Does anybody have updated information on the proposed Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Park? Looking at the map from BBC, it would seem that it includes not only existing national parks and inhabited communities, but also hunting concessions (portions of the Caprivi Strip plus a good bit of the land surrounding the upper Zambezi in Zimbabwe, for example, and it looks like portions of Botswana and Zambia around the Kafue). I am curious how close to reality this is, and if there have been discussions regarding what impact this would have on these hunting areas (one would assume that no legalized/sport hunting would be permitted).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6250264.stm

quote:

Plans to create the world's largest game park are being finalized at a meeting in Botswana in southern Africa.

The planned conservation area will straddle the borders of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
It is hoped the park will bring in tourists to such attractions as the Victoria Falls, Okavango swamps, Chobe National Park and Caprivi Strip.

Officials believe it will also help regional tourism ahead of the 2010 World Cup taking place in South Africa.

The proposed Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Park will cost an estimated $100m to set up and is expected to contribute significantly to job creation in the five countries.

Africa's biggest game park at the moment is the 35,000-square-kilometre Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park on the borders of Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Ahh, the "Superpark" is an interesting subject. I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more here. I know very little about it and nothing definitive. At this point, I'm not in favor of it. I see very little new developments in Africa that are going to help long term and this doesn't seem to be an exception to that.

What are your thoughts Bill?

I didn't think the Limpopo Park was a reality yet? The problem is RSA is the only country that has any money and the other two (Zim and Moz) are going to benefit from the tourist money. So they are squabbling about that.

These parks are a good thing. The larger the reservoir the more resilient. There will be fantastic hunting surrounding these parks and poaching will be controlled to some degree, within the parks. Certainly more so than today with fragmented parks. Game populations will be able to follow age-old migration routes and the habitat will benefit as a result. The best thing will be the depopulation of these areas. And the flow of tourist funds will ensure the future of wildlife in these areas.

It's a double edged sword. Large parks are great for photo takers, but there's no hunting involved, just eco-tourism. Moreover, oftentimes the reserves and other areas surrounding the parks are later absorbed into the parks to make the parks bigger, or are sold to Greenies, where hunting is then prohibited. This has happened in the Limpopo area surrounding Kruger, with the loss of some great hunting areas.

Exactly my concern. I don't see this as benefiting the hunting industry.

Looks like it would wipe out the Matetsi concession areas and most of the areas near Lake Kariba and even possibly East of it.

Not a good idea at all if hunting can no longer be done in those areas.

I have a LOT OF DOUBTS poaching will be controlled at all, as there are numerous people resident in many of those areas.

Hopefully it would be managed in the way that the Selous Game reserve is suppose to be. (With sport hunting apart of it management.)
I could not imagine Photo Safaris bringing in enough revenue to support such a plan.
In Kenya most of the main National Parks are small but are big enough to support Photo Safaris. (maybe not big enough to support Lion though.)
And any big parks are badly under funded to run them the way they should be.

/

Alf with all respect to your long term presence here, I'm not in agreement with you. Tell me which green group has paid the bills in Africa more so than hunters? Most of their budget is for legislation and lobbying. What have they really paid for that is on the ground and still working?

Alf,

Most of us here accept that hunting is an important factor in conservation, in providing employment for local people, providing funds for anti-poaching, providing meat for local people without the need to indescriminately poach, provide "management" of the wildlife populations so they do not exceed the lands carrying capacities. Just look at the middle of Hwanage to see what excess elephant do (at least back in the early 1990's).

Also there is strong evidence that in many Parks, photo tourism is far more intrusive per dollar of sales than a hunting safari and also requires a far higher amount of GDP to be spent of imports to support the industry per million dollars of sales. Therefore hunting is often better for the "wildlife" region and also better for the National Balance of Payments.

I think a Park such as envisgaed would be a fantastic idea if hunting contiuned in various concessions within the Park for the above and other reasons.

But when talking about locals and their "interests".

If the Park is to include areas that are currently communal lands??? I can't tell from the map properly but it would seem so.

Are the locals going to be relocated? With compensation?

If they are left in place then the Park is a farce as poaching will continue to be rampant.

Are the landowners including the landowners who had the land stolen from them in the first place to be compensated?

I agree that local people should not be excluded from utilising some of their local resources eg hunting etc. This is a phenomona in many parts of the world where the US and probably Canadian dollar out prices local hunters. Who then just do it over the back fence instead.

quote:

Conservationsists and those who they recruit to their cause ie the "green movement" are willing to solicit and put money down to buy rights to land so that that land may not be utilized in any shape or form.

No Alf, these people are called "preservationists" and usually are not logical.

However instead of emulating them in the field, we should emulate them at the donation box and also draw in funds from the public for sensible conservation. The radical "greenies" rarely put their own hand in their wallet! Set up our own 'green' funds, advertising campaigns and donation campaigns. Thereby providing resources to good projects and sucking some of the lifeblood out of the greenies.

But as for the "whining" comment, that was uncalled for.

(edited)

Guests ...

It does sound very nice and fuzzy to have a wonderful large (eco conservation project) such as mentioned. If THEY had the resources and brain power to manage these parks it might succeed.

The MAJOR problem I see is that in Africa (millions of people are starving & impoverished) and these wonderful conceptial wildlife parks become what amounts to a (Free Zone Zoo) wherby the game animals becoming a reasonably easy target for Poachers

Cheers and good luck to them

Peter

/

Isn't it a shame. ALF, you're talking all about the Limpopo Province and particularly the Balule Reserve. The greenies owning the reserve areas are anti-hunting and make that fact very well known. It's now gone, and hunters will not hunt it again. In fact, my earlier point was made and based upon what had specifically happened there. And, I don't know of anyone who has legally hunted Kruger National Park lately, or been allowed into any of these reserves to do the same, do you?

Regarding and addressing specifically the "hunting", even under the BEST circumstances (including somehow having the resources to control the substance poaching) it would seem to me that it will take years before the game populations fill the new boundaries, and begin filtering out into the new hunting concessions. Short-term this would have a huge impact on the companies hunting the areas inside the Park, and the hunters booking hunts there. This article mentions a timeframe consistent with the World Cup in 2010, which is not far away.

Aren't you guys in the industry and/or on the ground in Zim and elsewhere hearing anything???