Drakensberg Cable Car

The argument that hikers are causing such bad erosion in the Berg that it warrants building a very expensive cable car is something that does need a formal response I think. The argument is not only flawed, but it alienates one of the major Berg stakeholder groups, which flies in the face of several statements made by the proposers of the project that they embrace all stakeholders and that the project will only work if all stakeholders buy into it. And it was even mentioned again by the MEC on the 50/50 documentary on TV.

Hikers naturally have an impact on the environment, the question is, is it really so severe that we need to spend in excess of R500m to fix the problem? Baboons poo in caves, Eland create their own trails and lightning starts fires - all of which are forbidden to hikers, and rightly so. The solution lies in management, and in fact, the cable car will create the need for even more stringent environmental management - it will not make environmental management any bit easier.

Page 52 of the feasibility study:

One just has to look at the erosion on two of the most used Drakensberg pathways, the Chain Ladder and Ntonjelana Pass to know that hikers (together with the donkey trains used for the carrying of loads) are having a huge impact on the environment.

Firstly, that these are the two most used passes is an assumption. Clearly hikers do not use Ntonjelana that much, and passes such as Mashai, Giants and Langalibalele, Organ Pipes (to name a few) easily see more hiker traffic. These passes do not have anywhere near the amount of erosion problems that Ntonjelana has. In contrast, there are passes that see very little hiker-traffic yet have erosion issues: such as Tlanyaku and Namahadi. Secondly it is also an assumption that the Berg is being over-run with hikers, and that throngs of people are fighting their way up to the escarpment, when this actually isn't the case.

Has anyone ever wondered why these two passes were named in the feasibility study and none others? Here is my theory: These were the ones that were used to access the escarpment for surveying trips relating to the study. Ntonjelana was used to access the Saddle when the Mnweni was still on the cards. The Chain Ladders were used to access the Mount Amery area. Thus the project team has very little real experience and on-the-ground knowledge of the Drakensberg, leading them to draw ignorant conclusions that these two passes represent the entire Berg; that huge crowds of hikers are making their way up Ntonjelana; that building an expensive cable car is the best solution to the Berg's erosion problems; and that as an added bonus, it will make the smuggling problems disappear.

The fact that the Chain Ladder trail is in the condition that it is in, shows that the Berg cannot handle this volume of people, let alone 300 000 per year (growing at 10% per annum). The Sentinel Road and the Chain Ladders were built at a time when it was more acceptable to do this kind of thing. We know better now, and our awareness of the need for conservation, and the limits the environment has, are better understood. And the environmental laws are far stricter. I do not believe we would easily see more Sentinel Roads and Chain Ladders being built in our day and age. Furthermore, I believe the numbers going up this trail should be restricted and a daily limit should be enforced. The environment clearly cannot cope with this amount of human traffic.

The erosion problems around the Chain Ladders are not just limited to the zig-zags leading up to the top. There are really big problems up on the escarpment too. Even the study documents admit that careful management of the crowds is needed at the top station. This implies that environmental management is actually the key to preventing hiker-related erosion, and not a cable car. Will wooden walkways be built from the top station all the way to Tugela Falls? Heaven forbid. What makes them think that introducing huge crowds to the top will not result in even worse problems than already exist up there? If they say that its all about management, then why build a cable car, rather focus on managing the Chain Ladder trail better, because this is in fact what is needed.

The hiker-erosion argument is further weakened by the fact that the study documents themselves mention that part of the attraction is the hiking you can do at the top and bottom stations. If hikers are the problem, why mention that hiking is one of the things that even more people can do as a result of the cable car? Erosion caused by humans in the Berg is NOT limited to just the passes.

Will hikers and donkey trains stop using the Berg passes if the cable car exists? Will the passes be officially closed because the cable car is built? Will revenue generated from the cable car (on the stretched assumption that it makes profit) be used to rehabilitate the passes? We know the obvious answers to these questions.

What is the latest on the whole cable car saga?
I haven't heard anything recently?

No official news at all. Some very determined targets were announced in the press release in February, but it seems the schedule is now rapidly getting behind.