There’s no lodge, says Leisure Pleasure

DEVELOPERS of a lodge in a sensitive area of Damaraland deny that they are pushing ahead with construction despite a decision that building be stopped until procedures are correctly followed.

According to Leisure Pleasure Tourism, activity around the site where an incomplete structure has already been set up, is related to maintaining existing infrastructure such as the road up the mountain, water pipes and the waterhole. Their response is in reaction to reports from people working in and visiting the area near the Doros Crater, who claim that building work is continuing although a leasehold has still not been granted by the Kunene Land Board.”We can’t be expected to leave everything just like that.We have to maintain the broken pumps for example.We have a responsibility to upkeep the place and we have to look after our investment,” one of the developers, Paulo Schneider, told The Namibian.”There is no lodge.”Schneider said equipment at the site is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, and could not be left unattended.Workers, he said, were being taken to the site on an intermittent basis to help with maintenance work.Schneider said he and his partner Nicolaas Pienaar, trading as Leisure Pleasure Tourism, would not start building the Red Mountain lodge until a leasehold had been obtained, the Environmental Management Plan had been completed and they had reached an agreement with the conservancies who jointly have rights over the land.In March, the Kunene Land Board rejected a leasehold application from Pienaar, citing procedural loopholes, among other things.By then the developers had already been laying the groundwork for the development since June 2004.CONSERVANCIES Earlier this month, the Doro !Nawas and Uibasen conservancies cried foul over the procedures being followed.They said they were being left out in the cold.They dispute minutes of a March meeting in which they are alleged to have given the Sorris Sorris Conservancy the sole mandate to negotiate with developers and decide the way forward on the construction and operation of the luxury lodge.”We should have come together from the beginning.We have a joint venture agreement.Everything that must happen there [at the lodge site] there must be a committee to deal with it.If we don’t do that, then we are breaking the agreement,” said Leonard Hoaeb, the Chairperson of the Doro !Nawas conservancy.”If we are going to agree to this lodge then we all have to benefit.”The Sorris Sorris Conservancy is the only one of the three conservancies that does not have a major tourism project, such as a lodge.According to the proposed agreement, more than 50 per cent of the benefits will go to Sorris Sorris, while the other two conservancies stand to get about 20 per cent each.”It was all a misunderstanding,” Sorris Sorris Chairperson Albert Haraseb said of the tensions between the three conservancies.”We would have come together and shared with them anyway.We don’t have a problem with the lodge.From the beginning, we haven’t been against it,” he said.After intervention from the Legal Assistance Centre just more than a week ago, the three conservancies have now agreed to come together next week to discuss a proposed benefit-sharing agreement with the developers.The conservancies had initially planned to develop the area into a rhino sanctuary.Meanwhile, Haraseb has confirmed that he handed in a leasehold application in the name of the Sorris Sorris Conservancy to the Kunene Land Board Chairperson for consideration last week.The Kunene Land Board is however only expected to sit again in early December to consider new applications for leaseholds.CONSIDERATIONS The EIA, which covers the construction and operation of the proposed lodge, acknowledges that the developers did not follow the correct procedures to start building, but says this was as a result of a “misinterpretation” of the procedures as obtained from the Ministry of Lands.According to the EIA: “The developer was under the mistaken impression that the correct procedures had been followed.It would certainly not have been in the developer’s interest to knowingly ignore the correct procedure.”The EIA also expresses concern about the effect lodge structures would have on the natural landscape of the flat-topped mountains in that area.”Visual impacts detract from the wilderness appeal of this unspoilt area and are a potential flaw to the viability of this project, should suitable mitigatory measures, given in this report, not be effective,” said the report.It found that no archaeological sites would be directly affected by the project.Developers have pledged to use natural materials such as stone for their buildings to make them blend in with the environment.”We are not there to destroy,” said Schneider.”We will build everything the way the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) wants it to be.We are not planning to overpopulate the area, so that we can still look after the environment.”CONDITIONS The Ministry of Environment and Tourism has given clearance for the project to proceed once an EMP has been received.”The assessment done is sufficient as it takes into account the key environmental issues concerning the proposed activities,” reads a letter from MET Permanent Secretary Malan Lindeque.With Pienaar and Schneider having started building without the correct permission, and the site not being put out to tender, those in the tourism industry interviewed for the EIA, said that conservancies were at a disadvantage when it came to deciding whom their preferred partner would be, nor were they given the opportunity to investigate the developers’ track record and their ability to make a success of the development.Community-based natural resource management practitioners in the area said they felt a negative precedent would be set by allowing the development to proceed, as it would undo years of their work.The Federation of Tourism Associations (Fenata) said if the development went ahead, other developers would in future target prime sites in Namibia whether sensitive or not, and then follow procedures to be there, retrospectively.Other Fenata members are said to have applied to build in the same area over the last 10 