Importance of Heritage Sites in Tourism Development: South African Heritage Resources Agency briefing

Meeting report

South African Heritage Resources Agency

The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) briefed the Committee on the importance of heritage sites in tourism development. The delegation comprised of Ms Veliswa Baduza, Chief Executive Officer (CEO); Ms Catherine Motsisi, Chief Financial Officer (CFO); Ms Lungisa Malgas, Company Secretary, and Mr Gregory Ontong, Manager: Built Environment. Also in attendance was Mr Thabo Manetsi, National Department of Tourism (NDT), Director: Western and Northern Cape Leading in Heritage, and Ms Neesha Padayachee SA Tourism, Global Manager: Product.

Ms Baduza explained that SAHRA was established in terms of Section 11 of the National Heritage Resources Act No.25 of 1999 (NHRA), which outlined an integrated interactive system for the management of the national heritage resources of SA. As the implementing agency of the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC), SAHRA played a critical role in the identification, conservation, protection and promotion of SA’s heritage resources for present and future generations. The SAHRA’s strategic outcome orientated goals were touched on. Amongst them were social cohesion and upliftment as well as regulated and protected resources. 

An explanation on the governance of heritage sites in SA was given. Heritage sites in SA were graded in three categories ie Grade 1, 2 and 3. The SAHRA was responsible for Grade 1 heritage resources. Grade 1 represented heritage estate of national significance such as Parliament, which was declared a heritage site in 2014. The SAHRA ‘s role was to advise, assist and provide professional expertise to any authority responsible for the management of the national estate at provincial or local level, and assist any other body concerned with heritage resources management. Provinces were responsible for the declaration of Grade 2 heritage resources. The MEC of a province played a critical role in ensuring that the provincial heritage regulating authority was adequately funded to execute this mandate. The provincial heritage regulating authority was responsible for declaring heritage resources that were of significance to the province. Local Government was responsible for the execution of the NHRA at local level. Municipalities were responsible for declaring the heritage resources that had cultural significance at local level.

Ms Baduza said that Heritage Resources could be defined as objects of cultural significance; places, buildings, structures and    equipment of cultural significance; places to which oral traditions were attached or associated with the living heritage included intangible heritage such as rain making; historical settlements like District Six;

landscapes, sacred sites and natural features of cultural significance such as Mapungubwe and Maropeng; graves and burial grounds of struggle heroes and heroines; and also maritime underwater cultural heritage such as shipwrecks. The SAHRA named a few examples of heritage resources. The SAHRA had a portfolio consisting of 36 properties across eight provinces. Amongst the functions of SAHRA was to establish national principles, standards and policy, and to ccoordinate the management of heritage resources as well as to identify, record and manage nationally significant heritage resources. The regulated administrative functions of SAHRA included amongst others the reviewing and assessing of permit applications, adjudicating permits, issuing permits and conducting site inspections. Apart from the prescribed and regulated functions of the SAHRA it also managed transformative programmes and projects, which included the roll-out of the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS), the training of heritage practitioners in using of the SAHRIS and to survey maritime and underwater cultural heritage. The Committee was provided with lists of transformative projects and of declared sites and objects.

On skills development, amongst other initiatives SAHRA had an integrated heritage resources management course with Rhodes University and a youth skills development with the Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality and Sports Sector Education and Training Authority (CATHSSETA) and the Kara Institute. Some of the SAHRA’s successes included participation in the SA World Convention Committee, which assisted in the management of SA’s World Heritage sites. It was also actively involved in assisting NDT with the development of a Heritage Tourism Strategy. SAHRA furthermore developed an electronic system for the management of heritage resources ie SAHRIS. Challenges which the SAHRA encountered were collaboration with the tourism sector on the development of training material for tour guides, the historical skewed focus on some heritage resources, competing needs i.e. heritage conservation versus development, lack of skills in the heritage resources management sector, limited capacity of the SAHRA particularly in its core business, non-functional provincial heritage resources authorities, the geographical spread of heritage resources nationally and also the neglect of heritage resources.

In conclusion, Ms Baduza stated that heritage resource management was at the core of any tourism business, and whilst the NDT was progressing on the development of a Heritage Tourism Strategy, there should be on-going collaboration on all new projects undertaken by the SAHRA.

