# The Eden Objective

Revision 7 · Business plan, launch plan and Zambia-first financial model · New-build luxury tented and modular encampment under a proposed government land partnership · No land lease expense · 40 planned bookable weeks · EUR reporting

All figures are planning assumptions for a New Earth Initiative. This is an **unquoted feasibility budget**, not a set of supplier quotations and not quantity-surveyor certification. Nothing here is a promised margin, an achieved return, a confirmed fundraising term or proof of demand. No equity percentage, valuation, IRR, payback guarantee, committed facility, management credential, partnership or investment term is offered or implied. The fourteen locations are research candidates, not operating or contracted assets. No parcel, land-use agreement, acreage, build permit, environmental approval, operator, partner, community agreement or paid guest is confirmed in Zambia or anywhere else.

## Decision in brief

The reference case is a **new 20-suite luxury tented and modular encampment near Livingstone, Zambia, built under a proposed long-term government land partnership**. Nothing is converted, refurbished or purchased. The encampment operates **40 planned bookable weeks** — none in January or February, four in each month from March to December — which is **800 suite-weeks** of annual capacity at seven nights and two guests per suite.

Revision 7 changes one thing in the cost structure and it changes it deliberately: **land lease expenses are excluded**. There is no annual land rent, no land rent across the development period and no refundable land deposit. Eden seeks a long-term government land-use agreement instead of a commercial lease, in which public authorities authorise use of a defined area and Eden commits hospitality-funded ecological regeneration, measurable community benefit and enduring protection of that land. Revision 6's ground-lease case is superseded and must not be quoted.

Our legacy is the land we help restore and protect, and the communities that thrive alongside it.

On conservative assumptions, Year 1 net stay revenue is **€2,080,000**, the operating result is **€850,856** (40.9066% margin) and cash generation after tax, replacement capital and working capital is **€519,721**, closing on **€1,319,721** of cash. By Year 5, revenue reaches **€4,267,172**, the operating result **€2,161,687** (50.6585%) and closing cash **€5,903,993**.

Committed funding in the base case is **€4,619,551**: €3,538,204 of funded capital, €281,347 of pre-opening expenses and an €800,000 opening cash reserve. There is no deposit line, because no land deposit is paid. **Four of seven stress cases fail** against the €300,000 cash floor, the worst by €1,200,757, indicating about **€1,210,000 of additional committed liquidity** and a prudential, stress-covered envelope of **€5,829,551**. No facility is secured.

The margin improvement against the earlier European planning case comes from **cost assumptions**, not from any claim that geography or a hoped-for partnership guarantees profit. Every Kwacha and dollar line is an unquoted management allowance.

## 1. Business plan

### Purpose and proposition

Eden refers to the Garden of Eden and to Earth's beauty, abundance and capacity to sustain life. The Objective is to help damaged landscapes recover while strengthening the communities that care for them. Guardianship is a responsibility shared by guests, staff and local partners, rather than a status that must be purchased.

The business brings together personal development, a kibbutz-inspired culture of contribution and belonging, and experience-led hospitality. Its proposition to guests is a carefully hosted week of rest, learning, connection and useful participation in a living place. Its proposition to local partners is paid work, procurement opportunities, a dependable restoration budget and meaningful authority over the work taking place. Its proposition to a host government is restored land, protected acreage and community benefit funded by hospitality rather than by the public purse.

The initial offer should be specific enough to buy: one location, one seven-night programme, defined arrival dates, clear accommodation standards, explicit inclusions and a credible local mission. Avoid selling a future network before one Eden Habitat works.

### The government land partnership

Eden does not seek to own or rent land. It seeks a long-term land-use agreement with the relevant public authorities, involving local communities and customary rights holders as applicable, under which:

- The state **authorises** use of a defined area, measured and reported in acres.
- Eden **commits** hospitality-funded ecological restoration, measurable community benefit, independent reporting and long-term care of that land.
- A **defined acreage is protected and reserved** for the duration of the agreement — a collective legacy held as shared stewardship.

The agreement must define the area in acres, its duration and renewal terms, the ecological baseline and targets, community governance and reserved decisions, independent reporting, how continuing care is funded, our obligations, and what happens to the land and the built assets if we leave.

This is the **intended negotiated arrangement**. It is not a secured grant, title, concession, tax exemption, statutory reserve designation or guaranteed rent waiver. No acreage, duration, signed partner or legal term is claimed or invented anywhere in this plan. Protected acreage confers no ownership, tenure, equity or land interest on any guest, member or Guardian.

Excluding land rent does not make land free. Legal and land due diligence, community consultation, ecological and hydrological baseline work, design, permits, insurance, ordinary taxes, staff and site care, restoration capital and the continuing-care floor are all retained in full. No replacement fee, subsidy, in-kind land asset or additional revenue is recorded in place of rent. Any further protection or community deliverables the agreement requires need site-specific costing before signature: the mission budget is a planning floor, not proof that a given acreage can be protected.

Reporting separates three things and never merges them: unique mapped acres under signed protection commitments; acres actively under restoration in the period; and ecological condition and outcome measures.

Context: Zambia's Ministry of Tourism describes partnership-based conservation (https://www.mot.gov.zm/?p=5105) and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife sets out the public mandate (https://www.mot.gov.zm/dnpw/?page_id=94). Both are context for how such an arrangement would be discussed. Neither is an offer of rent-free land to Eden, and no application, concession or agreement exists.

