South Africa is the third most biologically diverse country in the world, with 80% of its plant species being endemic, and it has one of the highest known concentrations of threatened plants in the world.⁵ The second richest floristic region in southern Africa (after the Cape Floristic Region) is the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot (MPA).⁶ This global biodiversity hotspot spans an area of nearly 275 000 km², encompasses the Albany Centre of Floristic Endemism⁷ and includes the largest part of the Albany Thicket Biome,⁸ a structurally and phylogenetically distinct biome with a unique evolutionary history.⁹ The biome has a high plant diversity with about 6500 species, as well as a notably rich vertebrate fauna.¹⁰

A large concentration of Albany Thicket falls within the former Ciskei and Transkei ‘homelands’ of the Eastern Cape Province. This region is predominantly inhabited by isiXhosa speaking people of Cape Nguni descent. The area still suffers the effects of apartheid policies and remains characterised by high levels of poverty, a lack of infrastructure, high population densities and inferior education opportunities. Unemployment levels are high and per capita agricultural production is very low; the Eastern Cape remains one of the poorest provinces in the country.¹¹ The importance of wild resources to people’s livelihoods in this region¹² and elsewhere in South Africa¹³ is now well recognised. More recent research^12,14 has also revealed the significance of specific plant species for cultural and religious practices amongst the amaXhosa living here. It has been shown that the use of wild plants for cultural and religious practices remains important even amongst highly modernised urban households.¹⁵ In the former homelands, the Albany Thicket is threatened by the uncontrolled and unplanned spread of rural and urban settlements,¹⁶ overstocking,^16,17 harvesting of wood for fuel and other purposes¹⁸ and harvesting of medicinal plants.¹⁹ In the rural and peri-urban areas of the former Ciskei, uncontrolled grazing and browsing by domestic livestock has transformed Thicket to an open karroid dwarf shrubland; this transformation was accompanied by the loss of many woody and succulent species, which re-establish with great difficulty in the hotter and more arid micro-climate that results from this transformation.^16,17

It is now widely recognised that achieving conservation goals will require complementary activities inside and outside of formally protected areas,²⁰ including agro-ecosystems.²¹ To date, such interventions have been largely focused on privately owned and state land, with communal areas in the former homelands receiving little attention.²² In South Africa, spatial biodiversity plans are required to be mainstreamed into local government environmental decision-making processes under the National Environmental Management (Biodiversity) Act of 2004, although compliance with environmental legislation is often very limited in the former homeland areas.¹⁶ Despite acknowledgement of the need for an integrated approach to the conservation of biological and cultural diversity for ensuring sustainable development,^2,22 policy responses to this integrated paradigm have been slow to emerge in the communal areas of South Africa. The vast majority of biodiversity assessments still focus solely on species, whilst equally important issues such as landscape diversity and provision of ecosystem services (including cultural services²³) are given much less attention.²⁴ Whilst high population densities and weak institutional capacity are clearly challenges, the failure to engage communal land users in ways that accommodate their values, local knowledge and needs has been increasingly recognised as a fundamental problem.⁴ One of the reasons for this failure is that the cultural values which the majority of the population may attach to nature are poorly understood.

This article reports on research that explored the relationships of rural and peri-urban amaXhosa with natural and agricultural landscapes in the Albany Thicket of the Eastern Cape, and how these relationships are manifested in different activities. Whereas the emphasis in previous studies on the relationship between rural people and their natural resources has focused largely on the values that particular species^13,25 or landscapes²⁶ have for meeting livelihood and other material needs, our focus is on the emotions that the landscapes evoke, the activities which lead to meaningful experiences in nature, and the ways in which their relationship with nature is portrayed. These are important to understand if we are to integrate people’s cultural values and practices into conservation planning and implementation across different land use types. Given the well-documented reliance on natural resources, and the regular interaction with nature in the process of harvesting these resources, we expected to find familiarity with different landscape elements and their biota, as reported elsewhere.²⁶ We were also particularly curious as to whether a love for nature, an enjoyment of being in nature and an aesthetic appreciation of landscapes would be revealed, and in what terms. Given the dearth of literature on this in South Africa, it was difficult to predict what we would find.

FIGURE 1: Map showing the location in the Eastern Cape of the study sites (indicated by an asterisk): Grahamstown, Benton, Tharfield, Llangollen and Victoria Post.