years, but were rejected by the MET because of the area’s environmental sensitivity.Schneider said intentions to build the lodge chalets on top of a mountain were specifically intended not to interfere with the natural activity of animals.Their response is in reaction to reports from people working in and visiting the area near the Doros Crater, who claim that building work is continuing although a leasehold has still not been granted by the Kunene Land Board.”We can’t be expected to leave everything just like that.We have to maintain the broken pumps for example.We have a responsibility to upkeep the place and we have to look after our investment,” one of the developers, Paulo Schneider, told The Namibian.”There is no lodge.”Schneider said equipment at the site is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, and could not be left unattended.Workers, he said, were being taken to the site on an intermittent basis to help with maintenance work.Schneider said he and his partner Nicolaas Pienaar, trading as Leisure Pleasure Tourism, would not start building the Red Mountain lodge until a leasehold had been obtained, the Environmental Management Plan had been completed and they had reached an agreement with the conservancies who jointly have rights over the land.In March, the Kunene Land Board rejected a leasehold application from Pienaar, citing procedural loopholes, among other things.By then the developers had already been laying the groundwork for the development since June 2004.CONSERVANCIES Earlier this month, the Doro !Nawas and Uibasen conservancies cried foul over the procedures being followed.They said they were being left out in the cold.They dispute minutes of a March meeting in which they are alleged to have given the Sorris Sorris Conservancy the sole mandate to negotiate with developers and decide the way forward on the construction and operation of the luxury lodge.”We should
have come together from the beginning.We have a joint venture agreement.Everything that must happen there [at the lodge site] there must be a committee to deal with it.If we don’t do that, then we are breaking the agreement,” said Leonard Hoaeb, the Chairperson of the Doro !Nawas conservancy.”If we are going to agree to this lodge then we all have to benefit.”The Sorris Sorris Conservancy is the only one of the three conservancies that does not have a major tourism project, such as a lodge.According to the proposed agreement, more than 50 per cent of the benefits will go to Sorris Sorris, while the other two conservancies stand to get about 20 per cent each.”It was all a misunderstanding,” Sorris Sorris Chairperson Albert Haraseb said of the tensions between the three conservancies.”We would have come together and shared with them anyway.We don’t have a problem with the lodge.From the beginning, we haven’t been against it,” he said.After intervention from the Legal Assistance Centre just more than a week ago, the three conservancies have now agreed to come together next week to discuss a proposed benefit-sharing agreement with the developers.The conservancies had initially planned to develop the area into a rhino sanctuary.Meanwhile, Haraseb has confirmed that he handed in a leasehold application in the name of the Sorris Sorris Conservancy to the Kunene Land Board Chairperson for consideration last week.The Kunene Land Board is however only expected to sit again in early December to consider new applications for leaseholds.CONSIDERATIONS The EIA, which covers the construction and operation of the proposed lodge, acknowledges that the developers did not follow the correct procedures to start building, but says this was as a result of a “misinterpretation” of the procedures as obtained from the Ministry of Lands.According to the EIA: “The developer was under the mistaken impression that the correct procedures had been followed.It would certainly not have been in the developer’s interest to knowingly ignore the correct procedure.”The EIA also expresses concern about the effect lodge structures would have on the natural landscape of the flat-topped mountains in that area.”Visual impacts detract from the wilderness appeal of this unspoilt area and are a potential flaw to the viability of this project, should suitable mitigatory measures, given in this report, not be effective,” said the report.It found that no archaeological sites would be directly affected by the project.Developers have pledged to use natural materials such as stone for their buildings to make them blend in with the environment.”We are not there to destroy,” said Schneider.”We will build everything the way the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) wants it to be.We are not planning to overpopulate the area, so that we can still look after the environment.”CONDITIONS The Ministry of Environment and Tourism has given clearance for the project to proceed once an EMP has been received.”The assessment done is sufficient as it takes into account the key environmental issues concerning the proposed activities,” reads a letter from MET Permanent Secretary Malan Lindeque.With Pienaar and Schneider having started building without the correct permission, and the site not being put out to tender, those in the tourism industry interviewed for the EIA, said that conservancies were at a disadvantage when it came to deciding whom their preferred partner would be, nor were they given the opportunity to investigate the developers’ track record and their ability to make a success of the development.Community-based natural resource management practitioners in the area said they felt a negative precedent would be set by allowing the development to proceed, as it would undo years of their work.The Federation of Tourism Associations (Fenata) said if the development went ahead, other developers would in future target prime sites in Namibia whether sensitive or not, and then follow procedures to be there, retrospectively.Other Fenata members are said to have applied to build in the same area over the last 10 years, but were rejected by the MET because of the area’s environmental sensitivity.Schneider said intentions to build the lodge chalets on top of a mountain were specifically intended not to interfere with the natural activity of animals.