### Why Livingstone is the selected first-location model

Livingstone sits beside Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls, an established long-haul visitor gateway with air access and a mature tour-operator trade. That context is factual background; it is not an occupancy forecast, a permit, or evidence that a suitable area is available under the land partnership assumed here.

Selecting Livingstone as the financial reference replaces the earlier Mediterranean case for planning purposes only. Guest work on the Zambezi itself is excluded: contribution activities must be safe, land-based, locally governed and additional to paid local employment.

Context sources: Livingstone visitor information (https://www.zambiatourism.com/towns/livingstone/), Zambian general travel and seasonal information (https://www.zambiatourism.com/travel-info/general-info/), Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls World Heritage listing (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/509).

### Initial customer and market test

Start with adult couples and pairs of friends who already spend on premium nature or wellness travel and want a purposeful, social experience. They fit the model's assumed two guests per suite. Solo guests may be valuable but require separate prices and a recalculated guest mix. Family weeks and corporate groups should be tested later as distinct products using the same finite suite inventory.

The initial hypothesis is willingness to pay **€6,500 net operating revenue per suite for seven nights** — about €3,250 per guest sharing, roughly €464 per guest per night. Applicable VAT and tourism levies are charged separately and are pass-through, not revenue. The booking interface therefore shows an indicative net price plus applicable taxes and must never imply a completed payment, a confirmed reservation or an all-inclusive checkout total. Flights and travel insurance are excluded.

Before committing, compare at least ten genuinely substitutable offers by total seven-night price for two people, room quality, transfers, meals, programme intensity, season, cancellation terms and reviews. Interview recent paying customers of that category. Deposits and completed stays are the meaningful evidence.

### Guest product

The core package includes accommodation, meals, scheduled regional transfers, a defined wellness and personal-development programme, guided local experiences, shared meals and an accessible contribution programme. The proposed 8–12 hours of supervised contribution is explained before purchase, voluntary in practice and adapted to ability. Professional staff remain responsible for essential work.

An indicative week begins with arrival and orientation, moves into rest and connection, combines learning and contribution across the middle days, and closes with reflection and practical commitments guests carry home. Free time and private space are protected. No clinical treatment or therapeutic outcome is promised.

The programme must work socially at low occupancy. Forty percent suite occupancy averages eight occupied suites and sixteen guests per open week. Trial cohorts should test that group size explicitly.

### Site and build design

The model funds a **new-build luxury tented and modular encampment on land used under a proposed government partnership** — no lodge conversion, no refurbishment of an existing building, no land or property purchase and no land rent.

Twenty suites are built as raised platforms with permanent bathrooms and service connections, carrying demountable canvas structures on durable imported frames. Dining, kitchen, community, learning and wellness functions sit in modular pavilions, with separate staff, service, laundry and store buildings. Water, sanitation, solar generation, storage, backup and fire systems are built for the site rather than inherited. Restoration earthworks, a plant nursery and productive landscape are part of the capital budget, not an afterthought.

Capacity is capped by ecological carrying capacity, not by demand, and the structures are demountable so the land can be returned. Secure practical access to a restoration area chosen with local partners; do not fix an acreage target before ecological assessment establishes the right intervention and its long-term maintenance obligation.

The model assumes a land-use agreement long enough to support the asset lives used for depreciation — the proposed land-use term must cover the modelled asset lives, its duration is negotiated with the relevant authorities rather than agreed in advance, and the arrangement remains **not secured** and subject to legal advice on tenure, on what happens to fixed assets when the agreement ends, and on whether any land payment, fee, levy or bond applies after all.

| Function | Responsibility | Budget treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Habitat general manager | Service, safety, staffing, budgets and local relationships | Local payroll allowance |
| Hospitality team | Food, suites, maintenance, grounds, security and guest care | Local payroll allowance plus flexible local labour |
| Programme lead and facilitators | Guest programme and delivery quality | Local payroll plus international facilitator cost per occupied suite-week |
| Local stewardship lead and partners | Ecological plan, community programme, monitoring and supervision | Mission budget |
| Founder and central support | Sales oversight, finance, governance and reporting | Separate €60,000 Year 1 allowance |

### Community rights and mission delivery

Establish a written local partnership before marketing any Habitat mission: consent, land access, paid work, procurement, intellectual and cultural rights, decision authority, dispute resolution and duties that continue after guests leave. Customary rights holders are party to the land arrangement where applicable. Community ownership is not claimed unless real equity or ownership rights are agreed.

Create a local advisory group with compensated participation. Proposed reserved decisions include restoration priorities, guest access to sensitive places, cultural representation and use of mission funds, including a veto over work on sensitive land. Directors remain accountable for solvency and legal obligations; advisory powers must be written into agreements.

The annual mission budget is the greater of a **€100,000 Year 1 floor rising 3% annually** or **8% of net stay revenue** — €166,400 in conservative Year 1 and €1,273,792 cumulatively over five years. It is **additional to** ordinary payroll and local procurement, reported separately from wages, with €100,000 reserved inside the cash floor for closure and continuing care. It is unchanged by Revision 7: no part of the removed rent is reallocated to it, and no in-kind land value is recorded.

