animals of the same species died. ZAWA scouts who guard the area are fully aware and the reports have reached their office. To date no single reason for this has been established by them. We all know from common sense that this is simple poison within their habitat. If ZAWA call fail to control the situation on a 10 ha area it means it will be worse for a 220 ha. It is logical therefore not to allow ZAWA pair up with Legacy to kill the species that have adapted so well to the area for the sake of money.


• International Commitments
The area falls within the World Heritage Site radius which is the Victoria Falls. This site is owned as a common resource with Zimbabwe and it is listed as a World Heritage site. It is therefore protected by international conventions which Zambia is a part of. Its status was conferred on at the request of both the Zambian and Zimbabwean Govts. In many UNESCO and IUCN studies of the site, further development within the area has been discouraged on professional advice. As recent as the 6th of November, 2006, UNESCO had meetings with both Zimbabwean and Zambian Govt official and further expressed their displeasure on the manner in which the falls was being managed. They (UNESCO) in no uncertain terms did indicate that should further development continue within the Victoria Falls radius then they will withdraw the status of the Victoria Falls. Further to this they were going to mount a campaign internationally to discourage tourist to come to such an area. To make matters worse the ZAWA through Govt has not consulted the Zimbabwean over the development and hence they will be negatively affected should the status be withdrawn. The EIA and indeed the Legacy consultants have failed plainly to articulate these issues let alone bringing them as critical and fundamental for Legacy, ZAWA and Govt to look into. Again, why has Legacy decided to conceal this information from the public and Govt? It is therefore clear that by allowing this project to go ahead Zambia is abrogating international laws. Neither Legacy nor ZAWA have the capacity to emancipate Govt from the repercussion which will come as a result of such abrogation. There is a serious conspiracy between ZAWA, Legacy and Legacy consultants to conceal such important information and its implication from public because of the money ZAWA will get. Why should Zambian suffer isolation because of such unsustainable project which has alternatives?

• The wilderness Value and the River Frontage
The 220 ha of land involved is the only remaining pristine area which will be turned into some spectacular chalets. This will deface the whole area and it will all look like a small turn. Where will be the wilderness values. It means this enjoyment will be denied to the entire tourists and other users. The EIA document acknowledges and appreciates this value and states that the park provides the “much needed wildlife experience for tourists visiting Livingstone and the Victoria falls”. The EIA has failed to point out how this experience will be enjoyed after Legacy will destroy it in the area. There are no realistic and tangible mitigation given which portrays a shallow approach by the Legacy consultants.
The river frontage that ZAWA has decided to sell has a stretch of about three kilometres of the Zambezi River (including a kilometre of the Maramba River) If the total river frontage is about twenty kilometres (20) it means Legacy will have 15% of the total river frontage in the park. This is total theft and failure by ZAWA to see beyond their noise. This is pure disregard for other users and in this respect unacceptable.
This riverine is one unique resource value supporting a number of life forms and an anchor of many other processes. Why has the EIA failed to clearly indicate how this disturbance will affect the ecology and other systems? Once again Legacy and its constants have failed to show the link between effect of their development and the integrity of the river bank and its associated riverine vegetation.
• Access by Local People and Tourists
The whole area is both a social, spiritual, economical and environmental sanctuary. The local people have used it as the only area where they can pass through, have a quite time and relax. Church organisations have used some spots for retreats. We are a Christian nation and the use of God‘s creation should be enjoyed.
Children and elders from Sakubita. Linda, Maloni and Nakatindi compounds and other areas use this area and it’s surrounding as a fishing ground. They are the poorest people of our community in Livingstone and to them a small fish caught which is nothing in the face of ZAWA and Legacy means life and death to them. Who thinks of these vulnerable people as a part of our general public and in need, and yet they can not even understand what is going on. Which Govt agency has spoken on their behalf? None at all, the onus is therefore on the civil society, NGOs in conservation and concerned individuals to point out these injustice squarely and seek redress without fear or favour These very under privileged members of society use some points for swimming not out of pleasure in most cases but out of necessity.
We have the oldest trail that goes around this area with some resting points at intervals though over grown with vegetation in some areas but it is active with tourists on horsebacks. Surely if the Legacy consultants were informed enough they would have brought out all these and try to give mitigation measures but they are clearly ignorant about our local situation.
This area is therefore clearly very vital to all walks of life here in Livingstone. Why should we be denied all these benefits for a development that will bring close to nothing direct benefit to the community but individuals?
We need this area intact and for our own use as ZAWA has no provision for such public access into the park anywhere else. What is available is on areas marked ‘PRITATE LAND RESTRICTED ENTRY or other investors where us from the compounds will hardly step our foot on in our lives. Why is the EIA shamefully silent over theses issues that affect us the immediate people of Livingstone? The reason is simple ZAWA, Legacy and their consultants have no feeling for the vulnerable but Govt and we the people need to know these issues and face them head on. Govt should be ashamed to overlook all these critical issues.

• Proposed Mitigation Measures:

Though measures have been suggested to mitigate the identified negative impacts it is important to note that many impacts have not been brought out whether deliberately. At the same time experience shows that despite the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) being a watchdog, many projects approved by them have not implemented their Environmental Management Plans for mitigating the impacts. What will stop Legacy from doing what others have been doing with impunity?
Failure by Legacy and its consultants to provide a detailed mitigation measures for example on how the effects of the lack of access to the area by all animals on the local communities, their crops and property clearly shows lack of seriousness and taking people for granted. They have failed again to justify and give mitigation measures for the permanent biogeography barrier they are going to create. What are the motives for them hiding or failing to do what is required of them. If they are so arrogant at this stage what about when they are fully given the area and operational? It is important that Govt does not create a monster among us which will even be difficult to control by Govt itself in future when they grow wings.
It is evident that Legacy, ZAWA and their consultants have done a very poor EIA to say the least therefore from whatsoever point of view, it is crucial that this development is not given a go ahead on such clear basis.