Llangollen and Victoria Post are situated on relatively flat ground vegetated with Bhisho Thornveld⁸ characterised by open savanna, small trees of Acacia natalitia and scattered bush clumps dominated by Scutia myrtina, Rhus longispina, Euclea undulata and Gymnosporia capitata. Immediately to the east, west and south, within 2 km – 5 km, are deeply incised river valleys of the Tyume, Fish and Kat Rivers that are densely vegetated with Great Fish Thicket.

Grahamstown is for the most part situated within Bhisho Thornveld. Kowie Thicket⁸ predominates at the upper reaches of the Blaaukrans River at the south-east residential area and also on the commonage north of Grahamstown along the Botha’s River. Kowie Thicket is dominated by succulent Euphorbia and Aloe species with a thick understorey of thorny shrubs, woody lianas and shrubby succulents.

Based on our own perceptions of nature, our questioning was initially designed to elicit values such as the aesthetic beauty of nature or the wonders of nature, for example, spectacular scenery or a beautiful sunset. It soon became apparent that this line of questioning was inappropriate as local people did not attach these same values to their natural landscapes. These difficulties were compounded by the fact that most participants had not explicitly reflected on their relationship with natural landscapes before and found it difficult to express themselves. This difficulty was particularly true for people who had spent most of their lives in rural areas and thus lacked the experience of living in a place, such as a city, where they were unable to access familiar natural places.

The most effective method to gain information was ‘walk-in-the-woods’ interviews, that is, accompanying people on activities that brought them into regular contact with nature. Talking about their relationship with nature was something none of the respondents had ever done before and many participants expressed their pleasure and gratitude for having been given the opportunity to do so.

FIGURE 2: Typical ihlathi lesiXhosa (Albany Thicket) overlooking the Great Fish River.

Several religious rituals, facilitated by diviners (amagqirha), take place in the ihlathi lesiXhosa. The diviner is reportedly shown the site in a dream beforehand and it is here that gifts of traditional beer, cooked maize and tobacco are presented to the ancestors. Plant and animal materials necessary for traditional medicine, customs and rituals to appease the ancestors are believed to be available only in ihlathi lesiXhosa. These plants and animals are considered sacred and they are imbued with the spiritual power of the ancestors.

For many adult respondents, both rural and urban, the term ihlathi lesiXhosa represented not simply a vegetation type but also a powerful metaphor for shelter or protection, such as the traditional isiXhosa idiom uThixo ulihlathi lam (literally: God is my forest; figuratively: God is my refuge or protection). Similarly, it is with great pride and respect that a mother is referred to as ihlathi lokuzimela (‘forest of hiding’), which is indicative of her role as protector and provider for her family.

Respondents distinguished between ‘cool air’ in the forest and ‘hot air’ in the town or village. In this instance ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ were metaphors for negative and positive, respectively, and air can be translated as ‘spirit’.²⁹ Ihlathi lesiXhosa was considered to be positively charged, whilst the village environment was perceived to be negatively charged. The forest was therefore understood to be a place that bestows spiritual health and well-being (impilo), and it was therefore believed that without access to the ihlathi lesiXhosa one would become spiritually and culturally impoverished. Some village people referred to their urban kin as impious because they had limited contact with the forest ancestors.

The following quotes recorded in this study convey a profound appreciation of ihlathi lesiXhosa:

‘When I breathe the forest air and I take in the smell of the flowers and medicines I feel good. My troubles seem insignificant.’ (56-year-old man, Llangollen)
‘I go to the forest to collect wood and get away from my troubles; I like the fresh air. It makes me feel happy. When I’ve returned from the forest I feel I have received a blessing.’ (44-year-old woman, Tharfield)
‘Sometimes I walk with my dog or hunt in the forest, or I just sit in a quiet place to forget my worries.’ (59-year-old man, Tharfield)
‘I like going to the forest with my friends and mom to collect firewood. We gossip and my mom teaches me the names of trees and I teach my friends. I feel happy when I’m in the forest.’ (15-year-old girl, Tharfield).