Guest contribution is additive and supervised. It never replaces paid local labour, public services, professional expertise or local leadership, and no saviour framing is used.

### Revenue and acquisition

Only completed stays generate forecast operating revenue. Memberships, donations, grants, licensing, carbon credits, farm sales, property appreciation, land concession value, debt, terminal value and a second Habitat contribute zero. Corporate weeks would replace existing inventory rather than adding capacity.

Year 1 requires **320 sold suite-weeks of 800**, equal to 640 guest stays. At a 10% enquiry-to-sale conversion that implies 3,200 qualified enquiries; at 5%, 6,400. These are illustrations, not a validated funnel.

The model allows **12% of net revenue** for blended commissions and payments in the conservative case (11% middle, 10% high), plus **€30,000 of international marketing**. Long-haul access to Livingstone may change both channel mix and cost; that is not modelled.

Each occupied suite-week at the Year 1 price yields €6,500 less €1,153 delivery and €780 selling and payment costs — €4,567 before mission spend, €4,047 after the 8% mission rate and €3,852 after the 3% replacement allowance.

### Structure and finance

Assume one operating entity for planning, with separately tracked hospitality, mission and central-support accounts. Company form and any charitable or community entity are decided only once jurisdiction, investors and partners are known. The plan is modelled with equity or patient mission capital, no debt and no interest. No investor distribution is assumed.

## 2. Launch plan

### Stage 1: define and validate, months 0–2

The founder and a hospitality operator turn the concept into one saleable itinerary and a fully priced customer offer. Interview 25–30 relevant travellers, approach 8–10 specialist advisers, compare ten substitutable alternatives and identify three candidate areas near Livingstone where a government land partnership could realistically be discussed. A local partner assesses whether the proposed guest contribution is useful. Interest forms are learning, not revenue.

### Stage 2: paid trial cohorts, months 2–5

Two seven-night cohorts in a contracted third-party venue, while our own encampment is still on paper, selling 8–10 suites each. At €6,500 net per suite, eight sold suites represent €52,000 of trial revenue before costs. The gross validation spending cap is €40,000, already inside pre-opening expenses. Trial revenue is deliberately not credited to the five-year funding case.

Acceptance conditions: at least 70% paid occupancy of released trial inventory, achieved net prices at 95% or more of target, positive contribution after venue hire and all direct delivery and acquisition costs, at least 80% of responding guests rating 4/5 or higher, and written partner confirmation that contribution activities are useful.

### Stage 3: land partnership, diligence and investment decision, months 3–6

Operator, local partners, a quantity surveyor and Zambian professional advisers establish the real build cost, the terms of a government land-use agreement including its duration and renewal, ZEMA environmental screening and permitting (https://www.zema.org.zm/), a feasible roster with employer obligations, restoration baseline and mission budget, operating permissions, indirect-tax treatment, insurance and a costed decommissioning and handover plan. **A tendered build price and written quotations must replace every Kwacha allowance**, and a landed-cost calculation with customs treatment must replace the imported equipment estimate.

Investment conditions: a tendered build price within the funded capital envelope, a signed-form land-use agreement long enough to support the asset lives and carrying the ecological, community and reporting obligations, and cash break-even after central support, mission spend and replacement provision at no more than 60% mature occupancy — or an explicitly chosen and funded subsidy model. **If any land payment, fee, levy or bond proves to be required, it is costed and the model is rerun before commitment.** Uncontracted grants and investor interest do not count as cash.

### Stage 4: the 18-month development programme

| Phase | Months | Share of capital drawn | Work |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design, ecology and land agreement | 1–3 | 6% | Technical design, ecological and hydrological baseline, environmental screening, negotiation of the government land-use agreement, community consent process |
| Site works and procurement | 4–6 | 12% | Access, drainage and platform earthworks, local tendering, orders placed for imported tents, frames and plant |
| Utilities and build | 7–12 | 48% | Water, sanitation, solar, storage and fire systems, suite platforms and bathrooms, pavilions, staff buildings |
| Fit-out | 13–15 | 21% | Tent erection, furniture and equipment installation, kitchen commissioning, landscape and nursery establishment |
| Commissioning and training | 16–18 | 13% | Systems testing, recruitment and training, procurement and mission contracts, full operational rehearsal, handover |

Funding is drawn as the programme spends: €3,538,204 of capital and €281,347 of pre-opening expenses, with no land rent and no deposit in any month. On the base case, cash at handover is exactly the **€800,000** opening reserve, and the schedule reconciles to committed funding to the cent. The programme depends on permits, weather and suppliers; it is a plan, not a contracted build programme.

Build pre-sales towards at least 60 paid suite-week reservations across the first 12 open weeks — 25% of that 240 suite-week inventory — at the target net price. Refundable deposits remain liabilities.

### Stage 5: first operating year and control

Weekly service and booking reviews, monthly cash reviews against the monthly model, quarterly local-partner meetings and a rolling 13-week cash forecast on actual payment dates — including real tax and levy due dates rather than the model's even monthly timing. Acres under protection commitments, acres actively restored and condition measures are reported separately from the first season.

If rolling 90-day booked revenue falls below 80% of plan, reassess pricing, acquisition, scheduling and discretionary spend. Freeze capital commitments as cash approaches the €300,000 retained floor. Never cut essential stewardship first; if the floor would be breached within six months without committed funding, run the agreed contraction, handover or closure plan.