• Developmental Aspiration and benefits
Development which seek to exist and ignores the importance of conservation/environmental is doomed to failure at the same time conservation/environment which want to exist in isolation is socially, economically and generally an acceptable. I am not opposed to this development just for the sake of it. I realise the potential of the project and related tourism development that may spring from it but its massive negative effects that the consultant have failed to mitigate adequately, bring out and have concealed purposely will render the area as highly developed and an environmental friendly. I agree in principle with the economical benefits that this project may bring but totally disagree on the following environmental and moral points:

a) The level of destructions that will be impacted on the area and the magnitude of the irreversible negative impacts that will be felt well beyond the site is very huge. It is therefore not worthy risk.

b) Why should 15% of a park’s river frontage and 3% of the total area of the park be given to a single investor at the expense of other potential investors and the very public the park’s resources were meant to conserve for. This is day light robbery and complete disregard for other people’s needs.

c) The motive of Legacy in having their director as team leader for the EIA team and subsequent failure to thoroughly do a comprehensive and professional job is a deliberate ploy to cheat the public. This is already a sign of compromise in the process. Their failure to address key issues more satisfactorily is a manifestation of them being in hurry to go ahead. This area which is a core habitat within the park and is within the World Heritage Site which is recognised by our own govt and the international community can not be destroyed nor left in such negligent hands. How will the international communities look at Zambia?
Surely we can not be viewed as an irresponsible nation just because of $9m.We have more responsible people that want to see things move in the right direction than being forced into a project full of anomalies in nearly all section of the process.

• Alternative options:
With all the money that legacy has, they are capable of acquiring land nearly anywhere along the upper Zambezi River. Currently part of the Zambezi Farm in excess of 600 ha is on sale with a 300 metres river frontage. This area is within 25 km radius form L/stone town. It is one of the most pristine areas where such massive development will raise very limited impacts to other users of the resources.
Legacy is aware of this and let them pursue this option. Another viable option is the area on the edge of the park boundary on the eastern side. This area gives a very spectacular view of the fall. Much as it will be within the home range of the elephant but the impact of the development to both other users and wildlife resources will be much less as compared to the area in contention. If the negative impacts are mitigated well this can be a very good option.

Finally, failure to stop this destructive development and save our ONLY WORLD HERITAGE SITE in Zambia then what will remain will be to sell the Victoria Falls itself.

Kalaluka Namasiku Mulyokela
Wildlife and Environmental Consultant
Tolkal Consultants, Box 61242, Livingstone.
Emails: namasiku@zamnet.zm and kalaluka10@yahoo.com

WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF ZAMBIA (WECSZ) , Livingstone

The Manager Inspectorate
Environmental Council of Zambia
P. O. Box 35131, Lusaka
E-mail: pzulu@necz.org.zm
Tel: 01 254094/254130
Fax: 01 254164

WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF ZAMBIA (WECSZ) , Livingstone
P.0 Box 60498

ECZ Submission for the EIA for the LEGACY HOLDINGS ZAMBIA LIMITED proposed “Mosi-Oa-Tunya Hotel and Country Club Estate Project” in Livingstone, Zambia

“Our national parks are as good, only as good, as the intensity with which we treasure them”
John G Mitchel, National Geographic, August 2006.

1) Introduction
2) International Agreements, Conventions and Jurisdiction
3) Golf Course in a National Park
4) Eco Tourism
5) Environmental Impacts
5.1) Birdlife
5.2) Habitat destruction and wildlife
5.3) KAZA TFC
6) Methodology and Baseline Information
7) The Impact on Present Infrastructure
8) Conclusion


1) Introduction
The Wildlife and Environmental Society of Zambia, WECSZ has raised major concerns over the impacts of the Legacy Holdings Zambia LTD proposed Hotel and Golf Estate Project. . This submission outlines the WECSZ objections and the basis for those objections. WECSZ is in agreement with the Legacy EIA statement that the project site will have all its natural vegetation removed and that the result will be “irreversible ecological damage”

The Legacy EIA is actually a project document detailing what is to be done but it does not detail the strategic environmental impacts of such a development to the region as a whole. Many of the facts used in the EIA document are out of date, irrelevant to the site and to the region and are not factual (agricultural statistics, rainfall stastics, employment figures and birdlife). For a multi million dollar investment in an internationally sensitive and crucial conservation area, The EIA for Legacy is seriously lacking in serious data and assessment.

The claim in the EIA that “ The Mosi-Oa-Tunya Hotel and Country Club Estate will be an environmentally sensitive tourism development along the banks of the Zambezi River as well as the Maramba River” is incomprehensible. No amount of mitigation will change the fact that the 220 ha area will be irreversibly changed, the natural environment destroyed and the damage to the park as a whole, and to regional conservation development, devastating. The proposed development would cut the Mosi – oa – Tunya Park and the World Heritage site into two separate parts which has serious implications for the planned improved bio-diversity of the park by the SEED PROJECT including the projected increase in length of stay at Livingstone and the sustainability of Tourism in Livingstone. The danger of the Victoria falls being delisted from its World Heritage Status has major implications for the tourism industry and Zambias standing in the International arena.





The essence of the EIA should be to ask, and then answer, the following question:
Are the economic benefits of the proposed project justifiable against
• completely destroying a World Heritage Site, National Park and protected area, a wildlife corridor, wildlife breeding and feeding grounds
• loss of biodiversity
• permanent alteration of indigenous vegetation
• destruction of Stone Age/Iron Age archaeological sites
• loss of public access to two rivers?
• massive damage to present Transfrontier Conservation Initiatives
• the delisting of Victoria Falls World Heritage Site status
• the massive loss to the economy from tourists who decide not to visit a country which is prepared to sacrifice its heritage for short term gain

WECSZ submits that the irreversible damage to the natural environment at the site of the proposed development far outweighs any potential economic benefits to the local area.
Below is a point-by-point examination of selected issues that arise from the EIA. Each point begins with an issue, in bold, followed by a critique of that issue.

