This essay aims to identify and investigate the environmental issues regarding the construction of a new tollgate plaza on Chapmans peak drive. The focus is on the way arguments regarding habitat loss and fragmentation are conveyed to the South African public through media. How this specific local environmental issue relates to examples of international environmental concerns, regarding the same topics, are also mentioned. A short history of the pass and the controversy that surrounded the construction of it will help to contextualise it in the way that it is managed today. Today, there are several concerns, under locals, surrounding the land that it is situated on. The environmental issues and concerns that surround the area of the managing offices are reflected, or even formed, in the media. By looking at the statements and strategies by the different parties one must be critical in choosing a side, because of the controversy that surrounds the event and the different parties being portatryed and represented in the media.
Chapmans peak drive falls partly within the boundaries of Table Mountain National Park. It winds its way down from Noordehoek to Hout bay on the South-western tip of Africa and is regarded as one of the most spectacular marine drives on the Atlantic coast. The 9km scenic drive contains 114 curves, hiking and running trails and numerous picnic spots. It’s also known as a paradise for motorists, bikers and photographers. The drive has dramatic drops to the sea when looking down. When looking up, the towering mountains rise above you. Over time this drive has also become known as “Chappies” among the locals. (Entilini, 2012).
Chapmans peak is named after John Chapman, an ordinary ship’s pilot. In 1607 a British skipper’s watercraft came to a halt in what is now known as Hout Bay. He therefore sent his pilot, John Chapman, to row ashore in the hope of finding supplies. John recorded the bay as Chapman’s Chaunce (Chance), and because of repetition it eventually became the official name on East India Charts. (Entilini, 2012).
In the early 1900’s the first leader of the Cape Province, Sir Nicolas Fredrick de Waal, requested the construction of a road linking Cape Town with the southern suburbs. This roadway that would soon come to be known as De Waal Drive received an excellent response and Sir Nicolas Fredrick de Waal called for another road linking Hout bay and Noordehoek. (Entilini, 2012).
Examination of the road began in 1914, this was a nerve-racking business as the cliff and ravines were steep, rotten and unstable and at times the examining party was on hands and knees as they investigated the erect terrain. The over neck route seemed to be no better, expensive and basically impossible. De Wall, however refused to take no for an answer and eventually ordered the go-ahead. (Entilini, 2012).
The road was carefully planned and the surface based on 630 million year old solid Cape Granite Contour and roadside cuttings were made from a more workable series of sediment from Malmesbury. In 1915 construction began from the Hout Bay end, with the use of Penal labour supplied by the government. Construction from the Noordehoek end started the following year and in 1919 the first segment of the road was opened to the lookout point. (Entilini, 2012).
It was officially opened on Saturday 6 May 1922 by the Governor of the Union of South Africa, after seven years of construction at a cost of ₤20 000. In 1977 the road was closed due to damage because of floods. Parts of the road was washed away, which was replaced by a bridge at the cost of R150 000 (Entilini, 2012).
In 1994, the Cape Metropolitan Council, who was the road management agent at the time, was sued due to a landslide incident in which a citizen was injured and partly paralysed. This led to the South Peninsula Municipality, new management agent of the road, creating the Chapman’s Peak Drive closure policy, which was implemented in 1999. The policy states that the road has to be closed to traffic in rainy weather or in visible rock fall conditions. This resulted in the installation of lockable booms to prevent unauthorized entry. (Entilini, 2012).
On 29 December 1999, in good weather, when the risk of rock fall on the road was not considered to be high, a falling rock caused the death of a Noordehoek resident. This incident was followed by the worst mountain fire in decades in 2000, this caused many rock falls and the road became impassable. This was a great concern for the provincial authorities and lead to the closure of the road to traffic in January 2000. (Entilini, 2012).
Geotechnical specialist recommended the Provincial Administration’s Transport Branch to make funds available for “rockbarring”. This entailed the removal of loose rocks on the mountain above the road in order to make the road safer. However, it soon became obvious that the rockbarring process would take much longer and would cost far more than estimated. The rockbarring work was stopped in May 2000 and an integrated environmental management process was put in place. This aimed to produce an agreed management plan for Chapmans peak drive by mid-2001. (Entilini, 2012).
The integrated environmental management process brief required management to make the road safer for users, develop a strategy to successfully manage the road and suggest recommendation for funding sources, which seemed to be the biggest limitation. Officials from the Provincial Administration guided this process. (Entilini, 2012). (Entilini, 2012)
The solution came in the form of a public private partnership, which meant declaring the route a Toll Road, under Western Cape Provincial Toll Road Act. The majority of cost bound to the opening of Chapmans peak drive could be acquired through the tolling of the road and a public private partnership proved value for money in terms of the risks transferred to the private sector. A tender was thus put forward to the private sector and was awarded to The Chapman’s Peak Engineering Group, Joint Venture(Entilini, 2012).
