Taking a holistic view to create a new narrative around bark stripping in Newlands Forest

It was a cool day; the sunlight streamed through the tree canopy illuminating the damp forest floor. The rich smell of earth, soil and mulch rose from the ground and into the air. As I walked along the narrow path lined by tall assegai, Cape holly and Cape beech trees, I came across an aluminium sign held up by two wooden poles. This was a jarring contrast to the leafy surrounds.

I scanned the sign: “Bark stripping… illegal harvesting… tree bark… poachers…” I read the sign with curiosity. A new world had opened up and the voice inside me asked: “What can this mean?” 

That experience happened two years ago in Newlands Forest, Cape Town, and as an Environmental and Geographical Sciences honours student at the University of Cape Town, it piqued my interest. The opportunity to explore it more came as part of my honours research project last year, when I chose to investigate bark stripping in Newlands Forest.

Bark stripping refers to the harvesting of indigenous tree bark for use in traditional medicines. When done incorrectly, it has devastating effects on the trees, and they die in the long run.

However, the more I learnt, the more I realised bark stripping is a complex issue involving diverse stakeholders and revealing broader important questions around contemporary conservation conflicts and practices in South Africa.

I conducted a total of seven formal interviews and 10 informal discussions with relevant stakeholders from the conservation sector, academic field and the public sector. Some of these included traditional healers, plant doctors, South African National Parks (SANParks) officials, conservation biologists, a member of the Newlands Forest Conservation Group, a City of Cape Town employee, and a permaculturalist.

My engagement with diverse knowledge holders revealed that the problem of bark stripping does not exist in a vacuum, and several factors must be taken into account when attempting to weave a whole narrative of the issue.

My interest lies in using the case of bark stripping in Newlands Forest as a lens through which to critically question and reimagine conservation in South Africa. I understand the serious conservation threat that bark stripping presents to indigenous trees. I also understand the need for tree bark, seeing as it comprises almost one-third of medicinal plants traded and used for traditional medicinal purposes.

It is at this intersection that I still find myself today, wondering how we can bring both sides together.

The forest as a place of refuge and exclusion

Newlands Forest is an urban conservation forest within Table Mountain National Park managed by SANParks. It contains the largest remnant indigenous forest of the Cape Peninsula, making it a conservation area of high importance. The forest is home to a diverse range of trees, plants, birds, reptiles, insects and other more-than-human beings.

In my isiXhosa culture, mountains are important spiritual places, and when I walk in the forest I feel like I am walking with the spirits of the more-than-human world and my ancestors. In the shadow of the mountain, I feel safe. 

The forest is also a site where conflicting views on conservation and natural resource use are rife, creating tensions between conservation stakeholders and members of the public who harvest the bark of the assegai and other indigenous trees for socioeconomic, traditional and cultural reasons.

Bark stripping has harmful effects on indigenous trees when done incorrectly and at a large scale, presenting significant challenges to SANParks’ protection-driven conservation work and indigenous tree populations.

My research revealed that there are significant knowledge gaps among conservation authorities regarding bark trade and use. This knowledge gap probably stems from the illegal realm in which bark stripping occurs, coupled with the informal nature of the medicinal plant trade in South Africa and the lack of recognition of the value of traditional medicinal practices.

Despite the fact that about 27 million people consume wild-harvested medicines in South Africa, there is not enough comprehensive oversight on the traditional medicine industry.

Conservation and its legacy of violence

In South Africa, conservation emerged from the Western, colonial agenda to control natural resources and separate humans from nature. Maano Ramutsindela et al in their book The Violence of Conservation in Africa (2022) highlight the historical violence of conservation in South Africa and the continent at large, making an important argument for the persistence of past injustices in conservation practices today.

Indigenous forests faced severe destruction through timber exploitation by European settlers during the 19th and early 20th century. Thousands of trees were felled, and this wide-scale extraction contributed to the declining population of indigenous trees over the past 120 years. This history is important when identifying the root causes of the decline in indigenous forests and the contemporary problem of bark stripping. 

