6.3 Results
6.3.3 An historical overview of Boksburg’s civic groups and their action campaigns
Running parallel to the environmental decline was a growing civic response.
Numerous action campaigns were organised by a wide spectrum of role players that cut across age, race, class and occupation and involved both individuals and groups of people as agents of change.
The first recorded civic response to environmental issues was reported in 1980 in the December 5edition and involved an organised clean up of Reiger Park. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Reiger Park was the target of many such clean-ups with different organisations forming to address the illegal dumping and litter that was rife in the community. In 1990 the Live Clean Committee was set up with the explicit goal of keeping Reiger Park spotless through involving the community in organised clean-ups.
In 1994 a new organisation came into being, called the Boksburg Environmental Awareness Campaign committee, which coordinated another large clean-up in Reiger Park. On May 16, 1997 there was an article titled “Reiger Park residents declare war on illegal dumping”, which was led by a new civic group called the Reiger Park Environmental Awareness Committee. A letter written on behalf of this organisation
thanked the public for their involvement: “We sincerely appreciate your co-operation and concern for our environment… We wish to appeal to all those who value, love and appreciate cleanliness, to assist by encouraging all the others to please keep our suburb clean”. In this quote the value of a clean environment is explicitly stated. In 2001 yet another group was initiated, called Simunye, to address the continual problems of illegal dumping and litter in Reiger Park. They managed to involve 40 local people in a clean-up operation that removed 80 tons of rubbish.
Throughout the early 1990s articles refer to recycling initiatives led by Pick n Pay.
Their environmental focus was to set up environmental centres in all their stores. Other businesses also took up the challenge of the growing environmental degradation. For example, Avlock International, a company based in one of Boksburg’s industrial zones, began a regular clean-up initiative in 2002. The managing director explained that:
This industrialist area, like many others in Boksburg, is suffering from increasing neglect by the council… Rather than campaign, we at Avlock decided to devote 30 minutes each Friday morning to cleaning along Paul Smit and Kent streets. The programme is entirely voluntary and is open to all the company’s 130 employees, except for certain key staff. Some 30-40 volunteers assemble each Friday morning.
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s action groups were mobilised around the deteriorating water bodies. ‘Friends of Rolfes Pan’ was established in 1993. It consisted of five friends who would meet on a monthly basis to preserve this natural wetland. BOSS (Boksburg Open Space System) was also established in 1993 with the aim of bringing nature back into urban spaces. In 1995 the Cinderella Vlei Action Committee was regularly in the headlines for their fight to protect Cinderella Vlei from unscrupulous development. This is described in detail at the end of the section and explores the confrontation between role players and the different values that were expressed in this campaign. In 2006, Nicole Barlow, a vehement and well-known local environmental campaigner finally won a strongly contested legal battle with Sasol that halted the development of a fuel station on Libradene wetland. She continued to play an active role throughout the 2000s, speaking out against development projects that threatened the environment. This continued involvement was encouraged by the battle she had won for Libradene. She was quoted as saying:
The fact that we have made so much progress in the fight against the development of this wetland has inspired us to take the fight to other areas currently under threat from
development in the Ekurhuleni region… Developers in the Ekurhuleni area will not bat an eye to develop a wetland to make millions for their company. (February 24, 2006)
We have learned that if you exercise your rights maturely and conduct yourself peacefully and within the law, with a bit of patience and perseverance, you can win the battle between greed and the protection of the environment… We will not stop this fight and have decided, as ECA, to exercise what we have learned to benefit other areas which we believe are under threat. This judgment has provided us with the proof that we have more than just a right to say something – now we can do something. (May 26, 2006)
These quotes express the momentum that builds when a change agent wins a battle: it gives a sense of empowerment and belief that more can change. The outcome of this battle for Libradene wetland inspired others, provided an example that the
“environmental underdog” can win and expressed a recognition that the power dynamics between developers and environmentalists may be shifting: “But now we have an example that developers do not have the last say on the use of land”. Two people wrote to the editor on separate occasions expressing these sentiments:
I would like to respond to the Advertiser’s most recent article about the ongoing fight between the developers of a filling station in a wetland area and the Libradene Wetland Association. The courageous and principled efforts of Nicole Barlow and the LWA prevented massive potential damage, not only to the ecology of the Libradene Wetland, but as geographical evidence has shown, also to the greater Vaal River System. To these two parties specifically I say “Take heart!” (February 3, 2006)
I was very impressed when I read the story of Nicole Barlow and her fight to prevent a petrol station in a wetland in Boksburg. It was nice to see the environmental underdog win for a change… For too long there has been a rush of unrestrained development, with too little thought for the consequences. But now that we have an example that developers do not have the last say on the use of land, one hopes that many other responsible people will copy it. (June 2, 2006)
During my conversations with local residents about the environmental education initiative I was catalysing, many referred to this environmental success story.
