Drakensberg Cable Car

@viking5

There was a recent document that said that ezemvelo seems to be on board with the whole process. I find this hard to believe though.

In my opinion, a clever government/journalistic twist of the facts to "suggest" co-operation. See two extracts from the Mercury and Witness reports mentioned above on the 31st January:
Mercury - Cableway plans extended to span Lesotho
Because the cable car route is on the boundary of the uKhahamba-Drakensberg World Heritage Site, it is understood that the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife raised concerns about the proximity of the project and the need to consult the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) which oversees the World Heritage Convention. The MEC said his department had been advised to consult Unesco about the environmental impacts and about the international criteria that should be followed when drawing up the terms of reference for the environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Witness - More time for Berg cable car
“The proximity of the site to the World Heritage Site and the sensitivity of the Drakensberg landscape call for the development of the EIA,” said Mabuyakhulu. The department is working with Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, the national Department of Tourism and the national Department of Environmental Affairs on the project, on its implications to the World Heritage Site and the EIA process. “We also want to ensure that by the end of February 2014 we will have a reworked business plan on the project,” said Mabuyakhulu. The site of the proposed project is not part of the World Heritage Site.

From this morning's Mercury.

Nicely written no4stopper

I like the reference to Russian Roulette, that was classic!

Interesting article re Moses Mabida in the Mercury today - www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/moses-mabhida-down-but-not-out-says-city-1.1641053#.UvCZNrRQidA

Echoing the stance of former city manager Michael Sutcliffe, Gumede and his management team emphasised that the purpose of the city’s entities, including the ICC, uShaka and the stadium, was not to generate profit.

“Yes, they have to be sustainable, but they also need to benefit the city, which it is doing by bringing people to the precinct… I think that at the end of two years we will be fine, we will break even.”

I suspect this is how they see the cable car as well.

Yes and that is exactly the danger. If the government assumes 60% of the capital cost without wanting any return and an investor puts in 40% for all the financial return then the viability looks a lot better.

@Chris. Apologies, you are absolutely correct, perhaps I was misinterpreting the hoopla from DEDT that they were involved as tacit agreement.

However unlike this forum, they and the other depts have to go through the process without being able to say it is a bad idea prior to the EIA.

Good to see some articles in the paper addressing why groups are tackling the money issue rather than the environmental one first. If it is not financially viable then there really is no point going ahead with costly EIA's.

But don't worry if and when it gets to that stage, I am sure there will be plenty of people weighing in on the environmental threats of the project.

no4stopper wrote: Yes and that is exactly the danger. If the government assumes 60% of the capital cost without wanting any return and an investor puts in 40% for all the financial return then the viability looks a lot better.

It might seem to be a simple way round criticism of project viability, at least on a balance sheet, but
a) is it the best use of scarce funds or just another misguided vanity project spread out across the province?
b) it won't get round the fact that numbers for the cableway are hopelessly optimistic and that will have an impact on the operating costs and profits.