|
The Shame Of
Siavonga
Refer to your
January issue and the article on Siavonga. I couldn't help but read
the article when I saw the word "Siavonga" as I am very familiar
with this region of Zambia. You point out the good selection of
hotels offering a range of services and the comfort some of these
lodges have to offer. You also point out various activities on the
Lake offered by these lodges.
How do I judge
your article? That of fairness with an attempt to support our local
tourism industry, and in this case specifically the Siavonga Lodges.
This I must point out is a very good gesture coming from the
Lowdown. BUT..............
Lets take a
very critical look at Siavonga and our tourism industry in Zambia.
First and foremost Siavonga is a SHANTY! I fail to understand how
any District Council in it's right frame of mind would have allowed
so much unplanned development on a site that has such a beautiful
view of Lake Kariba. How many serious holiday makers would opt for
Siavonga as a holiday destination in it's present state? To get to
any Lodge in Siavonga you have to drive through very unpleasant
sites. Let us not venture too far away from home to make a
comparison. Forget Cape town, forget Durban. Let us just cross the
Dam into Kariba. As soon as you cross the border you immediately
begin to notice orderliness and general cleanliness. For a moment
lets forget about Zimbabwe's political problems. Our main focus
should be the level of controlled development that has taken place
in Kariba.
1. To start
with Kariba is virtually a Game Park. Which gives the visitor more
options of things to do after the water activities which supposedly
our Zambian Lodges offer.
2. The
Architecture of the Lodges across the Dam cannot compare with what
we offer.
3. On average
the cost of meals and drinks is cheaper
Fine, one can
argue that Zimbabwe has had more private investment than Zambia. All
I am pointing out is that we should in our own small way have
controlled the type of structures that are erected in Siavonga. When
you have a nicely planned town it becomes easy to attract potential
investors to the area. Personally I wouldn't accept a free plot in
Siavonga. I have heard laments such as " We need to market
Siavonga", what exactly are we marketing? Removing all those
undesirable structures right now is political. Solution? Move
towards Sandy beach and establish a whole new town! This time lets
have approved structures springing up please.
If anyone
thinks they can prove me wrong, I give you one challenge. Halt all
those Government/NGO workshops in Siavonga for 6 months. Come back
to me and tell me how many tourists visited our "beautiful Lodges"
in that six months. I can bet you, all those Lodges will close down.
Zambia's quest
to promote tourism is rather sad, and yet with a bit of Political
will, it can be achieved. This country reminds me of an old Boxing
movie where the old retired boxer laments, " I COULD HAVE BEEN A
CONTENDER, I COULD HAVE BEEN GREAT". That is sad!
Richard
Munalula, Lusaka
Zawa
Park
Fees
Amazingly,
ZAWA's Ag Director General Butler A. Sitali, took time and trouble
to answer my complaints about inconsistencies in park-fee structures
(Lowdown, Feb 04). He sent me a kind letter (by EMS no less), which
included excerpts of Statutory Instrument No 46 of May 9, 2003.
Alas, he mentioned but did not include the revised version of the SI
(of Nov 27, 2003) because "it had not yet been approved by the
Ministry of Tourism".
Not YET? Three
months later?!! No wonder GRZ's tourism institutions are becoming
irrelevant. How can lodge operators and tour agencies function -
especially those that cite all-inclusive rack-rates a year in
advance - if
they don't
know what park charges will be? How can they or the Tourism Board
market holidays in Zambia without knowing price structures?
Because nobody
'yet' has been able to look at revisions of the SI, fee-structure
issues are as muddled and unresolved as ever. To make matters worse,
the SI talks of 'fee units' without explaining how many Kwacha that
translates into. Judging by what I paid (local rates):
Lower Zambezi
NP = K25,000 per DAY,
South Luangwa
NP/Nsefu = US$10 per DAY,
South Luangwa
NP/Mfuwe = K10,080 per ENTRY,
Mosi-oa-Tunya
= K15,800 citizens/K18,900 residents per DAY -
and the
fee-unit list that Mr Sitali furnished me with:
LZNP = 139;
SLNP, all
sectors = 139;
Mosi-oa-Tunya
= 139
(note:
inconsistency in Appendix V which cites for Mosi-oa-Tunya = 85
citizens, 105 residents),
a 'fee unit'
is anywhere from K72,52 (K10,080:139) to K345,32
($10xK4800=K48,000:139).
And the
per-day/per-entry confusion remains unresolved. Not that I, a
beneficiary, am heartbroken about Mfuwe Bridge Gate still charging
the old fees (K10,080 per entry), but variegated rates are simply
not fair. And that Nsefu Sector's Miliyoti Gate was able to invent a
whole new charge scale ($10 pp/day) seems particularly odd.
To muddle the
murky issue further, there is the appendix to SI 46 to consider.
This Appendix V differentiates between fee-units for citizens and
for residents (Lochinvar and Mosi-oa-Tunya NPs only): citizens pay
84 units per day, while residents pay 105 units. This is a new
tourist category: in the past we had 'locals' and 'internationals';
now we apparently have 'citizens', 'residents', 'regionals' and
'internationals'. Great! Four categories instead of just two. Let's
just hope the wildlife officers at park gates will understand this,
and/or have the circulars that spell it all out. It's no good
arguing with gate staff if we, the clients/tourists/agents/operators
understand the fee-unit system but gate-staff is 'uncompromising'.