Due to its sensitive location within the Table Mountain National Park, an integrated environmental approach to the rehabilitation and upgrading of Chapman’s Peak Drive was required. Through intensive design and reconstruction, technology, courage, determination and environment friendly techniques engineers managed to make the drive safer and won several awards in doing so. (Entilini, 2012).
Chapmans peak drive was re-opened on 20 December 2003 as a toll road. Tourists and local businesses welcomed the re-opening. The new rock fall measures were however put to the tested during July and August of 2004, with high intensity rainfalls. This lead to rocks falling and damaging several catch fences and Chapman’s Peak Drive was closed for 55 days to replace the four catch fences. In 2008 the road was declared unsafe again, which resulted in the closure of the drive for major upgrades and repairs. The construction work took over a year and the road was eventually reopened on the 9th October 2009. (Entilini, 2012).
In 2001, when Robin Carlisle became Minister of transport and public works, a binding contract was passed-down, that according to Mr Carlisle: “had been conceived in sin or insanity” (Robin Carlisle, 2012). A media statement on 11 January 2012 claimed that the pass was more often closed than not. He further went on to say that the concessionaire had the power to close the pass at will and that the concessionaire was also paid by the province, regardless wether the pass was open or not. This means that on any given day the concessionaire can close the pass and will still receive the same money that they would if they had been open. Mr Carlisle was determined to renegotiate the contract so that it would benefit users and taxpayers.(Robin Carlisle, 2012).
The contract has now been altered so the department of transport and public works decide whether the pass should be open or not and not Entilini, the company that operates the toll road. He also introduced a new four-lane tollgate, accompanied by an office block for Entilini (see appendix A on blog – tollgate plan). This office block will also have its own sewage plant. (Robin Carlisle, 2012).
This new office block however falls partly within the Table mountain national park and environmentalists are concerned. The constructions of the plaza in the national park may lead to habit loss and fragmentation of indigenous species like fynbos.
According to conservation biologists, habitat loss and fragmentation is considered to be the main cause of biodiversity loss. The removal of flora for agriculture, housing and timber industry destroys these habitats and most organisms in them. Adding to this, is the fact that this wrecking can cause remaining habitats to become fragmented and they can become too small for some organisms to persevere, or fragments may be too far apart for other organisms to move between them. (Kapustka, 2004).
Carlisle ensured the public that the office block will not harm the environment and therefore will not lead to habitat loss or fragmentation. Carlisle said that a 12 year project has been implemented by South African National Parks to replant fynbos on the higher peaks of the mountain which, according to Carlisle, should have been done long ago. He goes on to say that only a small portion of the office will be built in the National Park. The majority (75%) are being built on provincial land, and 25% of the parks’ land is quarry. According to Carlisle the office block is designed not to be destructive, it will not be visible from Hout Bay Harbour and is sited over a kilometre up the mountain with many hiking trails and picnic spots before the tollgate. (Robin Carlisle, 2012).
Residents and environmentalists differ. With a portion of 2100 m² of land designated for the office building, fauna and flora in that portion of land are bound to be affected negatively. According to residents, the view from elsewhere, particularly from other places on Chapman’s peak, have not been taken into account and that it is important to bear in mind that this office block is to serve the needs of a business processing transactions of a volume equivalent to those of a small parking garage. Further, only two small, viewless, picnic sites are set aside outside the tollgate, according to Democratic Alliance Chief Whip, Anthea Serritslev. (Serritslev, 2012).
Residents who used the Cape Times to raise concerns, said that the upper story of the office block is designed for hosting social events. The office block’s lower storey contains a reception, staffroom, control room, cash room, technician’s workshop, archive, two cloakrooms, cash collection garage, storeroom, workshop and offices while the second storey has a lobby, kitchen, two cloakrooms, a storeroom and offices for the general manager, personal assistant and concessions manager. Sliding doors connects the concessions manager’s office to a large meeting room. This then opens on to a covered balcony with a skylight. The building also features two more balconies, one that is located on the roof. The public is concerned about this lavish building and questions have been raised on the benefit of it to the public and if it is really necessary. Residents feel that the existing toll booths are completely adequate and should not be changed, this way no harm would be done to the environment.(Gosling, 2012).
Protest convener, Bronwen Lankers-Byre wrote a letter of concern to Carlisle, stating that the building of the office on Table mountain national parks’ land is unlawful, and the premier would be “aiding and abetting an illegal act”. There are also concerns from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco), which governs World Heritage Sites, because Table Mountain National Park is categorized as a heritage site. (Gosling, 2012).