The partnership should be enhanced to ensure that the NDT should become a critical stakeholder from the inception of projects. The SAHRA therefore committed itself to start a process of entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the NDT so that the partnership could be clearly defined.

Discussion

Ms P Adams (ANC) asked how the SAHRA intended enhancing partnerships with tourism business. Heritage and tourism went hand in hand. She suggested that the SAHRA do an audit on what they needed. What was the SAHRA doing to acquire the skills they needed? Did SAHRA offer bursaries in areas of heritage studies?  How did SAHRA promote or enhance jobs within its field? She felt that the SAHRA needed to work in collaboration with the Department of Basic Education and perhaps a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be considered. On governance of heritage sites, she asked whether the SAHRA had offices at provincial and local government level. How did the SAHRA protect heritage sites? She further asked how the SAHRA preserved oral traditions. Oral traditions were lost when older members of society passed away. How was the knowledge of the Khoi and the San protected? She asked whether gravesites abroad were the responsibility of the SAHRA and the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC). How was heritage linked with tourism? The Committee was passionate about domestic tourism. What was the SAHRA doing on Local Economic Development (LED) to promote local tourism? She asked whether municipalities provided the SAHRA with enough support in the protection of heritage sites.

Ms Baduza responded that the DAC had to deal with arts, heritage and culture. The DAC did have a heritage promotion branch. The DAC did offer bursaries for youngsters to study towards becoming heritage professionals. The courses on offer were not per se on heritage but were for archaeology etc., thereafter the individual could veer off into heritage. There was no specific course on heritage. Regarding skills the SAHRA had entered into an agreement with Rhodes University to enhance skills within the profession. The idea was to mitigate the skills shortage. It was not an easy profession to be in.  The Department of Environmental Affairs had sub sectors that dealt with heritage. The DAC also had a programme where artists went to schools to teach learners about art. The SAHRA had asked the DAC to broaden the programme to incorporate heritage. She noted the suggestion made that Basic Education curriculum should include heritage. On the SAHRA having provincial and local offices she said that the SAHRA did have provincial heritage authorities. The Director General of the DAC met with the provincial heads of departments (HODs). The SAHRA also met HODs in the Western Cape Province, the KwaZulu-Natal Province and the Eastern Cape Province. Heritage authorities in these Provinces were functional whereas in the other provinces they were not. She agreed that the SAHRA should collaborate with local government. The South African Local Government Association (SALGA) had approached the SAHRA and the point was made that municipalities had other major priorities to contend with. These include electricity, water and housing provision etc. Heritage was considered a by the way issue. She acknowledged that dialogue was needed. The SALGA did have a pilot project in place to promote heritage at local government level. The SAHRA endorsed the project. The SAHRA had recently repatriated the remains of struggle stalwarts that had been buried in Moscow, Russia. The graves in Russia still remained. The SAHRA did have projects that it was busy with outside of SA. It was erecting a monument in Mozambique. In France there was a memorial and museum honouring South Africans who had perished in the Battle of Delville Wood during World War One. The museum and memorial was to be transformed to truly reflect what had happened as the construction had taken place during the 1980s under Apartheid.  On skills development the Sol Plaatjie University had a programme for heritage studies. The idea was to upgrade the programme to a degree course. The SAHRA had an MOU with the University.

Mr G Krumbock (DA) said going through the briefing document he got a sense of how difficult the job of the SAHRA was. The SAHRA maintained and protected sites that did not even belong to them. He felt that different departments and their entities needed to work together with the SAHRA. He got the impression that things were not going too well. He illustrated the difficulty of the SAHRA’s job by way of giving examples of heritage sites in his own constituency that were in a bad state. Not only were the heritage sites in a bad state there was also the added problem of a lack of road signage. He suggested that there be an inter-ministerial and an inter-departmental effort taking place. The heritage site where the Apartheid police had captured former President Mandela was overgrown with weeds and not maintained. There were numerous examples of heritage sites that were in disrepair due to a lack of funding. The sense he was getting was that the SAHRA lacked funding and that departmental cooperation was not forthcoming. How did the SAHRA see the future going forward? He suggested that perhaps legislation was needed to compel provinces and municipalities to work more closely with the SAHRA and to provide required funding. Australia was doing well on appreciating their heritage. SA had not reached that point as yet. He asked how the SAHRA saw SA getting to the level of excellence that other countries had.   