They never are amenable to logic as they're simply following orders.
Oh yeah, a day
at ZAWA is officially from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Zambia's gameparks must
be the only places on earth where a day is only 12 hours long
instead of the customary 24. Nowhere, certainly not in neighbouring
countries' parks, is a permit only valid for the day of purchase. I
have just been to Tanzania (Katavi, Gombe Stream, Serengeti, Lake
Ndutu, Ngorongoro Crater, Mikumi and Ruaha NPs) where at every gate
the 'time of entry' is not only carefully written down but checked
on exit: if overdrawn by even just half an hour another day's entry
is charged. If we want to earn money, why can't we do the same? Why
must we be the only unreasonably punitive Wildlife Authority in the
region?
Re. car entry
fees, Mr Sitali writes: "The amount charged for vehicle entry into
Parks is not necessarily a 'parking fee'. As the S.I makes clear,
this is a vehicle entry fee. You will concede that, apart from the
environmental impact from the fumes etc, when a motor vehicle is
driven on a road within a national park, there is some impact in the
road too; that is why the fee is graduated according to the weight
of the motor vehicle. The fee also operates as a control measure
against the possible proliferation of motor vehicles in these
national parks, which is a sound conservation measure."
To which I
responded: "nobody argues that a car entry fee due to environmental
concerns is not reasonable. My point in the LZNP case is that the
car had to pay PER DAY ("parking fee" was the ZAWA wildlife
officer's explanation, not mine) while we, the visitors, paid PER
ENTRY. "Is this car driving itself daily in and out of the park
while we sit in the lodge and enjoy their game-drives?" I asked the
scout, to which he had no answer except "this is what I've been
told". As to "this being a sound conservation measure", I beg to
differ. When it suits (e.g. when the President is at Chichele) you
allow all kinds of violations of park rules and conservation
measures. And you don't even charge entry or car fees nor penalty to
the offenders!"
For those
dying to know about car-entry fees:
Appendix VI,
Regulation 5(q) lists vehicle entry fee-unit per day as 70 for
citizens/residents ($15 for non-residents) for cars under 3 tons
(double for +3t). There is a host of other fees: vessels same units
as cars; aircraft 417 units; camping and angling 105 each, mooring
140, boating 174, and canoeing/rafting 140 fee-units per day. It is
not quite clear here whether a vessel at rest attracts a 70-unit
rate and in motion (boating, canoeing, rafting) a varying rate? Or
do vessel-owners have to pay both?
Mr Sitali or
Mr Kabeta might wish to look at these continued inconsistencies in
the fee structure, preferably BEFORE the Tourism Ministry ratifies
SI 46 of Nov 03, in order to avoid precisely those problems
experienced with SI 46 of May 2003.
Ilse Mwanza,
Lusaka
All The
President’s Men
Further to
Ilse's letter in your February issue, the amount of shopping
(value-in millions - and items -stockings, handkerchiefs, towels,
among the groceries etc) done at Shoprite Chipata by "the
president's men" while the president was in Mfuwe is disgusting to
say the least! No wonder they have K126 billion in this years budget
for 007.
I rather doubt
that the president knows what his people buy "for him" (in his
name).
Disgusted
Watching Shopper
Chingola's
Unappreciated Wealth
It is clear
that the wealth in Chingola that Zambians boast about to the outside
world is not appreciated at all by our government.
This can be
clearly seen by the poor state of the roads in the mining town which
are likely to drive away potential investors.
Though
Chingola is home to the Nchanga Open Pit Mine which is one of the
biggest open pit mines in the world and a breath taking tourist
attraction, very little is being done by the government to improve
the poor state of the roads. This wealth is not being apreciated any
more.
Most tarmac
roads have big trenches in them making it such a heck for most road
users.
The many
investors that would like to invest in Chingola for its friendly
atmosphere are being put off by the state of the roads. Roads are
only better in some former mine areas like Nchanga South.
Drainage works
have not been done for some time as well and this has caused further
damage to the roads.
How come
Lusaka is already on phase two of the project for the rehabilitation
maintenance? For sure Zambia begins and ends with Lusaka.
What is
happening here is indescribable. Whoever awarded the contract to the
so-called contractors to work on the road from Lima Motel to the
ZCCM under bridge should pay for it.
The
contractors are working at a snails pace patching and repatching
the same potholes. They have also concetrated on three parts (or
maybe it was in the agreement). These parts are all less than two
hundred metres. But the time that has been spent cannot be compared
to the work that has been done so far.
The only noticable
things are people moving up and down with shovels and picks.
The equipment
being used is also not so adequate. The graders and fork lifts have
been parked on roadsides for ages. While casual workers do most of
the work.
A total
of K11.2billion is going to be paid to this company for the trashy
job they are doing.
These
unreliable contractors are only interested in money. The Chingola
Solwezi road is a clear testimony of such contractors.
The road was
rehabilitated in 2002, but its looking like it was done some years
back.
How much was
spent on it? Better we remain ignorant.
Chileshe
Komakoma, Chingola
|
March 2004