2) International Agreements, Conventions and Jurisdiction
On Friday 10th November 2006 the Times of Zambia reported that the Government has ratified 25 global environmental conventions which play an important role in influencing polices and laws in the sector. Mr. Mutembo, the Copperbelt Deputy Permanent Secretary announced the government “had embarked on a series of initiatives aimed at attaining sustainable socio economic development through sound environmental protection and natural resources management”. How does the proposed development support these ratifications?

• The EIA lists some of the conventions and agreements to which Zambia is a signatory, such as the Convention on Biodiversity, The Ramsar project, IUCN, UNESCO, etc.
• The Victoria Falls and its surrounds - both in Zimbabwe and Zambia - is a World Heritage Site and is therefore protected by international convention. UNESCO declared a 30km radius of Zimbabwean and Zambian territory around the Victoria Falls a World Heritage Site in 1989. At a July meeting of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius, the committee cited concerns that "the integrity of the property [Mosi-O-Tunya National Park] remained threatened by uncontrolled urban development, pollution and unplanned tourism development." In her presentation to the meeting at the Fairmount Hotel, Livingstone on the 6th November, UNESCO commissioner, Mulenga Kapwepwe, said the Victoria Falls, which had put Zambia on the tourism world map, risked losing its world heritage status because of the laxity to consider the protocols seriously.
• The World Conservation Union (IUCN) management plan for the area (The Strategic Environmental Assessment of Developments around Victoria Falls, June 1996) states categorically that no developments should be allowed within the boundaries of the site, and that the wilderness value and the biodiversity of the area are prime resources, which have to be maintained.
• Since then Zambia has ratified a number of international treaties, including :
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and the
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The proposed Legacy site is also a designated Important Bird Area (IBA) as declared by Birdlife International and it forms part of the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFC).

The Post, Thursday November 16th quotes The Minister for Tourism Environment and Natural Resources, Mr Kabinga Pande, “It must be remembered that laws are in place to safeguard the interests of citizens. I have further directed the Environmental Council of Zambia to ensure that existing law on environmental protection is enforced and complied with fully.”

The proposed Legacy site falls under the joint jurisdiction of ZAWA, the NHCC and the City Council:
1) The Livingstone Development Plan, which was approved by Council in 2006, includes the Vision of the Council to guide future development:

• “Livingstone, as the main tourism destination in Zambia, must strive to become the preferred tourism destination in Southern Africa, through provision of a quality tourism experience, by resolutely protecting the World Heritage Site and its surrounds, and actively promoting this unique environment, thereby improving the economic situation and quality of life of the residents.”
• “The mission of the Livingstone City Council is to provide minimum level of services that are affordable and to ensure that the costs of such services are recovered in order to protect the environment of this World Heritage Site and promote sustainable development.”

2) This is further endorsed by ZAWA’s Mosi oa Tunya General Management Plan (GMP) of May 1999, which inter alia states:

• A national park, by definition, must possess nationally significant natural or cultural resources and retain a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of a resource;

• Section 3 (Planning Guidelines) states clearly:
“Management emphasis in national parks will be to minimize all undesirable human impacts on wildlife populations”;

• Section 3.5.1 (Natural Resources) states that the priorities for the management of the national park will include: Protecting and conserving the Zambezi River and its riverine vegetation. Any development – local, national, international – which threatens the integrity of the riverine ecosystem should be opposed in the strongest terms.

• Figure 7 in the GMP illustrates the distribution of management zones within the national park.
A narrow riverside path route is provided between the Maramba River and the present Sun Hotel site for pedestrian access. The rest of that sector is designated for general tourism activity where permanent structures cannot be erected without full justification. Permitted activities in the Tourism Zone include only: game drives; escorted walks; and picnics.

The narrow, riverside development zone north of the Maramba River will be restricted to existing developments and to jetties, information centres, car parks, toilets and picnic sites. In this area “…no new leases will be considered…These limitations are imposed to keep development to a minimum and safeguard the corridor used by wildlife in this narrow and restricted part of the park.”

The road that runs from the cultural centre along the Maramba River to the confluence is a public road and any change in its status requires that it be de-gazetted by an act of Parliament. Zambian Law on land tenure vests all national parks and gazetted sites in the hands of the state, and any lease of such land is subject to normal tender procedures. As former Minister, Sonny Mulenga said the land had not been advertised or subjected to any tender procedures. "We are setting a very bad precedence for the future generation – land which is gazetted, as a World Heritage Site should never be given out for a song. No records have been given on who evaluated that land, and the amount in question is a mockery."

The concession was expanded from 2 ha. to 220 ha. for a reported period of 75 years without going to tender and is therefore procedurally incorrect and subject to cancellation by the Commission for Investigations
ii) The boundaries of the Park would have to be changed by statute to make the concession possible.
iii) The proposed development places ZAWA in default of its statutory mandate as laid down in the Wildlife Act of 1998: section 5(1) (a) and (c)
iv) The concession reduces the area of the National Park, contrary to Section 12 of the Act.