## 3. Financial model

Revision 7 · Zambia · new-build encampment under a proposed government land partnership · no land rent or deposit · 40 planned bookable weeks · EUR reporting

### Capacity and schedule

20 suites, seven nights and two guests per suite-week, 40 planned bookable weeks and 800 suite-weeks a year. Monthly weeks are Jan 0, Feb 0 and four in each of March to December. This is a chosen planning schedule, not verified all-weather demand and not an official season. The 40 weeks describe a full operating year after handover, not a construction year.

### Price and demand assumptions

| Driver | Conservative | Middle | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 net package per suite-week | €6,500 | €7,000 | €7,500 |
| Year 5 net package per suite-week | €8,206 | €8,837 | €9,469 |
| Annual package escalation | 6% | 6% | 6% |
| Occupancy, Years 1–5 | 40, 48, 55, 60, 65% | 50, 60, 68, 72, 75% | 60, 70, 78, 82, 85% |
| Sales and payment allowance | 12% | 11% | 10% |

Prices are **net operating revenue**. VAT and tourism levies charged separately are pass-through and never counted as revenue. Rates and demand remain assumptions.

### Exchange rates

Dated Bank of Zambia midpoint inputs, 7 September 2026: **ZMW 22.3122 per EUR** (buying 22.2822, selling 22.3422) and **ZMW 19.1892 per USD** (buying 19.1642, selling 19.2142). Source: https://www.boz.zm/markets-securities/average-exchange-rates

USD costs convert to euro as USD × 19.1892 / 22.3122. These are derived midpoints, not guaranteed transaction rates. No uniform "Africa discount" is applied: local Kwacha costs are divided by the ZMW/EUR rate, dollar imports cross-convert, and euro international costs are unchanged. FX is held constant in the base case, remains editable in the workbook and is stress-tested. Editing the ZMW/EUR rate alone changes the ZMW/USD cross-rate and therefore the euro value of dollar imports; the dedicated stronger-kwacha stress instead holds the USD-to-EUR relationship constant.

### Annual site operating budget, Year 1

All Kwacha lines are editable, unquoted management allowances. Because the encampment is built rather than leased, there is no building rent — and because Revision 7 assumes a government land partnership, there is no land rent either. The nil line is shown rather than deleted, so nothing is hidden elsewhere.

| Line | ZMW | EUR at 22.3122 |
|---|---|---|
| Payroll including employer obligations, benefits, training and relief provision | 5,400,000 | 242,020 |
| Land rent — government partnership assumption, no rent payable | 0 | 0 |
| Utilities, backup fuel, water and waste | 1,200,000 | 53,782 |
| Insurance, licensing and administration | 700,000 | 31,373 |
| Repairs, grounds and security supplies | 600,000 | 26,891 |
| **Local fixed total** | **7,900,000** | **354,066** |
| International marketing (EUR) | — | 30,000 |
| **Fixed site cost** | — | **384,066** |
| Central support (EUR, separate) | — | 60,000 |
| **Site plus central** | — | **444,066** |

#### Example staffing plan, 24 positions

| Role | Count | ZMW monthly each |
|---|---|---|
| General manager | 1 | 45,000 |
| Operations and programme lead | 1 | 35,000 |
| Head chef | 1 | 28,000 |
| Sous chef | 1 | 18,000 |
| Hosts | 4 | 12,000 |
| Housekeeping | 6 | 7,000 |
| Maintenance and grounds | 4 | 9,000 |
| Security | 4 | 7,000 |
| Accounts and administration | 2 | 12,000 |

Gross monthly payroll is ZMW 304,000 and ZMW 3,648,000 annually. Adding ZMW 1,752,000 for benefits, training, relief cover and payroll contingency gives the ZMW 5,400,000 allowance. That addition is **not** described as a statutory rate, and these salary levels are **not** market-validated. Zambia's NAPSA employer contribution is 5% subject to the applicable ceiling (https://www.napsa.co.zm/service/contributions/); the allowance covers broader obligations subject to local advice. Payroll is carried for all twelve months although only 40 weeks are bookable.

### Variable cost per occupied suite-week

| Line | Amount | EUR |
|---|---|---|
| Local food and beverage | ZMW 5,000 | 224 |
| Local transfers, laundry and supplies | ZMW 2,500 | 112 |
| Flexible local experience labour | ZMW 1,500 | 67 |
| International facilitator | EUR 650 | 650 |
| Imported guest consumables | EUR 100 | 100 |
| **Total** | **ZMW 9,000 + EUR 750** | **1,153** |

Flexible local labour does not duplicate full-time payroll, and guest-funded separately charged activities are excluded.

Local Kwacha costs inflate 6% annually for planning; international euro fixed and variable costs inflate 3%. FX is constant. The middle case applies a 1.02 variable and 1.05 fixed multiplier; the high case 1.05 and 1.10.

### Mission, replacement, working capital and tax

Mission allocation is the greater of €100,000 inflated 3% annually or 8% of net revenue, additional to normal payroll and local procurement. Replacement capital is 3% of revenue. The working-capital balance is 5% of revenue, with only the movement affecting cash. Opening cash is €800,000, a management reserve rather than spent capital, against a €300,000 cash floor that includes €100,000 for continuing care.

