PROPOSED NEW MERENSKY – FOSKOR POWER LINE

1. PROPOSED NEW MERENSKY – FOSKOR POWER LINE ECO-TOURISM SURVEY

2. BACKGROUND • Seaton Thomson & Associates was commissioned by Nsovo Environmental Consulting to compile a Specialist Study on the impacts of the proposed new power line on the eco-tourism sector • In association with STRISA (The Sustainable Tourism Research Institute of Southern Africa cc) this study was completed in two phases • Phase 1 was basically a desk-top study to pinpoint all eco-tourism operations that fall within the buffer zones of the four potential routes

3. PHASE 2 METHODOLOGY • Phase 2 consisted of in-depth interviews (face-to-face, telephonic and electronic) with landowners, lodge operators and reserve management from all private nature reserves within the proposed buffer zones • Interviews were also held with officials from the Maruleng Local Municipality and the management team of the Kruger 2 Canyon Biosphere Reserve • All written submissions sent by the Interested and Affected Parties to Nsovo Environmental Consulting were scrutinized and various issues were discussed personally with the authors

4. KEY FINDINGS • The Balule Nature Reserve is an umbrella body for a number of private nature reserves and is a member of the Association of Private Nature Reserves • Fences between Balule and the Kruger National Park were removed in 2006 and this Reserve is regarded as a ‘buffer’ zone having complementary legal and management restrictions placed on its use and development. This is aimed at providing an extra layer of protection to the integrity of the National Park • In effect, the Balule Nature Reserve has become part of the Greater Kruger Park with considerably enhanced conservation values and status

5. THREATS TO THE RESERVE • There is an existing power line through Balule that attracts unfavourable comment from overseas visitors • Creating a parallel servitude is unacceptable because of the adverse visual impact and the destruction of further areas of natural vegetation • One of the key Biosphere Guidelines states that ‘the removal of large and established trees and plants is prohibited’ and that ‘mass clearings and disturbance of the landscape must be avoided’ • In addition, many herbivores sleep under the power lines at night (for safety reasons) and their grazing and browsing out and away from the power lines during the day results in over-grazing and habitat degradation

6. FURTHER THREATS • The presence of construction workers within the Reserve would require armed guards to protect them. It would also pose a serious threat to the rhino populations because it is known that workers within protected areas are paid handsomely to report the presence of rhinos to ‘The Syndicate’ • Workers would not be permitted to overnight within the protected areas and this would result in additional vehicular traffic that would create unacceptably high disturbance factors for both visitors and wildlife • The value of the land and the physical developments within the nature reserves would decrease and would deter future investments

7. KRUGER 2 CANYONS BIOSPHERE RESERVE • This is an internationally recognised and registered Biosphere Reserve and is part of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme • Any threats to the integrity of the Reserve may result in cancellation of this registration • All land between the Escarpment and Kruger Park is included in either the ‘core’, ‘buffer’ or ‘transition’ zones • The private nature reserves are all included in the buffer zone category that has a very special role to play in meeting the overall conservation objectives

8. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS • Only 6,9% of SA’s land is devoted to conservation • The Government is trying to expand the amount of conservation land by incorporating private conservation areas and some communal areas under appropriate partnership agreements • Expropriation of protected areas is only acceptable if there are no alternative & viable options • Parts of the Drakensberg escarpment have significant wilderness characteristics and these areas should not be compromised when future generations deserve the right to decide how they could best be utilized • There is a unanimous opinion that the ‘green’ route (ESKOM’s first choice) is not an acceptable route

9. ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS • YELLOW ~ Will pass through three Nature Reserves and cross the Drakensberg Escarpment • BLUE~ Already a railway line and three power lines between FOSKOR and Hoedspruit. Hoedspruit to The Oaks is agricultural land with many irrigation farms • PINK – This is preferred to the Green route between The Oaks and Steelpoort • GREEN~ Will traverse major tracts of protected land. Route between FOSKOR and The Oaks should follow the roads – R 40 – R 526 – R 36

10. OTHER ISSUES • The tourism industry is regarded as ‘fragile’ and impacts such as additional (or new) power lines could seriously affect the viability of many commercial operations • Todays’s tourist is very aware of the many threats to natural and cultural environments and the demand for quality wildlife experiences would be severely reduced if extra man-made structures are imposed on natural areas • It is apparent that the eco-tourism sector, as a whole, is prepared to fight against the construction of new power lines through their protected areas

11. CONCLUSION • The relatively simple expedient of moving the GREEN route to run along the R 40, R 526 and the R 36 roads will be acceptable to the majority of land-owners and commercial eco-tourism operators • ESKOM would receive favourable public acclaim if they take a decision to avoid the protected conservation areas and re-route the line to follow the roads as mentioned above