3) Golf Course in a National Park
The Legacy EIA justification for building and destroying a natural, protected area within a National Park is by reference to golf courses in other National Parks, namely Kruger, Pilansberg, Sabi River, Mt Kenya, Aberdares, and Mweya in Uganda.
What is not considered or pointed out is that these other National Parks are far larger than Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park (MOTNP). The golf courses in these parks do not take up the entire neck of a Park as Legacy would do in MOT NP. The other golf courses do not completely block a wildlife corridor, whereas the Legacy Development would effectively cut the MOT NP into two distinct halves. In Zimbabwe, the Falls are surrounded by the 2 340 ha Victoria Falls National Park and the 57 000 ha Zambezi National Park. The golf course at Elephant Hills on the Zimbabwean side does not, therefore, impact on the free movement of wildlife as there is adequate space for animals to move around the developed area. This is not the case in the much smaller MOTNP where the Legacy Development would take up 3% of the entire park, and block the crucial wildlife corridor of the park.
4) Eco Tourism
The EIA states that “It is the intention of the developers to follow the "eco-tourism" guidelines produced by the Livingstone Tourism Association”. Ideally, true ecotourism should satisfy several criteria, such as
• conservation (and justification for conservation) of biological diversity and cultural diversity, through ecosystems protection
• promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, by providing jobs to local populations
• sharing of socio-economic benefits with local communities and indigenous people by having their informed consent and participation in the management of ecotourism enterprises.
• increase of environmental & cultural knowledge
• minimisation of tourism's own environmental impact
• affordability and lack of waste in the form of luxury
So, why is ZAWA allowing Legacy to turn a huge area of our National Park into luminous green carpet of landscaped fairway? Is ZAWA under a deluded notion that, because golf courses are green in colour, they are somehow 'green' in the environmentally friendly sense, too? The truth is, golf courses take up too much space, too much water and disrupt the balance of wildlife. Why has ZAWA allowed this when they are tasked with the protection of our natural environment?
5) Environmental Impacts
• The Legacy EIA states that the development would remove all natural vegetation from the site and that it would cause ‘irreversible ecological destruction’ and cause “disruption to Elephant/Animal Corridors”, despite this it insists that the socio-economic considerations outweigh environmental impacts.
• Despite being offered alternative sites on the river Legacy has stated that if refused, Legacy will pull out of Zambia. Why has Legacy Holdings refused to consider an alternative site, despite this being required by Law under the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act (EPPCA). How can Legacy Holdings Zambia embrace irreversible environmental damage and the loss of World Heritage Status without considering an alternative site?
• The EIA report states “The main objective of this EIA is to examine impacts on ecological units and ecological processes of the project area including impacts on physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural environment and to provide mitigation measures for identified impacts”. The resorts are being built on that specifically identified narrow part of the national park where elephants cross the river and move through to the gorges - an area of major conservation importance for water birds and other wildlife, and also the only part of the river near the Victoria Falls accessible to the people of Livingstone. So how do you mitigate the effects of permanent environmental damage, the blocking of a wildlife corridor, fencing hippo out of their grazing grounds, the pollutants from chemicals and pesticides and fertilizers, the loss of biodiversity and the closure of access of locals to the river? The mitigating measures put forward by the EIA, i.e. by planting exotic grass, an elephant corridor of 200 meters, allowing a few tame impala to run around, sparing some trees for weavers to nest in, or planting Acacia nigrescens, which take years to mature, are paltry and trivial. Having seen the plans for proposed project, which include a swimming pool built on the Zambezi riverbank, (despite recommendations for building 50 meters from the river), it is obvious that the recommendations in the EIA and mitigating factors would also be ignored.

5.1) Birdlife
The riverine vegetation is a crucial breeding and feeding ground for many species of waterbirds, and woodland species prefer the shrubs, scrub, grasses and trees of the drier mopane areas. At the Lower Maramba to Zambezi Confluence, at the proposed site for Legacy, on the 14th June 2006, R Stjernstedt, S. P. Norman and M. Kalaluka , carried out a brief study of the birds in the area , covering a distance of 1.3 km. This is a walk frequently used by bird-watchers and naturalists in Livingstone, because it is a stretch of undisturbed riverine vegetation on the banks of the Zambezi River, looking directly across to a nesting colony of Egrets and Cormorants. This is also a site, almost the only point left to the general public, to see such Zambezi specialities as Rock Pratincoles, White backed Night Heron, Osprey, and Finfoot.

The survey reported 49 species of bird. Notable among birds special to this habitat were
Purple Heron African Goshawk
Gymnogene Red billed Wood Hoopoe
Orange breasted and Grey headed Bush Shrikes African Golden Oriole
Yellow-bellied Greenbul Brown headed Kingfisher
Trumpeter Hornbill Lesser Honeyguide
Collared Palm Thrush Eastern Bearded Scrub Robin
Yellow breasted Apalis Spectacled Weaver.

A longer study, conducted over a ten-year period by the Livingstone Museum Department of Natural History has identified 53 species of waterbirds in the area. Renowned ornithologist and local resident, Robert Stjernstedt, reports that 420 bird species are known to occur in the Victoria Falls Area. The survival of these birds depends on the biodiversity of the area.

For this reason, the area within and around the proposed site for Legacy Holdings’ development of a golf course and resort was declared an IBA (Important Bird Area) declared by Birdlife International. The aim of Birdlife International’s Important Bird Area Programme is to identify and protect a global network of sites that are critical for the long-term survival of all bird species and their habitats. Birds are prone to endemism (found in a restricted distribution area) and are an excellent indication of biodiversity in general. If an area holds rare or endemic birds or a particularly diverse range of birds, it is likely to hold a comparable array of other organisms. When water levels drop, rocky islands and sand bars are exposed along the river above the falls. Rock Pratincoles breed in large numbers on the rocks, and sandbars attract species such as White-fronted Sand Plover and African Skimmer. The riparian forest is home to species such as White-backed Night Heron, Western Banded Snake Eagle, African Finfoot and Brown-necked Parrot. A number of interesting species has been recorded on the boundary of the National Park at the Livingstone Sewerage Ponds including several rare waders and a variety of crakes. Slaty Egret has occurred on a few occasions. The general area also holds large numbers of indigobirds, amongst which can be found odd individuals imitating Brown Firefinch” From Important Birds of Zambia, Peter Leonard. Published by ZOS 2005

Threats to the biodiversity of the area identified by Birdlife International are the general level of disturbance and the effects of the ever-expanding tourist industry, which include light aircraft and helicopters, tourist activities and the immediate disturbance caused by new roads and infrastructure.

