One investor to another..

Dear Richard,

During our recent talk in Livingstone it was clear that you welcomed Legacy, but had some doubts yourself about them building on the site. I did not find your position totally unreasonable as all of us would welcome Legacy and other developers to the Livingstone area, provided that they did not impact negatively on Livingstone, on the Mosi oa Tunya National Park, on the Vic Falls World Heritage Site, or on anywhere else, and provided that they were street legal. You had an opportunity to speak at the public hearing and have had ample opportunity to cogently put forward your views for public consumption and to the Environmental Council (ECZ). You did put your views to me, but not, as far as I am aware, to the media or to ECZ. Here follows what we wrote to each other:

Friday 10 Nov Email from Richard S. to Ian M
I have read the full EIA report. There is a down side as with all development. But there are huge upsides. The crunch is, can legacy develop a site that destroys the environment, clearly their product would be non viable if this were the case. Also we look at the golf course at Elephant Hills and Mwana and see how they fit into the environment and have enhanced it.

11 August Richard S. to Ian M
As an interested party I would like to highlight some of the positive and negative impacts of the Legacy development
Please feel free to pass this on.

1) With the right planning and approach the hotel development could be undertaken with out enormous prejudice to the local environment. We can see a very similar development in Kasane with Mwana lodge.
2) The area downstream of the Maramba has no access for Humans at all. The area upstream is little used due to difficult access and a high crime rate. Therefore the loss of access to the river should not be a major concern. There is no boat launch site in this area.
3) There is justified concern about this being one of only two crossing points for the elephants and this development would block this unless well planned. However would the Elis find a new crossing. I am sure that we have precedence for this somewhere.
4) As can be seen from the attached plot the land away from the river banks is very dry and has no large trees that would need felling.
5) This development would give Livingstone the critical mass which it does not have at the moment thus opening up the area for serious tourism and protecting the Zambian side against a re-emergence of the Zimbabwean side.
6) This development will create a large number of very badly needed jobs in an area with a high unemployment rate.
7) The taxes and levies applied would help to uplift the livingstone area.
8) The advertising produced would have a seriously positive effect on Zambian Tourism.
9) The potential loss of world heritage status needs investigation.
10) There would be a very positive impact on many marginal tourism businesses in the area.
11) There seems to be concern that this development will have a negative effect on the park in general. However as pointed out earlier very few people ever go to this area and there will be no effect what so ever on the Zoological area of the park frequented by tourists.

Over all the positives outway the negatives by some considerable margin. I think you will find that the vast majority of people in the area are pro this development as long as the environmental impact is given the consideration that it deserves.

13 August Ian M replies to Richard Sheppard
Richard, I will defer to Margaret Whitehead on your points as I don't know the area very well, having only worked in the Zoological Park in '67 when translocating eland there. However, I do understand that we will now have one united Park, which changes everything in terms of its biodiversity status and the benefits it could bring to all - not just the well heeled. Scientifically managed, this Park could maintain a very high carrying capacity for wildlife. Thus it is important that a consortium made up of the Livingstone Council, WECSZ, LTA actively seek a public private partnership with ZAWA in the Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park's management. This is ZAWA policy for its non-flagship (non-profitable) Parks and we now have a few parks running reasonably well on this basis, but in a few of the flagship Parks we need PPPs as well - particularly for Zambezi and Mosi. The new D-G of ZAWA, Dr Lewis Saiwana, has long been a firm supporter of PPPs and is now actively moving forward on this front. In customary areas, Chiefs have now accepted that there only hope for development lies in the establishment of Trusts in which the private sector and the District Councils, CRBs ... are partners, and where land is not alienated. Thus there is a national movement on the trust partnership front. In Livingstone there exists considerable expertise and enthusiasm for being part of the management and care of Mosi. The Park cannot be left to ZAWA alone to run as they don't have the capacity to manage the Park in the way it should be. It is just too valuable a resource to leave to Government. And they are asking for help; and it is a World Heritage Site - the responsibility of all to care for.
I differ strongly with the view that development must go ahead in the Park and that it is simply a matter of working with the developers to come up with an acceptable amelioration plan. Such an extensive development in the very heart of the Park must not be allowed - rightly having been refused on a number of prior occasions; but it would be most welcome outside the Park.

....................................

Richard, to “put an egg in a nutshell”, quoting our ex-Director of National Parks & Wildlife, the late Starr Yamba, the 220 ha./75 year Tourism Concession Agreement is illegal:
i) The concession was expanded from 2 ha. to 220 ha. for 75 years without going to tender and is therefore procedurally incorrect and subject to cancellation by the Commission for Investigations – to whom it has been reported
ii) The boundaries of the Park have not been changed to make the concession possible by statute
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.
v) The fee of $9 million received by ZAWA for the area is therefore the price paid for the land i.e. the land was alienated from state land to leasehold without having the assent of Parliament and without the necessary re-gazetting of boundaries...
vi) The Zambian Government is in default of its obligations under the Convention governing World Heritage Sites
vii) The assent of the National Heritage and Conservation Commission, the Livingstone Town Council, the ECZ, and civil society, was not obtained
viii) the assent of the Zimbabwe Government was not obtained

On Friday 1 December the ZAWA official who normally hands out leases to investors for National Parks and Game Management Areas, Tom Mushinge, was fired. He, you will recall, is the brother of Renatus Mushinge of Legacy Holdings Zambia. NAMAC, the National Movement Against Corruption is investigating other dodgy leases handed out, as well as this one.

AND...

i) The Legacy EIA itself states that the development would remove all natural vegetation from the 220 ha. site and that it would cause ‘irreversible ecological destruction’; despite this it insists that the socio-economic considerations outweigh environmental impacts
ii) Despite being offered alternative sites on the river it states that if refused, Legacy will not build elsewhere

AND...

Here is what we know of UNESCO’s position

Times of Zambia (Ndola)

November 8, 2006
Posted to the web November 8, 2006

Edward Mulenga

ZAMBIA risks losing its increasing tourist inflow following UNESCO's growing threats to strip the
Victoria Falls of the status of world heritage site. This follows the failure by Zambia and Zimbabwe
to ratify protocols committing them to joint management of the world wonder. This came to light during a consultative meeting on the management of the falls held at Livingstone's New Fairmount Hotel on Monday.

According to the deliberations, the delay in signing Cabinet memos committing the Government to the undertakings of joint management of the Victoria Falls with neighbouring Zimbabwe would
compel the UNESCO to take a firm decision based on the laid-down punitive measures.

In her presentation to the meeting, 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.

She said Zambia was privileged to have 16 of its nationals on the UNESCO committee and needed to
show seriousness by ratifying the protocols. Ms Kapwepwe emphasised the need for action to
resuscitate the falls, which is deemed to be degenerating.

And Zambia National Commission for UNESCO representative, Felicitus Chinanda, said Zambia
and Zimbabwe had failed to effectively implement agreed protocols, among them, the 30-kilometre radius of the Victoria Falls. Ms Chinanda said the two countries had also
failed to control the mushrooming of new tourism developments around the 30-kilometre radius, a
situation that had resulted in the abrogation of the protocols.

ANOTHER ARTICLE...

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.

Admittedly these two articles don't say that UNESCO will cancel Zambia's heritage status, nor that it will mount a campaign, but it was reported thus elsewhere. I suggest you get hold of the minutes of the UNESCO meeting held in Livingstone, to which the public were not invited. Bu then minutes are a form of extreme censorship if not honestly written.
yours aye,
Ian

I.P.A. Manning
Steering Committee Member: Natural Resources Consultative Forum of Zambia