Men also reported enjoying their time in the Xhosa forest where they may spend hours with their cattle and goats or walking with their dogs. Unlike women, who access the forest primarily in the context of work (such as fuelwood collection) or occasionally for rituals, many men spend time in the forest for purely recreational or spiritual purposes in addition to more utilitarian practices such as cattle herding or harvesting of medicinal plants. It is common for village men who are migrant workers to spend time alone in the forest a day or two before returning to their workplace. Besides the opportunity for personal reflection, this ritual forest walk, often to a remote place, is described as a spiritual sojourn and reports of encounters with clan totem animals (izilo zasekhaya) and messenger animals (izithunywa) were common. Despite the attraction of urban life, village people of different ages still had strong cultural associations with nature and remained hopeful that their children would maintain these ties:

‘Our children must go to the forest; they must know about everything in the forest; everything about being Xhosa is from the forest - it is the izithethe [the manner of doing things] of Xhosa people.’ (80-year-old man, Grahamstown)
‘I am showing my 3-year-old son traditional medicines from the forest. It is important that he knows these things [because] it is part of being Xhosa!’ (30-year-old man, Benton)

Trapping birds and hunting small game with dogs were common activities in the village study sites and were considered to be traditional sports for boys and young men. Traditional hunting was considered to be very different from poaching or commercial hunting and was described as a highly competitive sport that was said to sharpen the mind and body of both hunter and dog. Hunting dogs are skilled and disciplined. Traditional hunting with dogs has long been considered by conservation authorities as reprehensible and has been an illegal activity for many years in South Africa. Nevertheless, the men interviewed in this study (between 15 and 45 years old) showed remarkable insight and understanding of the habitats and habits of the animals they hunted. Hunters set bird traps using specific bait to catch different bird species and are able to identify bird calls and even call various birds by whistling or making a sucking sound on the back of the hand. When hunting with dogs, hunters are able to identify animal spoor and droppings and control the hunt, for example, by calling back the dogs when the flushed antelope is a female.

The passage of a Xhosa boy from boyhood to manhood is characterised by the rite of circumcision (ulwaluko) followed by a period of ritual seclusion in a temporary lodge. The lodge is located out of view from the public and preferably in close proximity to Xhosa forest and a river or stream. The lodge, called ibhoma, is constructed out of branches and covered with layers of grass to house the initiates (abakhwetha) during the period of seclusion. The central upright pole is preferably cut from an umnquma tree (Olea europaea L. subsp. africana) as it is symbolically linked to the ancestors who by this gesture are called upon to take care of the initiates. Lodge sites were considered sacrosanct and were often reported to be used by several generations of initiates. Village men often revisited their lodge sites to reminisce and spend time alone in nature. Urban men showed concern for the future of lodge sites on the Grahamstown commonage because of the spread of informal housing, illegal dumping and fuelwood collecting.

The findings from our study are borne out by a survey comparing the activities and perceptions of rural and urban households around ihlathi lesiXhosa (LM Mogano, unpublished data). The household survey showed that in both areas at least half the people still accessed the ’forest’ (a term widely used in the study area to denote any form of natural vegetation) on a regular basis, although the frequency of visits was higher in the rural areas. In town, commonly cited reasons for no longer going to the forest were the great distance to the forest, concerns about personal safety and reduced requirement for forest products because of the availability of alternatives, including electricity. In the villages, safety was also a common concern, but less so than in town. Urban and rural people shared many of the same positive feelings about nature (e.g. 73% of urban and 97% of rural respondents agreed that ‘nature inspires and revitalises me’ and 71% of urban and 79% of rural respondents agreed that they ‘feel something would be missing if [they] could not visit the forest’). In contrast to their rural counterparts, however, most urban people did not cite achieving physical well-being, relieving stress and seeking solitude as reasons for actually visiting the forest.

These findings point to the fact that people’s relationship with nature is being eroded by factors which prevent people from spending time in nature. Amongst these factors are increasing urbanisation, competing activities such as schooling, fear of crime and regulations restricting access to natural resources.³¹ A study of school-going children in two villages³¹ found that ecological knowledge and cultural environmental narratives were only passed down to a limited extent between generations. In many cases, parents’ fears about safety strongly impacted upon children’s access to nature, with girls being particularly affected. In the village where access to natural resources was limited by strict state regulations, children also showed lower levels of ecological knowledge. Many respondents in our study voiced concerns that the youth and urban population are becoming increasingly alienated from nature, and many expressed a wish that the younger generation should spend time in nature so that they could stay in touch with their cultural roots. This will only be possible if people’s continued access to natural resources, including for extractive use, is safeguarded.