Children’s groups were also involved in the action. In 1997 there was an article about Brownies adopting Cinderella Vlei as one of their projects and in 1998 Busy Bees pre- school cleaned up a vlei near their school. An inspiring article from the November 2, 2007 edition focused on two local boys who undertook daily clean-ups in their neighbourhood. As one of the boys said: “It’s just a great feeling to do something good
and we encourage other young people to get involved in similar projects in their communities”. Another inspiring 2009 story, this time involving women, featured a picture of a woman with a lawnmower and had the following caption: “These women from the Libradene Village have taken it upon themselves to make a difference by cleaning up the Issie Kramer Park” (November 27, 2009).
This section concludes with a case study that portrays the power dynamics and values expressed by developers and environmental activists around Cinderella Vlei.
Cinderella Vlei: A case study of power dynamics and values expressed by developers and environmental activists
In 1995 there was a series of articles on a conflict of interests around Cinderella Vlei that ran over a couple of months. This case provides a clear example of power dynamics between different groups of people and how particular values retain or challenge existing hegemonies.
The first article on this case appears in the December 15, 2005 edition of the Boksburg Advertiser, titled “Residents go all out to save vlei”. The point of contention was around Cinderella Vlei that consists of a number of wetlands. An office block developer had begun to dump rubble on the vlei as landfill. Two residents responded strongly to this and formed the Cinderella Vlei Action Committee (CVAC) to resist the proposed development. A member of the committee was quoted as saying “I’ll do whatever it takes to fight the development” and referred to a reed bed filled with red bishop birds, which the development would destroy. The developer, in contrast, argued that this kind of development was preferable to “squatters” implying that they inhabit open land.
The CVAC held an open meeting for anyone wanting to join the fight and started a petition. In February they manned tables at shopping centres, with a description of the proposed development and photographs of a similar office block. The petition was a success with over 2 000 signatures. Some people, however, were reluctant to sign as the vlei was being used as a toilet and they were unhappy with the smell, supporting the notion that development was preferable to squatters.
In the February 2, 1996 edition of the Boksburg Advertiser there is a poem written by one of the CVAC members titled ‘Save the Vlei’ that expresses determination and passion to protect the vlei. Below is an extract of the poem that indicates the value of
retaining biodiversity and ecological integrity and recognition that society is driven by values of domination, power and greed.
“It may not be an ‘eye sore’
But the “food chain” has been hurt!
The goggos, the owls, the birds, the frogs That rely on each other for life,
Have all been affected by man’s awful greed – Yes, men have power and corruption is rife!
Boksburg is well-known Both here and abroad –
Not for anything we’re proud of But for playing ‘over-lord’!”
The developer responded to the CVAG by suggesting that if “they want the vlei that badly” they should buy it from him at a market related price (February 16, 1996). This indicates a power dynamic driven by economics.
The next two articles that appeared in the March 8, 1996 edition are quoted at length as they indicate an interesting conflict of values between the environmental activists and those supporting the development. The first article, box 6.1, is a letter written by a local resident and expresses values that align with those who promote such developments. The second article, box 6.2, is the chairman of the CVAG’s response and communicates fundamentally different values that are representative of environmental activists.