Although the building will be on disturbed land, the plans for the office block have been approved by Table Mountain National Park. According to Len Swimmer, chairperson of the Hout Bay Residents, there are more than enough space to construct such an office block in Hout Bay, according to him, few people have seen the plans and will be shocked when they do. (Gosling, 2012).
Residents say that the piece of national park was handed over by the stroke of a pen, but when engineers required national park land to upgrade the Hospital Bend on De Waal Drive they could not do so because of the protections acts on the land. The BKS project manager, Freek van Renssen, said that they wanted to acquire only 75m² of land from Table Mountain National Park to build the new Angio Road Bridge, whereas the new tollgate office block is taking up to 2100m². When Robin Carlisle was asked why this is the case, he did not know any details of the Hospital bend upgrade. (Gosling, 2012).
The way the two sides of the issue, for and against the upgrade, have been portrayed in the media as locals fighting against authority, which is a lost battle. Just by reading the headlines of major newspapers and articles on the issue, one can clearly see that the general public and media does not promote the construction of the plaza. ”R54m luxury building on Chapman’s Peak Drive” (Cape Times, 6 April 2012) just being one of the few articles to discuss and raise concerns on the issue. The journalist who wrote this article was clearly against the construction of the plaza. Descriptions such as: “multimillion” and “exclusive offices” are being used to express the waste of money, according to the reporter. The big financial figures mentioned in the headline and the article draws the reader’s attention and cleverly makes it seem as if all the money is going to waste or to benefit only employees of Entilini. This argument is supported by quoting residents’ opinions of the plaza, which is mostly negative.
On Sunday 22 January 2012 thousands of Capetonians marched along Chapman’s Peak Drive in protest. Enews prime time reported on this protest against the “R54-million toll plaza” and “luxury office” to be built on national park land (see appendix B on blog – eTv prime time news, Chapmans peak protest).
In the clip that was aired Carlisle attempts to inform the crowd as to why the plaza need to be constructed, using pamphlets to help him make his point. This section of the clip was cut short and the one time his attempt to explain his side of the situation or argument was shown, it was difficult to hear what he was saying. However, in the section where the protesters make their statements, only clear microphone recording and video footage was used. . Protestors are shown carrying signs that can clearly be seen in they clip, they include: “DA Carlisle shame on you”, “Protect Chappies from politicians and corporate greed”, “Murray and Robbers don’t steal our land”, “No to Entilini, no to DA”, “SANParks sellout sucks”, “Jou ma se tol!” and “Jou ma se office block“. We can easily understand the argument of the protestors in this clip; but the other side of the argument is not clearly represented. The only sound that can be clearly heard in the clip, apart from the reporter, is the sound of the protesters – even when Carlisle is making his statement, they, and the influence of the media, are clearly dominating him. Carlisle is not shown in an office or corporate environment, but rather in the crowd (being the only one out of thousands to speak on behalf of Entilini and represent the ‘other side’). A office background would have given him a sense of knowledge and power. It was a conscious decision to show him struggling to voice his opinion amongst the angry crowd.
A handheld camera was used to record the clip, the fast movement and unsteady picture makes everything seem more chaotic. Carlisle represents the approving of construction of the toll gate plaza, and thus, the public will put the blame on him, where he is only one out a vast group of people that approved and was part of approving the construction of the plaza (Enews, 2012).
An viral video produced by J Productions (see appendix C on blog – hunger strike), shows Hout Bay resident and activist Bronwen Lankers-Byrne in a hunger strike on the building site of the plaza in an effort to stop the building of the office block. She claimed that she will only bedrinking water and not eating anythingl until it was certain that there were no construction taking place and all parties “sat around a table and agreed to another way”. The hunger strike went on for two weeks before she was forcibly removed. (Productions, J, 2012).
The video shows how people support her and urge her on. Because of the health risks it implies, the act of going on a hunger strike gets peoples’ attention, and provoke feelings of guilt. This strategy is used to achieve a specific goal, in this case policy change and the halt of construction. A hunger strike cannot be affective if it is not publicised, otherwise it cannot be known by the people who are supposed to be impressed, concerned or embarrassed by it.
If more people had to go on the hunger strike to promote the building of the tollgate plaza in an effort to keep Chapmans peak drive open, safe and well maintained and receive the same publicity as Bronwen Lankers-Byrne, (who is receiving publicity from newspapers, television news, viral video’s, word of mouth, etc.) those opposing the construction of the toll gate plaza might have changed their minds or even their strategy.
A similar viral video (see appendix D on blog – Chappies protesters halt toll construction) shows Aletta Gardner reporting on 15 February 2012, about two woman handcuffed to the scaffolding on the construction site. The two women also claimed that would not to move until construction stopped. According to them they have been threatened by arrested, but nothing came from it. This might suggest that they are not there illegally, but rather that the construction is happening illegally. This video however also does not show what Carlisle, or those approving the construction, had to say about the incident. There is also no proof of claims by the two women being true at all.