Conservation policies in South Africa have, to date, almost exclusively reflected Western scientific values and beliefs, with an emphasis on protecting nature from human impacts, but the majority of South Africans do not generally value or understand biodiversity in this way.³² In southern Africa, conservation has a history of evictions of rural people to create protected areas,³³ which has left a negative perception of conservation as being largely a White middle-class pre-occupation opposed to development that modern conservation approaches have largely failed to dispel.^33,34 We suggest that local people’s values need to be incorporated into conservation plans and activities from the outset, in order to ensure that biodiversity conservation contributes to their well-being, including the maintenance and strengthening of their cultural identity.

In failing to understand and meaningfully engage with the values and world views of the majority of South Africa’s population regarding nature, we are missing an important opportunity for implementing conservation more effectively.²² The benefits of working with local people and taking advantage of opportunities presented by sacred sites,³⁵ indigenous bio-cultural values^36,37 and local rulemaking around resource use³⁸ have been increasingly documented and provide many encouraging examples worldwide. This integrated approach has particular relevance in areas such as the MPA, and other areas of high biodiversity throughout Africa and the rest of the developing world, which fall predominantly within human-dominated landscapes where most biodiversity is concentrated in various types of community lands. The likelihood of conserving significant areas of biodiversity in these areas in the form of wilderness or strictly protected areas is slim. Instead, conservation models that accommodate a mix of more and less pristine elements, and which acknowledge and work with the cultural values people attach to nature, will be more likely to achieve conservation goals.

People’s emotional ties to nature and their cultural values may offer a stronger incentive for conservation than economic arguments based on the livelihood values of nature, which are generally insufficient to motivate collective action.^39,40 One of the ways these incentives could be achieved within the South African context is to promote the conservation of cultural species in specific landscape niches, such as maintaining initiation sites and sacred sites within communal areas.¹⁴ The management of these sites should be incorporated into spatial biodiversity plans and mainstreamed into local government environmental decision-making processes to ensure that enclaves of biodiversity persist within communal lands. This process would work towards ensuring that conservation agendas are framed around local stakeholders’ interests and commitments³² and help towards local communities retaining their own cultural distinctiveness and connections to the land.

We are well aware that conservation and resource management in developing countries, including South Africa, is faced with great challenges in light of the dire poverty and continued marginalisation experienced by people living in these areas. We believe, however, that a better understanding of people’s values and world views can only improve efforts at resource management and nature conservation. This study has made it clear that the maintenance of biodiversity and natural vegetation is as much in the interest of the local community’s well-being as it is in the interest of global conservation planners.

2. Pretty J, Adam B, Berkes F, et al. The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: Towards integration. Conserv Soc. 2009;9(2):100–112.

3. Fowler PJ. World heritage cultural landscapes 1992–2002. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre; 2003.

4. Maffi L. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2005;34:599–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437

5. Wynberg R. A decade of biodiversity conservation and use in South Africa: Tracking progress from the Rio Earth Summit to the Johannesburg World Summit on sustainable development. S Afr J Sci. 2002;98:233–243.

6. Steenkamp Y, Van Wyk B, Victor J, et al. Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany. In: Mittermeier RA, Robles GP, Hoffmann M, et al, editors. Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions. Monterrey: CEMEX, 2004; p. 219–228.

7. Van Wyk AE, Smith GF. Regions of floristic endemism in southern Africa. Pretoria: Umdaus Press; 2001.

8. Mucina L, Rutherford MC, editors. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute; 2006.

9. Cowling RM, Proches S, Vlok JHJ. On the origin of southern African subtropical thicket vegetation. S Afr J Bot. 2005;71:1–23.

10. Cowling R, Pierce S. East of the Cape. Conserving Eden. Cape Town: Fernwood Press; 2009.

11. Leibbrandt M, Woolard C, Woolard I. The contribution of income component to income inequality in the rural former homelands of South Africa: A decomposable Gini analysis. J Afr Stud. 2000;9:79–99.

12. Cocks ML, Wiersum KF. The significance of biodiversity to rural households in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. For Trees Livelihoods. 2003;13:39–58.

13. Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE, Buiten E, Bird N. The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. For Policy Econ. 2007;9:558–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.004

14. Cocks ML. Bio-cultural diversity: Moving beyond the realm of ‘indigenous’ and ‘local’ people. Hum Ecol. 2006;34(2):185–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9013-5

15. Cocks ML, Bangay L, Shackleton CM, Wiersum KF. Rich man poor man – Inter household and community factors influencing the use of wild plant resources amongst rural households in South Africa. Int J Sust Dev World. 2008;15(3):198–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.3843/SusDev.15.3:3

16. Vlok JH, Euston-Brown D. Subtropical Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project: Biological Survey Report (Plants and Birds). Unpublished report. Port Elizabeth: Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth; 2002.