Corporate income tax is a transparent planning proxy at **30% of positive accounting profit after depreciation**, with no loss carry-forward and no incentives assumed. No tax exemption is assumed to follow from a land partnership. Zambia Revenue Authority references: standard 30% corporate rate and 16% VAT (https://www.zra.org.zm/tax-information/) and the 1.5% tourism levy on qualifying components (https://www.zra.org.zm/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Tourism-Levy.pdf). Qualification, base, capex VAT recovery and local capital allowances require adviser validation. Cost allowances assume no VAT recovery benefit: no refund, credit or construction-tax funding benefit is assumed, budgeted or secured. Non-recoverable charges are budgeted within cost. Site and contract tax treatment, any VAT recovery entitlement and any tax-payment timing bridge require adviser validation. This is not a certified tax computation, and uniform monthly tax in the cash model is planning timing, not the statutory payment calendar.

### Capital and funding

| Component | Basis | EUR |
|---|---|---|
| Suite platforms, foundations, decks, bathrooms and service connections | ZMW 12,000,000 (600,000 per suite) | 537,822 |
| Suite furniture, fittings and equipment, local | ZMW 4,000,000 (200,000 per suite) | 179,274 |
| Dining, kitchen, community, learning and wellness pavilions | ZMW 8,000,000 | 358,548 |
| Staff, service, laundry and store buildings | ZMW 4,000,000 | 179,274 |
| Site preparation, internal access, drainage and pathways | ZMW 3,000,000 | 134,456 |
| Local water, sanitation, power and fire infrastructure | ZMW 5,000,000 | 224,093 |
| Restoration earthworks, nursery and productive landscape | ZMW 1,000,000 | 44,819 |
| Design, engineering, quantity surveying and environmental approvals | ZMW 3,000,000, capitalised | 134,456 |
| **Local construction subtotal** | ZMW 40,000,000 | **1,792,741** |
| Imported tent fabric and canvas, landed | USD 280,000 | 240,809 |
| Imported durable frames, decking hardware and fixings, landed | USD 420,000 | 361,213 |
| Imported specialist plant — solar, storage, backup water and kitchen, landed | USD 350,000 | 301,011 |
| **Imported subtotal, landed** | USD 1,050,000 | **903,033** |
| **Base capital expenditure** | | **2,695,775** |
| Procurement and construction escalation | 5% of base capital | 134,789 |
| Construction contingency | 25% of base plus escalation, assumed fully spent | 707,641 |
| **Total funded capital** | | **3,538,204** |
| Pre-opening expenses, local | ZMW 3,000,000 (trials, diligence, recruitment and launch) | 134,456 |
| Land rent across the 18-month development period | Government partnership assumption, none payable | 0 |
| Pre-opening expenses, international | EUR 100,000 design, launch and training | 100,000 |
| Pre-opening expense contingency | 20%, assumed fully spent | 46,891 |
| **Total pre-opening expenses** | | **281,347** |
| Refundable land deposit | Government partnership assumption, none payable | 0 |
| **Total pre-opening use of funds** | | **3,819,551** |
| Opening cash reserve | | 800,000 |
| **Committed funding, base case** | | **4,619,551** |
| Additional committed liquidity indicated by the severe stresses | | 1,210,000 |
| **Stress-covered committed funding** | | **5,829,551** |

Landed import allowances include freight, duty and non-recoverable charges; local lines carry installation, so there is no double count. Capitalised design is separate from pre-opening expenses. No revenue funding, grant, membership, licensing, debt, land concession value or terminal value is assumed, and no raise is secured.

Capital recovery here means cumulative operating free cash exceeding total capital and pre-opening use of €3,819,551. In the conservative case that first happens in **operating month 53 / project month 71**, inside **operating Year 5** and about six years after development starts, because cumulative operating free cash is €3,632,918 at the end of Year 4 and €5,103,993 at the end of Year 5. Base committed funding of €4,619,551 is first exceeded in **operating month 58 / project month 76**, still operating Year 5. The €5,829,551 stress-covered envelope is **not** recovered within five operating years. A narrower measure covering construction capital only — the €3,538,204 of funded capital, excluding pre-opening expenses — is passed earlier, in operating Year 4; that is a partial denominator and is not total startup recovery. All of this is distinct from an investor return and from repayment of committed funding, neither of which is modelled.

### Asset register and depreciation

| Asset | Basis | Life |
|---|---|---|
| Suite platforms, foundations, decks and bathrooms | ZMW 12,000,000 | 20 years |
| Dining, kitchen, community, learning and wellness pavilions | ZMW 8,000,000 | 20 years |
| Staff, service, laundry and store buildings | ZMW 4,000,000 | 20 years |
| Site preparation, internal access, drainage and pathways | ZMW 3,000,000 | 20 years |
| Local water, sanitation, power and fire infrastructure | ZMW 5,000,000 | 15 years |
| Imported durable frames, decking hardware and fixings | USD 420,000 | 15 years |
| Restoration earthworks, nursery and productive landscape | ZMW 1,000,000 | 15 years |
| Imported specialist plant — solar, storage, backup water and kitchen | USD 350,000 | 10 years |
| Suite furniture, fittings and equipment | ZMW 4,000,000 | 7 years |
| Imported tent fabric and canvas | USD 280,000 | 5 years |

Capitalised professional fees are allocated pro rata across the other capital lines, and escalation, contingency and any delay increment are applied proportionately, so nothing is depreciated twice. **Initial annual depreciation is €295,498**; Year 1 depreciation is €301,738 once the first year's replacement capital is included. Land, pre-opening expenses and cash are never depreciated, and Revision 7 carries no land deposit. Tent fabric on a five-year life is the shortest asset and the largest single reinvestment exposure. Lives are editable in the workbook and each annual charge is capped by remaining life, including a fractional final year, so a life shortened below five years reduces that asset's charge and then stops it instead of depreciating past zero book value. At the lives above, all five operating years carry the full charge.