5.2) Habitat destruction
The expected Civil Works and construction phase of the Mosi oa tunya Hotel and Country Club as laid out in the EIA would be expected to last twenty-four months.

“This phase would involve the following activities, which would adversely affect the environment:
i) Clearance of the existing natural vegetation and trees;
ii) Removal of the top-soil around the foundation area;
iii) Construction of access road and internal roads within the project area;
iv) Installation of surface water drains;
v) Construction of buildings.
The activities would be undertaken using front-end loaders, graders, wheelbarrows, shovels and picks. The soil removed from the foundation area would be stockpiled in designated areas for future re-planting”.
The IUCN report states that “no mature trees or riparian vegetation should be cut down”. The natural vegetation provides crucial habitats for a wide variety of species of wildlife: large mammals (elephant, hippo, waterbuck, bushbuck and occasionally buffalo), smaller mammals (baboons, vervet monkeys, cane rats, genets, scrub hares, civet, duiker, mongoose, night apes, etc.) as well as birds, insects and reptiles.

In a study by WECSZ, 54 species of woody plants were recorded on the right bank of the river. It was found to be heavily infested in places with exotic Lantana, Melia and gums (Eucalyptus); apart from these the indigenous vegetation appears intact, with Kigelia africana, Combretum, Acacia, Diospyros, Terminalia, and Bauhina specimens of good size, being undisturbed by human encroachment. Of special interest is tree wistaria, Bolusanthus speciosus, a marginal species for Zambia but an endemic monobasic genus of the Zambezian phytochorological region. This species by itself is enough to recommend the site for preservation, as it is of frequent occurrence here and the trees are of good form and height, thus offering Zambians a unique opportunity to see this beautiful tree within their own country.

The IUCN management plan states “there should be access to the riverbank and animal crossing points”. The Legacy development ignores this stricture. The importance of elephants in overall conservation is as a keystone species, i.e. they encourage biodiversity through dispersal of seeds through dung, through their large ranges and by opening up overgrown, dense thickets giving other plant species a chance to grow. Elephants frequent the area between Sun Hotels and the Maramba river, their passage hindered by increasing tourist activity and the developments built to support tourism. The area in question is the last remaining intact area of good vegetation outside of the Park where elephants are free from human pressure. It is crucial that this area remains undeveloped and conserved as a route for animals from the Park and for those crossing the river to travel to the gorge and the Mukuni area. MOT is already damaged by overgrazing and deforestation. The competition for feeding is very high, and so the elephant destruction to trees within the park area is devastating. Over 100 elephants have been seen to use the Legacy area, in various-sized herds, primarily for feeding on fruiting trees , grasses and shrubs. There is very little evidence of trees having been pushed over in the Legacy site area, probably because of the lack of competition from other game. This alleviates much pressure from the fenced Zoological Park. If the Legacy Development went ahead, the increase in destruction to the fenced Zoological Park would be disastrous and could permanently alter the vegetation and carrying capacity of the Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park. There is also likely to be an increase in elephnant /human conflict upriver past the Sinde if the elephant access to the gorges is blocked off.

5.3) KAZA TFC
One of the “major negative environmental impacts of the Legacy Holdings Development have been identified in the EIA as : Disruption to Elephant/Animal Corridors”.
At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, one of the key resolutions was to foster Transfrontier Conservation Area. ZAWA has signed an agreement with the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFC) to establish a Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) with the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) in agreement with the Africa Wildlife Foundation (AWF). The underlying philosophy of TFCA’s is that cooperation in the management of natural resources that occur along international boundaries will spur increased collaboration between neighbouring states, which will benefit conservation through the wise use of these shared resources by
• Enhancing biodiversity conservation across borders
• Socio-economic development based on sustainable management of natural resources
• Enhancement of cooperation between states, government agencies and communities across political borders.

In practical terms the combining of protected areas across borders allows for improved management and increased ranges for migratory animals such as elephant. It also allows for the marketing of a larger and more diverse tourism destination.

At a meeting held in Angola in April 2003, the Ministers responsible for tourism in Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, agreed to establish a major transfrontier conservation and tourism development area in the Kavango and Upper Zambezi River basins.The proposed Kavango Zambezi TFCA falls within the Okavango-Upper Zambezi TFCA Zone, where the international borders of five countries converge. It includes a major part of the Upper Zambezi basin, the Okavango Basin and Delta. The most significant feature of the Kavango Zambezi TFCA is the large drainage system running though it (the Zambezi, Kavango/Okavango, Kwando and Chobe rivers). The core area is a series of wetlands (Okavango, Chobe/Zambezi) and saline lakes (the Makgadikgadi Pans). The other major feature is the presence of significant populations of the African Elephant. The area is estimated to have nearly 200 000 elephant which is around 30% of the world’s estimated population. Elephants are recognised as the flagship of conservation. The TFCA is designed to conserve landscape-scale ecological function, and elephants being such important herbivores need large landscapes to move around naturally and cannot be conserved inside traditional game reserves and national parks, which are too small and do not necessarily cover international boundaries.