Ms Baduza noted the comments made. She responded that the SAHRA did have a project to maintain and upgrade graves. The SAHRA was also expanding its work to concentration camps. It was collaborating with many stakeholders. The DAC was working on a National Liberation Heritage Route to transform heritage in SA. She would like to see the work that Australia had done. In moving forward the DAC was reviewing the White Paper on heritage. After 20 years ways for improving were being looked at. Best practices around the world would be looked at. Countries like Germany had done good work. The three sphere management of heritage needed to be strengthened. Heritage sites could be of national, provincial or local importance.

Mr Ontong stated that the NHRA prescribed the manner in which the SAHRA operated. The SAHRA was responsible for managing national heritage sites, provinces were in charge of provincial and local government were in charge of local heritage sites.  When sites were identified then the significance of sites were measured whether they were of national, provincial or of local significance. The SAHRA could not be responsible for every resource, hence the three tier system.

Mr J Vos (DA) said linking heritage with tourism had benefits. The abilities of municipalities had a direct impact on the work of the SAHRA. When municipalities failed to meet their mandates then tourism failed.  The problem was that many municipalities had huge challenges. Tourism, culture and heritage were not a huge priority for municipalities. The NDT, the DAC and Department of Environmental Affairs should be one ministry as their issues were interconnected. He felt that there was a disconnect on what the SAHRA wished to achieve. The SAHRA could not deliver if some departments and municipalities did not provide it with funding and resources in order for it to do what needed to be done.  The situation became worse when the SAHRA declared more sites as heritage sites. It was easy to declare a site but it was difficult to maintain and preserve it. The budget had to be there and there had to be a willingness by provinces and municipalities to do their part. The marketing of sites was very important. The idea should be to inculcate a culture of travel into South Africans.  The SAHRA’s work was linked to the Domestic Tourism Strategy. He asked what models existed worldwide on the funding of heritage sites. Had the SAHRA looked into it? Had the SAHRA also done research on the possibility of a heritage levy? He understood that collaboration with municipalities was needed but municipalities were already facing challenges on delivering the basics. To add to the burden of municipalities would not work. What suggestion did the SAHRA have? He pointed out that the Cango Caves was a heritage site and asked what the SAHRA’s involvement at the site was. He was aware that the SAHRA did not have its own tour guides but felt that tour guides needed to be informed about heritage sites and what their significance was. Was the SAHRA collaborating with tour guide associations?

Mr Ontong responded that the Cango Caves was the responsibility of the Western Cape Province. Once the SAHRA had delegated authority to a province or municipality then the SAHRA was no longer involved on that particular heritage site. There were however many issues over budgets. In Langa for instance the City of Cape Town had to provide housing but there were also heritage sites in the township. The SAHRA worked with the City of Cape Town on Langa in order to strike a balance.

Ms E Masehela (ANC) noted that all heritage sites were found in municipalities. The SAHRA classified heritage sites either as being national, provincial or municipal heritage sites. How did the SAHRA classify heritage sites? Robben Island had gone through a period of mismanagement. What was the situation at present at Robben Island? Was it being maintained?  

Mr Ontong stated that Robben Island had its own management structure. If maintenance was needed at Robben Island then the SAHRA issued a permit for the go ahead. The DAC and the Department of Public Works were responsible for the actual work that needed to be done.

Ms Baduza added that Robben Island had its own Board; it was best that the Committee asked the Board to explain what the state of affairs at Robben Island was. The Board had tried its utmost to turn things things.

Ms A Matshobeni (EFF) said that South Africans tend to forget their past freedom struggle heroes. Colonisation and Apartheid had got rid of black culture and heritage. Efforts should be made to recapture and protect it. The problem with domestic tourism was that not enough attention was given to the culture and heritage of black people. The SAHRA looked after 36 properties across eight provinces. She was surprised that the Voortrekker Monument was considered a heritage site. She asked should Africa’s 100 years wars not be commemorated. Blacks fought the British for a period of 100 years in the Eastern Cape. When last had members of the SAHRA been to see the grave of Mr Robert Sobukwe? The gravesite had been vandalised. The list of struggle stalwarts whose graves were to be rehabilitated and memorials constructed were all ANC members. Was it only ANC members who had been the forefathers of SA’s democracy? She asked who occupied the Voortrekker Monument Building and how much rental was being paid.

