Kalaluka's petition to the Zambia National Assembley ...

TOLKAL CONSULTANTS
BOX 61242,
LIVINGSTONE.
Call: 097-479038
Email:namasiku@zamnet.zm
20th November 2006

The Clerk of the National Assembly
National Assembly
Parliament Building
Box 31299, Lusaka.

Dear Sir,
RE: NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PETITION OVER 220 HECTARES LEASE OFFER BY ZAWA IN MOSI-OA-TUNYA NATIONAL PARK

I refer you to the above subject matter. Following the offer of a 75 years lease of land amounting to 220 hectares to Legacy Company by ZAWA, in the Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park, investigations and observations have shown that many legal requirements of different Zambia laws have not been followed. In addition, many requirements expected of the developers have been either flouted or over-looked. At the same time, ZAWA has omitted other procedures required of it to do prior to offering such big land (3%) to one investor.

Since the total disregard by ZAWA and Legacy has evidently shown that some procedures were not followed and that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was inadequate, left many other issues and failed to identify and address the expected negative impacts comprehensively. I am hereby petitioning the Zambian Parliament through you to thoroughly investigate this lease of land urgently before many lives; property and crops are destroyed further.


I am also asking that I be a witness when the committee on Energy, Environment, Water and Natural Resources will sit.

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.

I am writing from a perspective that is as a concerned citizen, an informed and affected Livingstone resident, conservationist and a wildlife and environmental consultant.

The following are some of the reasons, which have compelled me to petition parliament and seek redress through the August House
1. No tender procedures were followed in awarding a further 218 hectares of the 220 hectares of land in the park.
2. On Saturday 29th July 2006, the then Vice President laid a foundation stone when this area was still subject to approval by the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ). This is not the procedure but intimidating ECZ and the public that Government had already officially accepted and it was a done deal.
3. Inadequate consultations, the onus is on ZAWA to consult as many stakeholders, affected, interested and concerned parties. This step was not done thoroughly resulting in many of the stakeholder not fully aware of the project except through the press.
4. A scoping meeting which was meant to explain the full extent and nature of the project Legacy Company was going to do was turned to be a muscles flexing event as ZAWA openly did not want to be asked why it did not consult others prior to giving the 220 ha to Legacy. Finger pointing, intimidation and single handlyness by ZAWA was evident as their Director General openly said ZAWA did not need to consult anyone as they were the principal managing agent of wildlife resources.
5. A public meeting of the 11/11/06, which was supposed to be a forum where those who had read through the EIA were suppose to submit their concerned was turned into a political rally with MMD cadres from Zambezi ward were ferried to the site. Those who had genuine submissions were intimidated by some drunken youth & racist remarks were used. The whole meeting was turned into a question and answer in full view of officials from ECZ.
6. ZAWA abrogated its own laws and regulations by allocating such big land in an area where such developments were supposed to be very minimum. ZAWA has NO approved General Management plan for the park where they would have been guided on types of use and limits of accepted use.
7. What is the rationale behind having one of Legacy Director as a team leader for the consultants? This can be a source of compromise in the EIA process.
8. The EIA is not comprehensive document, it has failed to bring many ecological impacts let alone provide practical mitigations.
9. What justification is there for ZAWA to offer to one investor 3% of the total park and 15% of the river frontage, at the expense of other well deserving users?
10. Why are the public denied the only public access area in the park without an alternative.
11. Legacy’s EIA clearly states that there will be irreversible negatives impacts like the total cutting of indigenous trees and others. Why should we lose this viable area when the developers can clearly tell us about the magnitude and extent of the negative impacts?
12. The area/ Land in question is within the 30 km radius of Zambia’s only World Heritage Site the Victoria Falls. Zambia is a signatory to many international laws and by giving this land without consultations at international levels means Zambia is abrogating these laws. UNESCO in whose classifications and management guidelines are drawn have indicated in no uncertain terms that they will down grade the Victoria Falls and further decampaign Zambia as unenvironmentally friendly tourism destination. Neither ZAWA nor Legacy can cushion Zambia against such isolation from international communities.

In view of these reasons, I feel justice must be done by the August House giving my concern a thoroughly review and further investigate before we allow development that may even take away our own sources of livelihood. I agree in principle over the employment that will be created (2000 jobs) when in operation, however I feel pity for the local community of Mukuni. They are being used as those to be employed yet experience with Sun International Hotels shows that Mukuni residents are the one doing casual jobs, no one from Mukuni has a managerial job. The area given is a very sensitive ecological site, with significant importance to the sustainable management of the Victoria Falls. If given out therefore it will have very negative impacts & strain Zambia’s relations with Zimbabwe and concerned International community and their institutions.

As a concerned Zambian I feel these issues must be addressed before disregard for both local and international laws becomes on accepted culture.

I look forward to appearing at the committee’s deliberation of my submissions

Yours Faithfully,


Kalaluka Namasiku Mulyokela
Concerned Citizen/ Conservationist
Signed

C.C. Chairman (Energy, Water & Environment Committee)
C.C. Hon. Sikota Sakwiba L/stone Area MP
C.C. Hon. Regina Musokotwane MP, Katombola
C.C. Hon. Major Chizhuka MP, Namwala (Indigenous People Rights Association Chairman)