The Kaza TFCA boasts renowned natural features such as the Okavango Delta (the largest Ramsar Site in the World), the Victoria Falls, and the Kafue wetlands as well as considerable tracts of riverine and floodplain habitats along the Okavango and Zambezi Rivers and their tributaries, namely the Kwando, Chobe and Quito Rivers. The TFCA covers many areas formally gazetted as national parks, game reserves, forests or wildlife management areas as follows:

Namibia
• The Mamili, Mudumo and Bwabwata National Parks
• State Forests

Zambia
• National Parks: Liuwa Plains, Kafue Park, Mosi oa Tunya and Sioma Ngwezi National Parks
• Game Management Areas: West Zambezi, Mulobezi, Sichifulo, Bilili, Namwala, Mumbwa, Lunga-Luswishi, Busanga and Kasonso
• State forests

Botswana
• National Parks: The Chobe, Makgadikgadi, Nxai Pan National Parks and Moremi Game Reserve
• Wildlife Management Areas: Okavango, Kwando, Nunga, Ngamiland, Boteti and Nata State Lands
• State forests: Kazuma and Chobe
Zimbabwe
• National Parks: Hwange, Kazuma Pan, Zambezi and Victoria Falls National Parks (and the Matetsi Safari Area)
• State forests: Kazuma, Panda Masuie and Fuller forests
Angola
• National Parks: Luiana and Mavinga Game Reserves
• State hunting areas: Longa-Mavinga, Luengue and Mucusso Coutadas

KAZA TFC is currently working with ZAWA and WECSZ in creating the links between the protected areas in Zambia and those in the neighbouring countries. The Open Areas that occur between the Game Management Areas and the Zambezi River will create the links between the Kafue Park and the protected areas in the neighbouring countries, with the vision of creating wildlife corridors and linkages to re-establish the old elephant migratory routes between the Zambezi River and parks such as the Kafue Park and the Sioma Ngwezi Park.

Current studies for the KAZA TFC include seeking land features between conservation areas (parks/forests) that meet the habitat needs of elephants, mapping the landscapes that effectively allow fragmented elephant populations to interact, and evaluating the suitability of these wildlife habitats with the emphasis on the habitat requirements of elephants. Recent satellite data received from Elephants without Borders, an NGO working to track elephant movements to establish elephant corridors using satellite imagery have shown that elephants use the entire area of the proposed Legacy Holdings site, not just a corridor along the Maramba river. The Legacy proposed “elephant corridor” along the Maramba River is simply not viable: elephants do not walk in straight lines and the area is not a walkway but a feeding ground. Preserving a corridor will not preserve the functioning of the crossing point as the entire area needs to be preserved. As has been shown in Botswana, elephant corridors need to be not less than two kilometers wide to be sustainable.

6) Methodology and Baseline Information

Baseline data was collected through field appraisal, discussion with relevant agencies and institutions in the concerned areas and consultation with local communities and individuals in the project area.

The foundation stone was laid prior to any consultation with local stakeholders, including the Livingstone City Council. The recommendations and concerns put forward at the Scoping Meeting held by Legacy at the Fairmount Hotel have been noted but ignored. The ECZ public meeting held at Maramba River Lodge was more of a political rally with cadres bussed in to disrupt environmental concerns, than an assessment of environmental impacts. Threats and racism were used to intimidate the public. ECZ was not on the panel, questions were directed to the Legacy Board of Directors. ZAWA was not present to discuss environmental concerns. NHCC was not present. Few of 300 or so participants had heard of the EIA document, fewer had even read it. Was this an public hearing for Environmental Impact Assessment?
7) The Impact on Livingstone Infrastructure
The increase in traffic and burden on already disintegrating road networks, water and sanitation and electricity in Livingstone would be enormous. Legacy expects a maximum of 3330 guests, 1850 permanent employees and 1250 visitors on a daily basis. The conference center provides for 1000 delegates. There would also be a craft production site which would require more people transported to and fro, as well as fresh produce, i.e. fish and vegetables and other guest supplies produced on site. The traffic increase and congestion, not to mention road accidents and increased pressure on our roads, would be devastating. An estimated increase of 60 more vehicles a day would be used in the construction phase and would be active at peak hours and, once operational, an additional 200 vehicles a day, of which 50 would be bulk supply vehicles. The repercussions for the already-congested road network in Livingstone are alarming.
8) Conclusion
The EIA states that: ”the socio-economic benefits of the project to the communities in the project area of influence outweigh the “no-development” scenario. The project is therefore being recommended for implementation assuming the incorporation of the recommended mitigating measures and implementation of the Impact Mitigation Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan”.
WECSZ is very aware of the need for employment in Livingstone. We have high unemployment and poverty which requires urgent addressing. The Livingstone community desperately needs more income, more development and improvement to its infrastructure. We do not have a proper or adequate refuse disposal system, we do not have sufficient water, our roads are in a shocking state of disrepair and our economy is limited to seasonal tourism . So Livingstone residents are certainly not against development. They need and want development.
However, we have to embrace responsible tourism for long term sustainability. By destroying the World Heritage Site and a National Park, the negative effects of this development will outweigh the positive impacts of jobs.