Currently, and very specific to bark harvesting, nature conservation policies make this practice illegal and commercial harvesters run the risk of being arrested if they are caught. The findings from my interviews point to three important things.

Firstly, a distinction must be made between traditional healers and commercial harvesters. Historically, healers harvested bark sustainably, but the unsustainable practices of commercial harvesters coupled with current conservation protection laws restrict their ability to do so today.

Secondly, the scale at which bark stripping is happening indicates that it is being driven by commercial factors. Commercial harvesters are harvesting unsustainably for high consumption and probably act as the “middle men” in syndicates. Further research would be needed to trace where the bark is going, what the demand is and who is profiting from the commercial trade in bark.

Thirdly, there is a conversation lacking around creating access to medicinal plants in a context where people rely on plant harvesting for medicinal and spiritual health and to secure their livelihoods. The demand for bark exists, and according to interviews, it seems to be increasing, making the question of access a central component to the bark stripping debate.

Co-creating solutions between stakeholders

The rules for conservation in South Africa remain largely underpinned by a Western, science-based logic. This is gradually being challenged in global movements calling for convivial conservation practices that reject the human-nature dichotomies on which conservation was historically founded and continues to reproduce. There is an evident need for more relational conservation practices that embrace different ways of knowing and being in the world.

A big voice missing in the debate around bark stripping is that of the bark harvesters themselves. While destructive bark harvesting is a problem and should be managed, criminalising bark harvesters is not the solution – they are an important voice to listen to. Perhaps then more would be revealed about the underlying socioeconomic factors contributing to conservation conflicts today, and how to respond more effectively. 

Reimagining conservation and ideas for solutions

Bark stripping in Newlands Forest presents an opportunity to reimagine conservation practices by strengthening the relationships between diverse stakeholders. This calls for a shift towards transformative approaches to conservation that integrate traditional belief systems and understandings of nature, with the intention to remedy past injustices. It would also require more tolerance between diverse stakeholders and co-creating solutions by listening to each other.

SANParks has engaged with traditional healers on addressing bark stripping in the past. However, these processes would require a longer-term and more consistent engagement. Current interventions like painting trees to prevent bark stripping act as a short-term plaster on a deeper, more complex problem.

Throughout my research and engagement with various stakeholders, there were many hopeful sentiments and creative ideas shared in imagining solutions for the bark-stripping problem and the overall challenges of conservation and medicinal plant harvesting.

For conservation authorities, there seemed to be an understanding of the need for bark, but a lack of clarity on how to remedy the issue of unsustainable bark harvesting. An opportunity lies in this uncertainty and in the need to imagine creative solutions that may not yet exist.

Some ideas shared by participants for solutions to bark stripping included involving traditional healers in SANParks’ forest rehabilitation programme, the establishment of “muti” (medicinal) gardens, educating end users, and tree propagation training. Great potential lies in conducting more research around bark stripping, particularly the commercial aspect of it.

The hope for change

There is no simple solution, but it is necessary to understand bark stripping as a complex set of interwoven relationships between more-than-human beings, conservationists, traditional healers, commercial harvesters, academics, and members of the public. Understanding this dynamic web of relationships is integral to solving complex problems like bark stripping.

Deconstructing and healing systems that oppressed people and more-than-human beings in the past takes time, but it is fundamental to our collective well-being. Our well-being is interdependent and our existence shared. As Munia Khan says: “Trees exhale for us so that we can inhale them to stay alive. Can we ever forget that?” DM

Lilitha Buti holds a Bachelor of Social Science degree in Sociology and Environmental and Geographical Sciences (EGS) and an Honours degree in EGS from the University of Cape Town (UCT). She aims to pursue her master’s in nature conservation and contribute to the making of a more caring, just, convivial world that prioritises the well-being of all beings, both human and more-than-human.