17. Evans NV, Avis AM, Palmer AR. Changes to the vegetation of the mid‐Fish River valley, Eastern Cape, South Africa, in response to land‐use, as revealed by a direct gradient analysis. Afr J Range Forage Sci. 1997;14(2):68–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10220119.1997.9647923, PMid:11034152

18. Cocks ML, Bangay L, Wiersum KF, Dold AP. Seeing the wood for the trees: The role of woody resources for the construction of gender specific household cultural artefacts in the non-traditional communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Environ Dev Sustain. 2006;8(4):519–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9053-4

19. Victor JE, Dold AP. Threatened plants of the Albany Centre of Floristic Endemism, South Africa. S Afr J Sci. 2003;99:437–446.

20. Knight RL. Private lands: The neglected geography. Conserv Biol. 1999;13(2):223–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002223.x

21. Scoones I, Melnyk M, Pretty JN. The hidden harvest: Wild foods and agriculture systems – A literature review and annotated bibliography. London: IIED, SIDA and WWF; 1992.

22. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Difford M, Campbell BM. Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. Conserv Biol. 2010;24(5):1348–1358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01494.x, PMid:20345404

23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: Current states and trends. Volume 1. Washington DC: Island Press; 2005

24. Egoh B, Rouget M, Reyers B, et al. Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review. Ecol Econ. 2007;63:714–721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.007

25. Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE. Use of woodland resources for direct household provisioning. In: Lawes MJ, Eeley HAC, Shackleton CM, Geach BGS, editors. Indigenous forests and woodlands in South Africa: Policy, people and practice. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2004; p. 195–225.

26. Anthony BP, Bellinger EG. Importance value of landscapes, flora and fauna to Tsonga communities in the rural areas of Limpopo Province, South Africa. S. Afr J Sci. 2007;103:148–154.

27. Møller V, editor. Living in Grahamstown East/Rini: A social indicators report. Research Report Series No. 6. Grahamstown: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Rhodes University; 2001.

28. Krog A. My heart is on my tongue: The untranslated self in a translated world. J Anal Psychol. 2008;53:225–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5922.2008.00718.x, PMid:18352948

29. Mini BM, editor. The greater dictionary of isiXhosa. Volume 2. Alice: University of Fort Hare; 2003.

30. Berg A. Ancestor reverence and mental health in South Africa. Transcult Psychiatry. 2003;40(2):194–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1363461503402004, PMid:12940645

31. Alexander J. Stories from forest, river and village: Exploring children’s cultural environmental narratives and their implications for community conservation. MA dissertation, Grahamstown, Rhodes University, 2011.

32. Wilhelm-Rechmann A, Cowling RM. Framing biodiversity conservation for decision-makers: Insights from four South African municipalities. Conserv Lett. 2011;4(1):73–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00149.x

33. Brockington D, Igoe J. Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conserv Soc. 2006;4:424–470.

34. Struwig J. South Africans’ attitudes towards the environment. In: Roberts B, Wa Kivilu M, Davids YD, editors. South African social attitudes. 2nd report: Reflections on the age of hope. South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS). Cape Town: HSRC Press, 2010; p. 198–219.

35. Dudley N, Bhagwat S, Higgins-Zogib L, Lassen B, Verschuuren B, Wild R. Conservation of biodiversity in sacred natural sites in Asia and Africa: A review of the scientific literature. In: Verschuuren B, Wild R, McNeely JA, Oviedo G, editors. Sacred natural sites: Conserving nature and culture. London and Washington DC: Earthscan, 2010; p. 19–32.

36. Sobrevila C. The role of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation: The natural but often forgotten partners. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2008.

37. Maffi L, Woodley E, editors. Bio-cultural diversity conservation. A global sourcebook. London and Washington DC: Earthscan, 2010; p. 3–11.

38. Persha L, Agrawal A, Chatre A. Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. Science. 2011;331:1606–1608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1199343, PMid:21436453

39. Ainslie A. When ‘community’ is not enough: Managing common property natural resources in rural South Africa. Dev South Afr. 1999;16(3):375–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03768359908440087

40. Infield M. Cultural values: A forgotten strategy for building community support for protected areas in Africa. Conserv Biol. 2001;15(3):800–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015003800.x