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