### Conservative five-year summary

| Year | Occupancy | Net package | Net revenue | Operating result | Margin | Depreciation | Tax | Accounting profit | Cash generation | Closing cash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40% | €6,500 | €2,080,000 | €850,856 | 40.91% | €301,738 | €164,735 | €384,383 | €519,721 | €1,319,721 |
| 2 | 48% | €6,890 | €2,645,760 | €1,187,771 | 44.89% | €315,915 | €261,557 | €610,299 | €818,554 | €2,138,274 |
| 3 | 55% | €7,303 | €3,213,496 | €1,527,972 | 47.55% | €333,493 | €358,344 | €836,135 | €1,044,836 | €3,183,111 |
| 4 | 60% | €7,742 | €3,715,970 | €1,828,750 | 49.21% | €354,281 | €442,341 | €1,032,128 | €1,249,807 | €4,432,918 |
| 5 | 65% | €8,206 | €4,267,172 | €2,161,687 | 50.66% | €378,231 | €535,037 | €1,248,420 | €1,471,075 | €5,903,993 |

Cumulative five-year cash generation is €5,103,993 and cumulative mission allocation €1,273,792.

### Middle and high cases

| Case | Y1 revenue | Y1 operating result | Y1 margin | Y1 cash | Y5 revenue | Y5 operating result | Y5 margin | Y5 closing cash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Middle | €2,800,000 | €1,331,157 | 47.54% | €798,979 | €5,302,403 | €2,890,971 | 54.52% | €8,041,838 |
| High | €3,600,000 | €1,882,230 | 52.28% | €1,121,450 | €6,438,632 | €3,710,244 | 57.62% | €10,273,407 |

The middle case is a planning case, not an observed industry average, and no probability of success is assigned to any scenario.

### Breakeven and recovery

Two different things are measured here and they must never be conflated. **Operating cash breakeven** is the point at which one trading year covers itself in cash. **Recovery of startup investment** is the much later point at which cumulative operating free cash equals what was spent to build and open the place.

**The conservative Year 1 cash breakeven is 135 paid suite-weeks, or 16.875% of the 800-suite-week annual capacity, rounded up from 134.449 continuous suite-weeks (16.806% on the continuous measure).** One suite-week means one suite for seven nights for two guests; it does not mean one whole-camp calendar week. This compares with the plan of 320 paid suite-weeks at 40% occupancy and €2,080,000 of net sales.

The visible calculation is: **€444,066.39 fixed site and central expenses + €100,000 mission floor = €544,066.39**, divided by **€4,046.63 cash contribution per paid suite-week**. That contribution is the €6,500 net package less €780 of sales and payment costs, €1,153.37 of delivery cost, €195 of replacement capital and €325 of initial Year 1 working capital. At 134 paid suite-weeks cash is **−€1,817.53**; at 135 it is **+€2,229.10**, on threshold net sales of €877,500. Tax is zero at this threshold because EBITDA of €72,429 remains below €295,498 of initial annual depreciation plus current replacement depreciation, and the €100,000 mission floor exceeds 8% of revenue there. That does **not** mean tax is zero at the 320-suite-week forecast.

Cash breakeven includes delivery, sales fees, fixed site and central expenses, the mission floor, replacement capital, initial Year 1 working capital and modelled tax. It excludes recovery of startup capital, which is measured separately below. The working-capital element is specific to the Year 1 setup, so later-year thresholds differ.

The workbook computes the threshold dynamically rather than storing 134.449. Writing P for the net package, v for delivery per week, F for fixed site and central cost, M for the mission floor, c for the sales and payment rate, m for the mission revenue rate, r for the replacement fraction, w for the Year 1 working-capital fraction, t for the tax rate and D for life-capped initial annual depreciation, the cash function is

EBITDA(q) = P·q − v·q − c·P·q − MAX(M, m·P·q) − F, and Cash(q) = EBITDA(q) − t·MAX(0, EBITDA(q) − D − d·q) − P·(r + w)·q, where d = P·r/10 is the existing half-year replacement depreciation.

That is the minimum of four straight lines — mission floor or revenue share, tax applying or not — so the continuous threshold is the largest of the four case solutions, with a = P(1−c)−v for the floor branch and P(1−c−m)−v for the share branch. The workbook shows all four, shows the minimum contribution slope, and reports the threshold as **not feasible** if any slope is non-positive or the requirement exceeds the 800-suite-week capacity, instead of printing a misleading booking count. EBITDA breakeven is the simpler max(BF/aF, BS/aS), and the EBITDA break-even package at a forecast volume Q is max((F+vQ+M)/(Q(1−c)), (F+vQ)/(Q(1−c−m))).