It is clear that the group against the construction of the tollgate plaza receives far more publicity from the media than those that approve the construction of the tollgate plaza.
Carlisle responded to the different events and media claims in a published media statement. According to Carlisle the new toll plaza will be attractive and environmentally appropriate, it will be build on quarry ground and diminish the mountain’s unattractive features. Carlisle he never wanted Chapmans peak to be tolled with catch nets and underpasses, but when the alien flora was burnt off about 10 years ago, and once the upper cliffs were fiddled with, the pass became unsafe, this lead to the current necessary protective measures. Carlisle says that there are now no other possibility that the huge cost of maintaining the safety of the pass can be met without tolling. But some are now asking what would happen to the road if the concessionaire should go into liquidation. (Robin Carlisle, 2012).
“Despite all the measures we have introduced, two thirds of the pass rests on soft and eroding Cape sandstone, which makes ‘Chappies’ the most vulnerable of our Provincial treasures”, says Carlisle. The plaza is sited so close to the tollgate, and not somewhere else, because they (Entilini and Mr. Carlisle) claims it will be more efficient this way. The decision to build the plaza was not an easy decision and was the product of a very detailed record of events. “This administration has met its promise of reopening Chappies and renegotiating a more favourable contract, saving the taxpayer over R84m in the process”, stated Carlisle in his officially released statement. (Robin Carlisle, 2012).
These types of environmental issues around construction are not only found locally. Globally the construction industry might be one of the most environmentally damaging industries in the world (Eart Watch Insitute, 2003). In Mexico deforesting is busy ruining one of North America’s most natural wonders, the migration of the monarch butterfly (ScienceDaily, 2008). It is estimated that at least 120 out of 620 of all living species living in rainforests will be extinct in the next 10 to 20 years. A recent study found that more than 40 fish species in the Mediterranean might disappear in the near future. Tropical orchids that grow in the rain forests are also at serious risk. These are only but a few of habitat loss and fragmentation examples, caused by construction and the industrial industry. (Evans, 2011).
Organisations like The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Natural Resources Defence Council, The Sierra Club, International Crane Foundation, Friends of Haleakala National Park, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Oceana, Conservation International and Wildlife Conservation Society, to name a few, are fighting habitat destruction and acknowledge it as a problem, (About.com, 2011). Organisations or sources stating that habitat destruction is not something to be concerned about are limited to none, and if there are any who believe this it’s not stated in public. Society therefore has no choice but to believe the claims made by the media, they are forced to believe that habitat loss is a problem, due to lack of evidence stating that it is not.
After reading the arguments above, certain questions arise, mostly as a result of lack of evidence or vague resources. Some of which are: Wouldn’t it have been financially wiser to cancel the contract when it was passed down to Carlisle, instead of altering it? What level of legal opinion was taken in that regard? Who looked at the constitutionality of the agreement? Who investigated the level of solvency of Entilini which, under certain conditions, could have led to cancellation of the ‘binding’ contract?
It is still not completely clear as to why the office block needs to be constructed on the mountain, for efficiency seem to be a weak justification as there are no proof of the difference in efficiency and if there is, would it be such a significant difference? Although I understand why they need to build an office, if there are so many people against the construction, why not build somewhere else?
On the other hand there is a lack of evidence to the damage the office block will bring to the National park. Although it can be estimated it cannot be certain whether the construction will actually lead to habitat loss and fragmentation. , and if so, to what degree. According to Carlisle the ground reserved for the office block is quarry (Robin Carlisle, 2012). Residents and those against the construction of the office block seems to be against it, not because of the possible habitat loss and fragmentation, but rather the destruction of beauty of the mountain. Although this also needs to be taken into consideration it seems as though they are not really informed of what the purpose of the office block is supposed to be and the real consequences of erecting such a building. People just conform to the group norm, which, through the help of the media, seem to be predominantly against the construction of the office block. Although habitat destruction and fragmentation is an issue in Cape Town and Table Mountain National Park, both sides of the issue around the construction of the plaza have not been fairly conveyed, with the media leading public opinion. The lack of evidence and research for the specific site, in public domain, is not enough to form a fair opinion.
I’ve now identified and investigated the environmental issue regarding the construction of the new tollgate plaza on Chapmans peak drive near Cape Town, looked at the different arguments, how they are constructed, and how these arguments were communicated to society through the media. How this environmental issue is thought of globally and locally also made a huge difference in its understanding and portrayal in the media. Due to lack of evidence from both sides it cannot be certain whether or not it is a real issue that needs addressing.
Pretorius Gildenhuys 