Drakensberg Cable Car

ghaznavid wrote: Also see the meeting notes posted by Intrepid from the meeting in the Champagne Castle area (can't remember the exact location) - they also referred to the same funding model.

www.maloti-drakensberg.co.za/cableway/documents/Notes-from-business-meeting-5-Dec-2013-Nora-Choveaux.pdf

Scag wrote: I did a bit of digging, and found that this Mr X is quite like ourselves: an avid outdoorsman/hiker (at least, if his pictures on facebook where anything to go by). I wonder if he is around on these forums, but is too afraid to speak up about his work?

This forum is open to constructive discussion. Even those that support the cableway are welcome to participate.

1. Claims by the locals that they weren't adequately consulted.
If this were false, why have they released a statement about it?
Perhaps they were consulted but the consultation was brief, due to the mourning period. The contractors could decide otherwise, and that the consultation had been completed. At the very least, they have claims that someone agreed to the cableway, which the petition disputes. The consultation therefore needs to be redone, because we have conflicting information.

This is the statement which was released by the AmaZizi in December:
www.maloti-drakensberg.co.za/cableway/documents/AWG-MWWT-ATA-Appeal-Dec-2013.pdf
It is very clear and leaves no room for misinterpretation. The royal family have NOT been consulted. They do NOT want the cableway, nor do the community elders. Why after this statement was released in December, did the DEDT not respond and clear up the matter, even though they were given a chance to? Note that Sigungu Miya said that "contrary to the claims of some people, Inkosi Miya never agreed to have the cableway in our area" - things have been said that clearly misrepresented the view of the leadership.

As for the meeting where apparently 10 000 people endorsed the proposal. Have a look through the questions raised in this letter:
www.maloti-drakensberg.co.za/cableway/documents/WAG-VE-ACT-further-comments-on-cableway-Dec-2013.pdf
We have no response to this so far.

2. The existence of the cableway will affect the world heritage status.
I havent really been able to find any concrete evidence about this, aside from personal comments(I havent seen any links to a credible source where it says as much). However, from what I have gathered, the location of the cableway is in an area that is not defined as part of a world heritage site. I know they are trying to make it a park, essentially connecting the malotis with the drakensberg. But until that is done, I dont see how the cableway will affect the world heritage status. This is probably the argument which is being made. Arguing that you hope it will be part of the world heritage site some day probably wont cut it, they are essentially trying to sneak the cableway in before that happens.

This comes from the Outstanding Universal Value of the Maloti-Drakensberg Park on the Unesco site:

Boundary issues highlighted at time of inscription included the gap belonging to the amaNgwane and amaZizi Traditional Council between the northern and much larger southern section of the Park. While planning mechanisms restrict development above the 1,650m contour to maintain ecological integrity, it was recommended that a cooperative agreement between the amaNgwane and amaZizi Traditional Council and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife be envisaged.

whc.unesco.org/en/list/985
Many years of work has already been done towards this agreement that Unesco wanted:
www.vertical-endeavour.com/documents/FinalReport_WAG_Upper-uThukela-Stewardship-Project-2012.pdf
www.vertical-endeavour.com/documents/Upper-uThukela-KZN-BSP-Biodiversity-Report-2010.pdf
The cableway is in direct conflict with these plans since it will cut across the Nature Reserve and Wilderness Area (a wilderness area may not have man-made structures). It is also not desired by those that have worked with this planning and have agreed to it.

Unesco has been known to put heritage sites onto an endangered list due to undesirable development, and even to remove heritage status. Even if it isn’t technically within the heritage site, the cableway is extremely close to the boundary, and the proposed upper station falls within an area that is managed as part of the heritage site. It falls squarely within the Buffer Zone anyway. The Berg's heritage status, which was due to it's scenic and natural wealth (in conjunction with cultural heritage due to rock art), could be under threat due to the cableway. The cableway is also in conflict with plans that were in alignment with Unesco's stipulations and conditions for proclaiming World Hertitage status. Have Unesco been consulted by the proposers of the cableway, and has the matter been cleared?

3. The cable way will harm the environment.
Pending the EIA, anything they say in this regard isnt credible. But lets suppose for a second that their engineering skills will limit the impact such that it is not a major issue. We will still have litter bugs on the top. Every time I go to monks cowl and walk in the vicinity of the sphinx, and blind mans corner, I see litter(commonly toilet paper) strewn about by all the human traffic from the local hotels. In addition, we will also have an eye sore.

I think if full studies, not just of immediate impact, but of commulative and synergistic impacts are done, it cannot stand this test (think about all the associated development the cableway will trigger). Take the Lammergeier alone: they are now critically endangered. The next stage is extinction. It is a scientific fact that the leading cause of vulture mortality is crashing into cables. They simply cannot see them and avoid them, even if prevention mechanisms are in place.

4. The economic viability of the project is questionable.
Ok. I dont know to what extent they have done their research, but who am I to question it, sitting on the sidelines and all?

I think ghaznavid's study and earlier response addresses this very well.