For comparison, conservative Year 1 **EBITDA breakeven** is 119.139 continuous suite-weeks (14.892% of capacity on the continuous measure), rounded up to **120 whole paid suite-weeks, or 15% of capacity**. Rounded weeks and rounded occupancy are always quoted together. It excludes replacement capital, working capital and tax, so it is not the headline. Accounting-profit breakeven is 184.636 continuous suite-weeks, rounded up to 185, or 23.125% of capacity. The EBITDA break-even net package at the 320-suite-week forecast is **€3,242.70**, with the €100,000 mission floor correctly considered.

| Case | Cash breakeven | Whole-capacity occupancy | EBITDA breakeven | EBITDA package breakeven at forecast volume |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Conservative | 134.449 → **135 suite-weeks** | **16.875%** | 119.139 → 120 (15% rounded; 14.892% continuous) | €3,242.70 at 320 suite-weeks |
| Middle | 126.018 → **127 suite-weeks** | **15.875%** | 112.053 → 113 | €2,912.48 at 400 suite-weeks |
| High | 119.149 → **120 suite-weeks** | **15%** | 106.242 → 107 | €2,717.91 at 480 suite-weeks |

The default case remains conservative. Each row uses its own price, delivery, fixed-cost and sales assumptions; thresholds are never mixed between cases.

The timeline uses the existing monthly cash calculations, month by month rather than by annual interpolation, and makes no calendar launch promise:

- Project month 0: development starts. Project months 1–18: construction and pre-opening. End of project month 18: handover.
- The first individual monthly cash surplus occurs in **operating month 3 / project month 21**, when that month's own flow is **+€65,519**. Cumulative operating free cash is still negative then.
- Cumulative operating free cash first becomes positive in **operating month 5 / project month 23**, at **€61,089**. This excludes the €800,000 opening reserve and therefore measures cash generated since operations began, not bank balance.
- Total capital and pre-opening spend of **€3,819,551** is first recovered in **operating month 53 / project month 71**, about six years after development starts, when cumulative operating free cash reaches €3,931,505 (€3,764,007 the month before).
- Full base funding of **€4,619,551** is first exceeded in **operating month 58 / project month 76**, at €4,768,996 (€4,601,498 the month before), still operating Year 5. This is a comparison with the capital commitment, not an investor payout or IRR.
- Stress-covered funding of **€5,829,551** is not recovered within five operating years, ending at project month 78 with **€5,103,993** of cumulative operating free cash. End-of-Year-4 cumulative free cash is €3,632,918.

In the middle case cumulative operating cash first becomes positive in operating month 4 / project month 22; startup spend is recovered in operating month 41 / project month 59, base funding in operating month 45 / project month 63 and the stress envelope in operating month 54 / project month 72. In the high case the corresponding crossings are operating month 4 / project month 22, operating month 32 / project month 50, operating month 36 / project month 54 and operating month 44 / project month 62.

Every threshold and milestone is a planning output conditional on demand, costs and the development schedule — and, in Revision 7, on securing a land partnership that carries no rent. It is not a promised return, payback guarantee or launch date.

### Monthly Year 1 and stress testing

The monthly model opens with zero bookable weeks in January and February and four in each month from March to December. Fixed costs, tax and the working-capital movement are spread evenly, the mission floor is spread over open months with any above-floor amount following revenue, and replacement capital is 3% of monthly revenue.

Committed funding is held fixed at €4,619,551 in every stress. Higher construction and pre-opening spending is deducted from the €800,000 opening reserve rather than treated as new funding, depreciation follows the capital actually spent in each case, and the FX stress raises Kwacha capital and local pre-opening spend while the USD-to-EUR import cross-rate stays unchanged.

| Case | Cash at handover | Lowest month, five years | Year 1 cash | Year 5 closing cash | Floor breach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base, conservative | €800,000.00 | €664,533.02 | €519,720.77 | €5,903,992.78 | none |
| Commercial downside | €800,000.00 | €687,028.09 | €208,759.70 | €3,717,942.20 | none |
| Kwacha 20% stronger | €297,136.10 | €156,186.07 | €461,007.02 | €5,028,001.86 | €143,813.93 |
| Capex and local opex 20% over | €92,359.19 | −€47,123.58 | €469,810.52 | €4,867,242.45 | €347,123.58 |
| Combined stress | −€504,623.63 | −€644,630.48 | −€305.06 | €1,504,336.77 | €944,630.48 |
| Six-month construction delay | €587,855.31 | €452,742.93 | €521,848.35 | €5,702,486.01 | none |
| Combined stress plus delay | −€760,750.38 | −€900,757.24 | −€305.06 | €1,256,640.56 | €1,200,757.24 |

The commercial downside applies occupancy ten percentage points lower, prices 10% lower, all delivery and fixed cash costs 10% higher and a 10% higher mission floor. The isolated FX stress divides ZMW per EUR by 1.2. The isolated overrun raises every base capital component by 20%, recomputes escalation and the 25% contingency on the higher base, and raises local operating costs by 20%. The delay case adds six months of skeleton payroll, security and site care at ZMW 250,000 a month plus €10,000 a month of international cost, a further 3% capital escalation and six months of deferred opening revenue — with no land rent, because none is charged. The combined cases stack these and are clearly labelled.