Tourists are attracted to Zambia primarily for its vast and relatively intact wilderness areas. Most lodges are eco-friendly, small-scale structures with minimum impact on the environment; but the potential damage to the tourism industry, by over-development and the complete commercialisation of the Victoria Falls area could have serious repercussions for Livingstone. Tourists come to Livingstone, and for that matter, Zambia, primarily for a wilderness experience. They do not come to Livingstone to find something like Florida or the coast of Majorca. The construction of Legacy resorts on a World Heritage Site, permanently altering the aesthetic beauty of a natural environment and blocking a wildlife corridor, is likely to alienate those attracted to “the real Africa”.
The main attractions for visitors (and hence the thousands of visitors every year) is the Victoria Falls, the Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park and the wildlife in our area. IUCN stresses that one of the principal attractions of the area is its perceived “wilderness” value and “the juxtaposition of natural wild area with modern visitor amenities. If this wilderness is lost due to over-development, then the visitors will not come and the economy and social structures will suffer.” IUCN Victoria Falls – Skeleton Management Plan Part Quite simply, if the Park is destroyed through over-development, many of the visitors will stay away. And, as a World Heritage Site it is incumbent on us to protect it for all mankind.
As George Schaller says in an interview with John. G Mitchell in National Geographic, October 2006, “It’s essential that each country keep part of its natural heritage untouched, as a record for the future, a baseline to measure change, so people can see the splendor of their past, before the land was degraded. And if we ever want to rehabilate habitat, we need to see how things used to be. These parks and reserves, these untouched places are also genetic resevoirs, where plants and animals that don’t exist elsewhere still survive. They can be invaluable to the human species as a source of food or medicine. If we destroy the parks, they’re gone forever, and we may be losing something invaluable to us”.
“There are certain natural treasures in each country that should be treated as treasures, and it’s up to conservation organizations to fight on behalf of the special places. Too many of these organizations have lost sight of their purpose. Their purpose is not to alleviate poverty or help sustainable development. Their purpose is to save natural treasures”
Tourism is one of the world's largest and fastest growing industries as more people are exploring other countries, destinations and cultures. “Ecologically sensitive areas, those where natural resources are critically endangered by physical changes and which contain a great diversity and interdependence of living habitats”, are experiencing an increase in visitation. Sensitive areas hold the main assets on which the tourism industry depends, so conservation is a must. Any changes in the component of an ecosystem will have unpredictable effects on the entire system”. These sites may be national parks, world heritage sites, wilderness area or cultural sites. As UNESCO’S Gina Doubleday says, “Tourism is great; there’s more discovery and more awareness about the sites, but it does mean we have to work hard to protect them”. Selling off a park, or degazetting it, serves short term appetites while compromising long term ideals. “Parks exist in the dimension of economics as well as geography, biology, symbolism as well as politics and time.”
We also cannot afford to lose our World Heritage Status. We have much pride in boasting such an internationally recognised status. The Victoria Falls is one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World (CNN). This deserves all the protection it can get. The response to the proposed Legacy development in our national park has been met with unbridled passion, respect and love for our wildlife and our natural and historical heritage. The publicity that this project has received, both locally and internationally, and the response from all walks of the community have shown that, the value of our wildlife and our environment and its protection outweigh the economic effects of this development.

Ali Shenton. Chairman of the Livingstone Branch of WECSZ.

Ian Manning's submission to ECZ on Legacy

ZAMBIA’S STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
19 November, 2006.

The present imbroglio concerning the issue by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) of a 75 year Tourism Concession Agreement on 220 ha. in the Mosi oa Tunya National Park – part of the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site, to a vigorously assertive black empowerment company, Legacy Holdings Limited, and its plans to build a golf estate in the middle of it, stirs the nation.

It is now clear that the lease is without legal foundation, and that the proposed development would, in Legacy’s own words in its 360 page Environmental Impact Statement, remove all the natural vegetation and result in irreversible ecological damage. It is, in short, an impending natural and national disaster as it would destroy the Park, destroy the Victoria Falls World Heritage Site, drive away tourists and investors, and destroy the credibility of ZAWA, the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) and the Government itself.

Zambia, as never before, has suddenly become aware of the environment; not just the natural resources: the wildlife, the forests, lakes and rivers, but the state of the environment. The recent closure of the Konkola Copper Mining Company’s operations due to its continuing pollution of its surrounds, the news that Kabwe is one of the ten most polluted places on earth, the sufferings of the poisoned poor, ensures that the ECZ and the myriad Government ministries, departments and statutory bodies responsible for the environment now have to place its well-being at the forefront of all they do. Therefore they need, as a matter of extreme urgency, to ratify the draft National Policy on the Environment (NPE), and build the ECZ into a formidable institution able to implement it – fully supported by the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) and the National Movement Against Corruption (NAMAC).

There is growing impatience within civil society, among donors, rural communities and Government for the attainment of the UN Millennium Development Goals through sound environmental and natural resource use. The clarion call by the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) for funding for an Institutional Framework and Action Plan for inter-sectoral implementation under the auspices of the MTENR, and in line with the National Decentralisation Policy, 2003, underlines the crucial importance of the NPE, buttressed by the appropriate legislation and regulations. This will help attain and ultimately secure the goal of development without destruction.

Activists fight Vic Falls development

November 15, 2006 Edition 4

Lusaka - Zambian environmentalists are opposing a $260-million (about R1,9-billion) plan to construct two hotels, a golf course and hundreds of chalets in a park near the famous Victoria Falls World Heritage Site.

Zambia's Wildlife Authority (Zawa) has given permission to local and foreign investors to go ahead with the project in Livingstone, even though environmental groups said it would harm the local ecology.

Critics say the park and its wildlife could be damaged by the development and Victoria Falls could lose its status as one of Africa's biggest tourist sites.

Peter Sinkamba, the head of one environmental group, said the government did not do a proper study of potential ecological damage.

Victoria Falls hotel project opposed

November 14 2006 at 11:09AM


By Shapi Shacinda

Lusaka - Zambian environmentalists oppose a $260-million (about R1,8-billion) plan to construct two hotels, a golf course and hundreds of chalets in a park near the famous Victoria Falls world heritage site, officials said on Monday.

Zambia's Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) has given permission to local and foreign investors to go ahead with the project in Livingstone, 480km south of Lusaka, even though environmental groups said it would harm the local ecology.

Critics say the park and its wildlife, which includes black rhinos, could be damaged by the development and Victoria Falls could lose its status as one of Africa's biggest tourist sites.

IRIN news 14 Nov 06

ZAMBIA: Concerns mount over World Heritage Site status

14 Nov 2006 17:49:36 GMT

Source: IRIN


Printable view | Email this article | RSS [-] Text [+]


LIVINGSTONE, 14 November (IRIN) - Zambia's only listed World Heritage Site is under threat by plans to build a multi-million dollar resort near the world-renowned Victoria Falls, a local environmental organisation is claiming.

