iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Terri Castis
•
1 like•493 views
This document summarizes the Poverty Reduction Programme at iSimangaliso Wetland Park in South Africa. It discusses the socio-economic challenges facing the region and the park's efforts to promote local economic development, empowerment, and radical transformation through initiatives like land rehabilitation, infrastructure development, tourism skills training, enterprise development, and public-private partnerships. It outlines the process for establishing public-private partnerships and their additional requirements around environmental protection, black economic empowerment, and benefits for mandatory community partners. The goal is to shift the development trajectory of the region by creating thousands of jobs and economic opportunities while protecting the unique ecological values of the park.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Terri Castis
Similar to iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Terri Castis (20)
More from Anna Spenceley
More from Anna Spenceley (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Terri Castis
- 3. “Poverty amidst Plenty” • Socio-economic neglect in former homeland • Low-road growth path – Stagna5on/decline – Embedded in regional fundamentals – Human & ecological disaster • Key challenge: Shi$ing the development trajectory
- 6. The inheritance: a failing state asset • drought, • drying up lakes, • planta9ons & other incompa9ble land uses, • 16 different management regimes, • unauthorised developments, • collapsing infrastructure, • threat of dune mining ……
- 14. Park infrastructure progress • 300km of fencing • 290 km of tourism roads • 12 ablu5ons • 8 decks, viewpoints and picnic sites • 3 boardwalks (including canopy & aerial) • 4 New gate complexes • Beachfront facili5es (car park, showers, braai areas) • 8 Hides • 5 JeZes • Signage in process of being upgraded • Water pipes and reservoirs • Re5culated water to tourism camps and day visitor facili5es • 2 Camp site • Various road repairs • Repairs to ablu5ons • Funding sourced from government & other donors
- 20. CBNRM: harves5ng of natural resources • Ongoing sustainable resource use: (grazing, rushes, reeds, ilala, isikhonkho, fish) • Natural resource harves5ng for some 80 000 people including some 1000 subsistence fishers; • 3500 women collect incema each year • Agricultural gardens
- 21. • CraHs 22 groups + 200 craHers. 9 from North • Mr Price • 50 ar5sts; Moses Mabhida stadium as well as Dube Tradeport. commissions for R100 000 each
- 22. Higher Education Access Programme 87 bursaries to youth from the area. 18 of these (21%) of are from the north. Pass rate 85%. 39 students have graduated to date
- 23. Tourism skills development • hospitality • chefs • NQF 2 (site) & NQF 4 (regional) tour guides • 80 % employment
- 27. Pla[orm Created • 8000 direct jobs • 2000 to 2014: <89% tourism businesses & < 46% beds • 7% of KZN T and 1% of South Africa’s tourism GDP • Occupancy: from below na5onal ave. to above • Gate numbers: year on year increase no. and revenue • Business licenses • Higher visitor no.s than other areas in KZN
- 30. Accommoda5on PPPs • 3 community-private-public partnerships with local community - Thonga Beach Lodge, Rocktail Bay Beach Camp, Mabibi Camp – equity from 17.5 to 62% • 1 EIA underway (100% community-ownership) • 1 refurbishment underway • 14 new sites being scoped • 11 exis5ng sites have been earmarked for redevelopment
- 32. PPPs • Insourcing vs Outsourcing – should state money be used to fund tourism given the inherent risks • PPP framework – risk transfer from state to private sector – Guaranteed income stream to the state – Community benefits – Environmental prac5ce – Challenges that must be overcome to increase the appeal of the transac5ons
- 33. Regular Tourism Investments v Protected-area PPP A regular tourist-accommodation investment A tourist-accommodation PPP in a protected area Capital growth: The investor is able to sell the property at a value that generally exceeds the initial investment. There is no capital growth. The facility automatically reverts to the state without compensation for the improvements effected by the investor. At best, the outgoing Private Party may recoup part of the value of any movables taken over by the new operator. Collateral for debt financing: The property can serve as collateral for debt finance, even in the case where the investment is on leasehold property. Collateral for debt financing is limited to the investor’s rights under the PPP agreement, which in financial terms, are very limited. The investor would have to encumber other assets to secure finance. This is obviously unattractive to investors, given that the PPP bears a much higher risk than other non-PPP tourism investments
- 34. Regular Tourism Investments v Protected-area PPP A regular tourist-accommodation investment A tourist-accommodation PPP in a protected area Risk: The investor assumes the full operational risk, including the risk of bankruptcy. However the investor may sell the project at any time to mitigate losses or avert bankruptcy. If further capital has to be injected into the project, it may be recovered through future profits and/or capital appreciation. The investor assumes the full operational risk, including the risk of bankruptcy. It has no option but to continue to operate the project irrespective of the losses being and its prospects of recovery. If further capital has to be injected into the project, it may never be recouped since the life of the project is finite and there is no capital appreciation. Finance for land claimants & traditional councils ("mandatory partners"): The investor is not required to raise or underwrite any mandatory partner’s share of the investment. Protected areas are required to create benefits for mandatory partners in the form of equity amongst other things. Since the mandatory partners have little or no capital or assets, the primary investor must underwrite or guarantee the mandatory partner’s equity and share of debt finance, resulting in a disproportionate risk vis-à-vis return on investment.
- 35. Regular Tourism Investments v Protected-area PPP A regular tourist-accommodation investment A tourist-accommodation PPP in a protected area Capital expenditure & operating costs: Capex and operating costs are not impacted by environmental and related factors typical of protected areas. Capex and operational costs are appreciably higher in response to environmental strictures. For example, construction costs are higher because building takes place in remote and/or inaccessible areas; waste must be removed from the Park; specialised plant must be installed to deal with sewage; etc. Target market: The investment project typically has access to a variety of markets (leisure, business, etc), enabling it to diversify its business risk. The investment project is reliant exclusively on the leisure market, which is notoriously fickle and subject to vagaries beyond the investor’s control. In many cases, due to the environmental strictures the projects are small resulting in high rack rates to ensure their viability. This is the more vulnerable segment of the tourism market during recessionary cycles.
- 36. Typical Structure of a PPP in iSimangaliso • Environmental requirements include – Park parameters such as energy saving, waste management – Legal requirements such as environmental impact assessments • BEE vs Community inclusion – Standard requirement is BEE – iSimangaliso addi5onal - define a mandatory partner, equity requirements, job crea5on, skills development, procurement • Opera5onal and marke5ng capability • PPP fee & payment holidays • Guarantees • Financial contribu5on
- 37. PPP Process • Treasury Approval (TA) I: feasibility – Environmental scoping – Stakeholder analysis – Market review – Project viability – Ins5tu5onal capacity – Infrastructure assessment – BEE – Procurement process – Risk analysis – Con5ngent liability
- 38. PPP Process • TAI: feasibility – Environmental scoping – Stakeholder analysis – Market review – Project viability – Ins5tu5onal capacity – Infrastructure assessment – BEE – Procurement process – Risk analysis – Con5ngent liability
- 41. 2017 – 2019 Taking radical transformation & empowerment to the next level