**Four of seven stresses fail.** A 20% stronger Kwacha alone breaches the €300,000 floor by €143,814. A 20% capital and local overrun opens with only €92,359 and goes cash-negative at −€47,124. The combined stress reaches −€644,630, and the combined case with a six-month delay reaches −€900,757. Rounded, the worst case indicates **€1,210,000 of additional committed liquidity** and a stress-covered envelope of **€5,829,551**. No facility is secured, no debt terms or interest are assumed, and these seven cases are not exhaustive — prolonged closure, permit refusal, failure of the land partnership and demand collapse beyond the tested range are not covered.

Trading is not the binding risk in Revision 7. The land partnership, construction cost, currency and programme are.

### Comparison with the earlier European planning case

Same capacity, same 40 planned weeks, the same conservative revenue and the same tax treatment, so only the cost structure differs.

| Year 1 line | Earlier European book | Zambia Revision 7 |
|---|---|---|
| Net stay revenue | €2,080,000 | €2,080,000 |
| Fixed site cost | €655,000 | €384,066 |
| Central support | €60,000 | €60,000 |
| Delivery cost | €656,000 | €369,077 |
| Sales and payments | €249,600 | €249,600 |
| Mission allocation | €166,400 | €166,400 |
| Operating result | €293,000 | €850,856 |
| Operating margin | 14.0865% | 40.9066% |

The improvement is 26.8200 percentage points on cost assumptions alone. Two things drive it: Kwacha local costs, and the Revision 7 assumption that land use is authorised under a government partnership so no rent is paid at all. Neither geography nor a hoped-for partnership guarantees profit.

Funding moves the other way. The earlier case used €3.316m — €1.716m of pre-opening spend and a €1.6m opening reserve. Revision 7 committed funding is **€4,619,551**: an **€800,000 reduction** from a smaller opening reserve, a separate management decision about reserve depth, offset by **€2,103,551 more** for local construction, imported tents, frames and plant, escalation and contingency across an 18-month development programme. Revision 5's €1.95m related to a leased lodge conversion and Revision 6 carried land rent and a land deposit; both are superseded.

### Regional research candidates

The workbook retains all fourteen research candidates so capacity and season can be repriced by selector. Livingstone is region 5 with 40 planned weeks and is the **only** case carrying the Kwacha local-cost preset; the Zambian budget is not applied globally to other regions, each of which would need its own local quotations and its own land arrangement.

## 4. Success over three to five years

| Dimension | Evidence | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Guest value | Achieved rates, completed stays, complaints, refunds, reviews, repeat and referral purchases | Meet price and service targets without persistent heavy discounting |
| Financial sustainability | Positive cash after fair staffing, central support, mission, tax, replacement and working capital | At least 12 months of positive cash generation before considering replication |
| Local benefit | Paid employment, local procurement, partner-approved programme, recorded grievances | Partners confirm benefits and unresolved concerns have an agreed remedy |
| Ecological improvement | Baseline and repeat measurement appropriate to the site | Independent specialist confirms progress against locally defined 1-, 3- and 5-year targets |
| Land under protection | Unique mapped acres under signed protection commitments, acres actively restored, and condition measures, each reported separately | Commitments are documented, funded and independently reported, never summarised as one acreage headline |
| Continuing care | Funded maintenance, documented access, viable decommissioning or handover plan | Stewardship continues through a weak season or closure |

Replication requires verified positive cash at the first Habitat, maintained mission funding through a full season, acceptable service outcomes and partner-confirmed local benefit, sufficient reserves after the first site's obligations, and a new site-specific budget with local quotations and its own land arrangement.

## 5. Immediate work programme

1. Paid bookings at the actual tax-inclusive package price, in peak and shoulder periods.
2. A signed-form government land-use agreement: defined area in acres, duration and renewal, ecological baseline and targets, community governance, independent reporting, continuing-care funding, our obligations and what happens on exit.
3. Written legal advice on whether any land payment, fee, levy or bond applies after all, and on the security of assets built under a public land agreement.
4. A tendered build price and quantity-surveyor cost plan replacing the ZMW 40,000,000 construction allowance.
5. Supplier quotations and a landed-cost calculation, with customs treatment, for the USD 1,050,000 of imported tents, frames and plant.
6. ZEMA environmental screening and approval, plus build and operating permits.
7. An operator-approved roster with Zambian employer charges, leave and cover, replacing the payroll allowance.
8. Zambian adviser confirmation of corporate tax, VAT recovery, capital allowances and tourism-levy qualification.
9. Restoration baseline, monitoring design and a costed decommissioning, exit and continuing-care plan, plus site-specific costing of every protection and community deliverable the agreement would require.
10. Insurance covering construction and operations, and confirmed land-use rights.
11. Written local partnership terms, including reserved decisions, fair compensation, cultural and intellectual property protection and grievance remedy.

Context reference: manufacturer tent price lists such as Bushtec Safari's 2025 list (https://bushtecsafari.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/USA-_-Pricelist.pdf) illustrate factory pricing only. They are not our build budget and do not include platforms, bathrooms, freight, duty, installation or site infrastructure.

Nothing in this document constitutes an offer of securities, a guarantee of outcome or a confirmed commercial arrangement.