Stumped: Voortrekker Monument team 'sorry' for chopping down protected trees

Management at the Voortrekker Monument have sent out an apology letter after a public outcry about the chopping down of trees around the monument site.

According to the managers, they were cleaning up a replica route of the Great Trek and wanted to restore the site according to the monument's archives “on what the original vision was of what the gardens around the monument should look like”.

But experts who visited the site said some of the trees chopped down were protected species, under the National Forests Act of 1998, and others were older than 60, which means they are also protected. Experts charged that many of the trees cut down had a role to play in the Great Trek, and that the new conditions, without the shade of the trees, would lead to the death of the remaining plants, which in 1961 were donated by mayors in towns which had been part of the Great Trek route.

They say the new landscape is hot, will encourage soil erosion, weeds and alien plants will thrive.

The whistle was blown on September 9 after a member of the Trees in Africa Facebook group, Shane Paul, posted photos of the now barren monument on the social media site.

“Today I saw destruction of trees like I have never seen before,” he wrote.

“The new management of the Voortrekker Monument have decided to cut down all these historic indigenous trees. These photos [show] what they have destroyed so far. It is tragic that they don't care about trees that have been growing there for over 60 years. There is no excuse for this.”

The post was shared and caught the eye of Richard Gill of the Dendrological Society of South Africa, who went on a site visit on September 12 with two others.

“It was worse than I thought,” Gill said. 

Gill wrote a report on his findings and wrote a post on the Dendrological Society's Facebook page, which was scathing — but the photographs and videos really brought home the destruction.

This further ignited the issue and on Tuesday a meeting was held by the Voortrekker Monument management with the Dendrological Society, Trees in Africa, Botanical Gardens, University of Pretoria, a heritage landscape architect and the Cycad Trust. 

A source who was at the meeting said it was “very tense” at times.

Gill said he was disappointed about what had happened but because the teams were trying to work together he felt it would be best not to comment further, but told TimesLIVE to use his social media comments as they reflected his position and were already on public record.

He updated the most recent post by saying the meeting was held and they were discussing the way forward.

“It won't fix the damage, but will move all the parties forward.”

The first post he wrote on the Dendrological Society Facebook page led with: “The Dendrological Society of South Africa noted with regret the recent, seemingly mindless destruction of indigenous plants at the Voortrekker Monument.

“These actions are strongly condemned by the society and in this regard we made our dissatisfaction clear in a letter addressed to the management of the Voortrekker Monument.”

The post gave an excerpt from the report: “The destruction was far worse than the social media post [from Trees in Africa] had showed; despite people frantically covering up the devastation by removing the chopped wood with haste, and covering fresh cut stumps with mud, rocks or other plants to hide their presence and identities.”

On Wednesday the Voortrekker Monument management sent out their apology and an explanation of their actions.

Translated from Afrikaans, they said there was maintenance work which needed to take place and that trees within three metres of the wagon laager wall had created 54 new cracks in the wall installed in 2019.

They said there were invasive plants which needed to be removed and self-sown trees and plants which were displacing other trees. Less than 10% of the original trees were still there and they have worked since April to rehabilitate the area. They said they had been given permission to remove trees within three metres of the laager.

“The Voortrekker Monument is sorry about some of the trees being removed and accepts full responsibility for that.”

They said Nature Conservation visited the site and found that “nothing was done maliciously, it was a bona fide mistake”.

“In the spirit of rebuilding and conserving heritage, [expert societies] have reached out to make their expertise available to the Voortrekker Monument.

“The current monument garden plan provides that not only our historical heritage but also our natural heritage will survive and flourish. It will be further refined and rolled out in collaboration with Nature Conservation, the Dendrological Society and other experts.”

Arborist Julian Ortlepp was especially disappointed because the monument stood on a nature reserve.

He said that besides buildings and monuments South Africa also recognises trees, landscapes and even rocks and mountains as part of our heritage — and that is why certain plants and places are protected.

He made special mention of the Yellowwood trees — SA's national tree — of which four varieties had been cut down. He said trees that were 60 years old or older were also protected and would need permission to be cut. 

Upon seeing the images, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo’s regional manager Joseph Ndou said he felt numb.

“I'm still numb, honestly speaking. The issue is that people are not seeing the importance of trees. They see a tree and just chop. If [the monument establishment] were to recreate what they have lost, it would take 30 years to derive the benefit of new trees — and only if the trees survived.”

He said it would be very hard to recreate what was lost, because saplings needed the shade of taller trees to grow. He said the ground would be too hot for the re-establishing of new trees. 

“Even if the Voortrekker Monument is not owned by the City of Tshwane, protected plants cannot be cut.”

TimesLIVE