The government has awarded 220 hectares of land in the 66 sq.km Mosi-O-Tunya National Park at a cost of US$9 million, plus an undisclosed recurring levy, to South Africa's Legacy Group Holdings for development over a 75-year period under a tourism concession programme.

The national park is a World Heritage Site shared with neighbouring Zimbabwe, with the waterfalls as an international tourist drawcard. In the past, Zimbabwe was the main port of call for those wanting to visit Victoria Falls, but Zambia has become the preferred destination as a consequence of Zimbabwe's economic meltdown, which has seen annual inflation levels topping 1,000 percent - the highest in the world - with commonplace shortages of fuel, energy and food.

"We have benefited so much from the booming tourism here but we may lose out, as UNESCO [United Nations Educational and Scientific and Cultural Organisation] has already indicated to us plans of withdrawing the status of Victoria Falls as a World Heritage Site, should the construction of a Legacy hotel be allowed to go on in the park," Nicholas Katanekwa, chair of the Livingstone Tourism Association, told IRIN.

Chairman of Legacy Holdings International Bart Dorrestein said the company would spend about US$260 million on building two hotels, 500 chalets and an 18-hole golf course. The proposed site is six kilometres upriver from Victoria Falls and lies between the Zambezi and Maramba rivers.

Donald Chikumbi, chief executive officer of the Livingstone-based National Heritage and Conservation Commission, said, "We have not received any correspondence from UNESCO to do with the allocation of this land in the Mosi-O-Tunya National Park to Legacy Holdings, but what we have received is a notice letter from UNESCO, informing us that a delegation of officials from UNESCO and the IUCN [International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources] will be coming to Livingstone on 20 November this year.

"They are coming to do a ground inspection on how far Zambia and Zimbabwe have gone in terms of upholding the various protocols that have a bearing on the status of the Victoria Falls as a World Heritage Site but, of course, their coming might have been influenced, in a way, by whatever is being said and circulated about this World Heritage Site," he said.

Maureen Mwape, spokesperson for the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), declined to comment on the allocation of the land to Legacy Holdings. The Zambian portion of the World Heritage Site is jointly managed by ZAWA and the National Heritage Heritage Conservation Commission.

At a July meeting of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius, the committee cited concerns that "the integrity of the property [Mosi-O-Tunya National Park] remained threatened by uncontrolled urban development, pollution and unplanned tourism development."

Tourism has been designated a key sector for job creation and poverty relief by Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa's government. His pro-market economic policies have endeared him to western donors, but have had little impact on addressing dire unemployment levels. Zambia, with a population of about 10 million, has about 400,000 formal-sector jobs, while two-thirds survive on $1 or less a day.

A recent World Bank report, 'Challenges of African Growth: Opportunities, Constraints and Strategic Directions', indicated that despite vast natural resources, and political stability since independence from Britain in 1964, income levels had regressed.

"Zambia's and Cote d'Ivoire's per capita incomes have hardly progressed relative to their levels in 1960. Zambia's per capita income on average retrogressed at -0.6 percent per annum over the past 45 years and, as a result, its 2004 level of $902 in 1996 international prices is 23 percent below the 1960 level of $1,167", the Bank said.

The Environmental Council of Zambia, a governmental watchdog, called a meeting in Livingstone, the tourism capital of Zambia, last Saturday to discuss the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report. The period for objecting to the proposed resort will close on 20 November.

Council spokesperson Justine Mukosa said the EIA encouraged "as wide participation of stakeholders as possible. Then, based on what all stakeholders say, and indeed on our own independent investigations and assessments, we shall soon come up with our final position on why the project should go ahead or not go ahead - we shall approve or disapprove the project."

The resort's promise of creating 2,000 jobs has elicted strong support for the project among local residents and organisations. "We, the people of Livingstone, want development. We want Legacy because we have suffered too much with joblessness and poverty," said Shadrick Mabote, a representative of senior chief Mukuni, in whose chiefdom the Victoria Falls is located. "We are ready to take any action against those opposing the project, and we can even walk up to State House [the presidential residence] in protest if anything is done to disturb Legacy from constructing the project in this land."

Livingstone, with a population of about 200,000 people, has not been spared the ravages of the HIV/AIDS pandemic - about one in five sexually active adults is infected.

Hotel Catering and Allied Workers Union deputy secretary-general Michelo Chizyuka told IRIN that "Each one of us keeps at least three unemployed dependants in our homes because of many factors, including HIV/AIDS. So it is a question of who puts food on our tables. Here is the opportunity for our relatives to be employed; should we give more regard to conserving the environment at the expense of fighting our own poverty honestly?"

UNESCO declared a 30km radius of Zimbabwean and Zambian territory around the Victoria Falls a World Heritage Site in 1989. Since then Zambia has ratified a number of international treaties, including the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Zambian law on land tenure vests all national parks and gazetted sites in the hands of the state, and any lease of such land is subject to normal tender procedures.

Sonny Mulenga, Zambia's first qualified land valuation surveyor and a former minister, said the land had not been advertised or subjected to any tender procedures.

"We are setting a very bad precedence for the future generation - land which is gazetted, as a World Heritage Site should never be given out for a song. No records have been given on who evaluated that land, and the amount in question is a mockery."

Environmental activists say the indiscriminate allocation of land to developers has contributed to the reduction of water levels in the Zambezi River, which feeds the Victoria Falls.

Although local environmental regulations require development to stop at least 50m away from the river banks, several lodges have been constructed on the river's banks.

"The Victoria Falls is not as forceful as it should be and the Zambezi River is no longer flowing naturally, due to so much uncontrolled developments. We have disturbed the water cycle, and we shall pay heavily for this as a country," said Benjamin Mibenge, a local environmentalist and game ranger with over 20 years' experience. "Going by the high levels of river pollution, structures constructed on the banks, and the overcrowded boat-cruise companies, we may not boast of any tourism just a few years from now."

nm/go/he


IRIN news