SANParks and operators permits: What’s with that?
There’s been quite a lot of talk about the announcement by the Table Mountain National Park that it has extended its deadline for commercial operators to apply for permits.
In “Poll position: Table Mountain permits ̶̵ just another excuse?”Tourism Update asked if readers thought that the Park “should be charging tour operators to conduct commercial activities within the reserve?”
In reply, Rob Parkinson said that he couldn’t see “why we should be forced into having a ‘Permit’ to visit Table Mountain. I believe that ALL tour operators should stand together and refuse to comply. What next, a separate ‘Permit’ for Boulders, or another to visit Cape Point? What do we get offered for this Permit? Its time we stood together and said NO! Its just another excuse for some income from a soft target.”
And Alan Bramwell said: “Don’t forget the commercial operators bring your revenue stream. Start alienating them at your cost.”
While Jack Jordan said: “It seems to be a trend to levy a charge of some sort at many of our wonderful scenic tourist attractions which discourages the less affluent visitors. It would be interesting to know where the money goes and what it is used for. I suspect we may be unpleasantly surprised if we knew.”
Having been the unlucky holder of a concession in a National Park (I operated the Kingfisher Ferry in the then Wilderness National Park in ’94, ’95 and ’96), I have a few observations of my own.
In the media release about the extension of the deadline, we read that “TMNP’s commercial operator permitting process aims to ensure that the impact of the commercial activities taking place within the boundaries of the park are carefully managed and do not impact negatively on its core conservation mandate.”
And that makes sense, if you think about it. Too, the cost of a permit is just R150, and you can’t really argue with a piddling amount like that. Conservation, after all, has to pay for itself. (Mind you, I do wonder about the arrogance of the bit where it says “Companies that have already registered, as well as those who register before the deadline of 1 June 2012, will receive permits valid until 31 May 2013 as a thank you for timely registration.” — Gee, thanks, Santa.)
But seriously – if permits are so important, why worry about deadlines? Surely companies go in and out of business all the time, their financial years end on different dates, and not all organisations will want to use the Reserve every year – so why not simply make it a requirement that everyone has to renew their permit every 12 months, regardless of the date on which it was first issued?
But wait. What if you’re a tour operator and you want to take a bus tour to Cape Point? You pay entry fees at the gate, don’t you? Or you’re a private tour guide and you want to take your guests on the cable car? You pay for that too, right? And, as a business, you also pay your rates and taxes, your license fees, your vehicle permits, your insurances, your …
What I’m saying is that this permit system is just another way of taxing the operators. And it is wrong.
Imagine receiving this media release: “The privately owned, 60,000 hectare Thandi Nature Reserve (home to the Big Five and our famously intimate, luxurious tented camp) announced today that all commercial operators would be required to buy access permits before they’ll be allowed to bring paying guests onto the property.
“This on top of our STO rate of R20,000 per person per night.”
Do you reckon for one minute that Thandi will get *any* business in the future?
Didn’t think so.
And on this note – it’d be interesting to know if the Consumer Protection Act would sanction such a permit system, since the Act makes it clear that consumers have a right to use service providers of their choice. And, if SANParks forges ahead with its permit system, some operators will effectively be barred from entering the Table Mountain National Park – even though the Park is largely unfenced and is otherwise accessible to everyone. So there *will* be consumers who won’t be able to use service providers of their choice, won’t there? (The medical aid schemes are going to face a similar fight, since many of them only pay service providers who’re ‘registered’ on their systems. Read: they only pay doctors who pay them not inconsiderable monthly amounts to remain on their registers.)
No. In all my dealings with SANParks all those years ago, I found its officials and its policies to be quite out of touch with the mechanisms of doing business in the real world – so much so that it became almost impossible to create meaningful attractions that would, in turn, create sustainable employment opportunities (particularly for the disadvantaged communities that live so close to so many of the Parks).
And it looks like nothing’s changed.
I think it’s high time the tourism industry held SANParks to account.
sad sad – it is just another “money-making scheme”. Someone has to stand up and say NO and enough. Instead of making money with a decent business and service approach – no, hey they say – just think of another way of taxing people or put a fee on or great, lets make money from a permit. Shameful!
Maybe it is time then to direct tourists to other parts of the country.
Thank you Martin for bringing the subject up the way you did.
Interesting article, we operate in the Kruger National Park and we have to pay R 6600.00 per open vehicle per year. If we work on a 30% occupancy on the vehicle it amounts to R 6.02 per person and then we also pay a daily conservation fee of R 192.00 per person – domestic and international traveller. Does the cost justify the potential revenue? I think so, especially when operators in our area charge up to R 1080.00 per person for a full day safari! What do we get in for our conservation fees? A well maintained road infrastructure, clean ablutions, brilliant game viewing, average food (not SANPARKS offered), memories of a live time. I agree that the permits should control the numbers of operators / visitors to a natural area. These permits also ensure that the persons entering the land is guided by qualified, insured and legal guides and operators. Imagine no permit, no control and any person claiming to be a operator taking money, not delivering and the impact this would have on our tourism industry. Is R 150.00 a year really and issue?
As Wynand has commented the R150.00 is probably not the issue. More and more the way in which SANParks goes about doing there business leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of tourism stake holders. In Wilderness National Park we have the absolutely ridiculous situation where one of our most beautiful outdoor attractions – the walk along the Touw River to a waterfall, gets barricaded by the private land owner to stop access. The reason given is that the owner is concerned about public liability – a very valid concern that one would think could be resolved relatively easily. The press however report that there has been a two year stand off between the parties and no visible resolution in sight – in the mean time visitors that experience being confronted by this barrier ask the uncomfortable question “Who would …… ?
Come on SANParks, you are a core component of our tourism resources – GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER.
Besides all this, most private properties (Sabi Sands a case in point), charge an entrance fee at the gate – the point may be , does the money go back into infrastructure, in which case YAY
Probably not gonna make me many friends but it needs to be said:
I think we are missing the point here. Once you accept the R150.00 (not an issue) you have a precedence set, then the fees can be adjusted every year as and when SANParks likes. Take the fees for permits that were implemented for open vehicles in Kruger, started at R250 now sit at R6600 per vehicle a couple of years later, somewhere along the line a 2000% increase was effected. Its not that anything has changed ar that any special priveliges have been given for the fees.
As for the mention of the Sabisands entrances and or any other private reserve for that matter, I also think this is a little out of line aswell especially seeing that the land is privately owned and should be maintained by the owners, who we already pay handsomely when we visit their establishments.
The way of doing business is changing in the tourism industry, its time SANParks as a core tourism resource (which belongs to all of us) and the private reserves have a look at how they do business.
The CTGA (Cape Tourist Guide Association) has been doing all the work of talking to the relevant parties in order to get them to understand the industry point of view, hence the delayed date. They need to be thanked, as this has been an uphill path, and we trust that some sensible amendment to legislation will be forthcoming. Tour operators already have all the permits proving their competence, so that duplication should be eliminated.
It is not the R150 that annoys, it is a ludicrous application process.
What is sanparks going to need my audited financials for, along with the heap of other rubbish they are requesting.
We pay a significant entry fees for day visits, what on earth else do they want?