Box 6.1: Letter written by a local resident expressing a pro-development stance (my emphasis)
Let’s keep the fight clean: Also concerned of Sunward Park writes: How refreshing to hear a note of sanity coming from someone at last (Boksburg Advertiser of last week) regarding the great big Cinderella Vlei argument. Yes, why not talk about it instead of going about it in a nasty way? I saw petitioners at the Sunward Park Pick n’ Pay and it amazed me that photographs of an office block recently erected in Trichardt’s road were on display and were being referred in a manner. I do not wonder that the owner wants to sue the Action Group – it was shocking to hear. What kind of people are these who are conducting such an attack?
Apart from my opinion in any of these matters, let us not resort to the level of a gangster street fight. We should at least be civilized about it all and talk to the new owner about his intentions, as suggested last week. Much more will be gained by talking to each other. After all, don’t we refer to ourselves as being ‘first world’?
Box 6.2: Letter written by the chairman of the CVAG (my emphasis)
Editors note: This letter was referred to chairman of the CVAG Tony Dutton, who said the group was formed for the sole purpose of preserving one of Boksburg’s very few remaining wetlands.
I reject with contempt statements such as ‘gangster street fight’. The group has consistently conducted its business in a logical, professional, even-handed manner, with the single- minded objective of preventing the desecration of one of nature’s greatest gifts. I believe they will continue to do so no matter who wants to alter this. Mr. Ford has suggested that “if the CVAG wants the vlei so badly, let them make me a related offer”. The CVAG is not in the property business and believes the vlei should belong to all who live in Boksburg. The custodians – or ‘owners’ – should be the Council of Boksburg, which represents all people.
The photographs of the office blocks were simply used to indicate what could be. The fact that “Boerejock’ de Klerk was offended that his building was associated with the potential rape of the vlei concerns us and we extend our apologies to him. His obvious concern at being associated with the desecration of this wetland does, however, encourage us, as he is the first ex-major of our city to come out in support of our objective of saving the vlei.
Therefore we would encourage other public representatives to speak out. I visited a number of petition tables on February 3 and at none did I find a ‘low-level’ attack. What I found were concerned citizens who believed we in Boksburg should hand on to our children the joys of seeing birds in the reeds, or discovering frogs and wild flowers. The fact that over 2 300 people signed the petition to save the vlei tells us that CVAG is talking for people.
Those are the answers, but what is real is that the wetlands are dying, not only in Boksburg but all over the world we know also die. First, second, or third world must join hands to save them and the good people of Boksburg have the opportunity of joining that lattice-work and doing something real for the generations that are to come. All they have to do is identify with CVAG and simply say: ‘We want our wetlands to stay wetlands until the 7th generation’.
People campaigning for the development drew on values of and connections to the economy (can buy the vlei at a market related price), civilisation and being part of the First World and argued that such areas hold the threat of attracting squatters. The language used to describe the environmental activists implied that they opposed these values: their approach is described as “nasty” and a “gangster street fight” and the question is asked: “What kind of people are these who are conducting such an attack?”
The response by the chairman of CVAG expresses a range of values including the protection of the natural world, which is described as a gift and valued for its biodiversity: “the joys of seeing birds in the reeds, or discovering frogs and wild flowers”. The proposed development on the vlei is described as “rape” and the wetlands are said to be “dying”, which indicates that they are valued as more than a resource. The argument is also made that the vlei should “belong to all who live in
who suggested the environmental campaigners buy the wetland at a market related price. An attitude of partnership between people from all contexts (“first, second or third world”) is also promoted, the future generations are considered and they are against values of greed, corruption and power. A clash of values between those advocating for the vlei’s “development” and those fighting for its protection, is thus clearly evident.
The data exploration now turns to an historical examination of Boksburg Lake.