Ms Baduza said that the SAHRA was working on upgrading the entire cemetery where Mr Robert Sobukwe was buried. Any action of SAHRA could not be done unilaterally, there had to be engagement with others. The SAHRA had engaged with the family of Mr Robert Sobukwe. Construction was taking place at the site. Even the roads to the site were being upgraded.

Ms S Xego-Sovita (ANC) asked how the SAHRA was structured as an agency. The SAHRA had not mentioned important issues like poverty alleviation, job creation and women empowerment. The President had mentioned these issues. It was all good and well the SAHRA identified and declared sites as heritage sites. What was it doing to make sure heritage sites were accessible, protected and attracted tourists. She also asked whether there were spin-offs to nearby communities who were in proximity to heritage sites. How did the “statues must fall” campaign impact upon the SAHRA? Domestic tourism figures had dropped, what did it mean to the SAHRA? Did ordinary South African know the importance of visiting heritage sites? The SAHRA needed to play a role in the marketing of heritage sites. She asked whether there was public participation before sites were declared heritage sites. What were the standards required for a site to be declared a World Heritage Site?

Ms Baduza explained that the structure of SAHRA comprised of a Council that had fifteen members. Nine of the members should be from the nine provincial heritage authorities. The Minister appointed the six remaining members of the Council. At the present moment the Council only had thirteen members as two members from the provincial heritage authorities from the Northern Cape and Mpumalanga Provinces were not present. The SAHRA also had a CEO and had various units. Job creation and poverty alleviation was something that SAHRA was passionate about. The empowerment of women was also considered important. When monuments were built recruitment was done from local communities. Communities were involved. 

Mr Ontong responded that it was difficult for SAHRA to get involved in job creation. He pointed out that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) identified World Heritage Sites.

Ms Baduza on the “statues must fall” campaign said that South Africans needed to understand SA’s heritage. Heritage needed to reflect all histories. All stories needed to be told. She said that public participation was critical when sites were declared heritage sites. The public had 60 days within which to comment when a site was declared. The SAHRA tried to ensure that sites were up to par.

The Chairperson asked what the structure of the SAHRA’s budget was, and whether it was sufficient to cover the work that the SAHRA needed to do? Given that heritage sites were divided amongst the three tiers of government ie national, provincial and municipal, how did the SAHRA work with everybody? If there were not many professionals in the heritage arena should the SAHRA not ensure that heritage formed part of the curriculum of the Department of Basic Education? How did the SAHRA brand South Africa’s heritage? Did the SAHRA expect others to brand South Africa’s heritage? She also asked whether the SAHRA had been involved in any form of litigation. Perhaps there were heritage sites that had land or legal issues attached to them. Were communities involved when it came to heritage? She furthermore asked how the SAHRA popularised heritage sites. Did museums fall under the SAHRA? The education of tour guides on heritage was important.

Ms Motsisi responded that the SAHRA did not have a huge budget. Ninety nine percent of its budget came from the DAC. For the financial year 2015/16 a total of R58m had been received. Sixty percent of the budget went towards the compensation of employees. Funding was received for specific projects. Funding was considered inadequate. She confirmed that the SAHRA did not have enough professionals and experts, and capacity was hence very limited. On the structure of the SAHRA a turnaround strategy had been undertaken but the structure could not be funded. The SAHRA had done an assessment of the NHRA. The SAHRA’s structure was not aligned with its strategy.  

Mr Ontong said that the SAHRA did engage with the Department of Basic Education. Heritage had to be brought into its curriculum Its Maritime Unit was to work on underwater heritage preservation.

Ms Baduza said that SAHRA had worked with the Department of Education in the Western Cape on a project in Mitchells Plain, which was a monument to the efforts of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in SA’s freedom struggle. Students who had walked past the monument had realised its significance. Pervasive education was needed. Museums were the responsibility of the DAC.

Ms Malgas stated that the SAHRA did receive correspondence from lawyers representing mining companies. The Department of Mineral Resources issued licences to mining companies to mine. The SAHRA was required to issue permits after a heritage impact study of the area had been done. The SAHRA checked whether areas had graves. Thus far the SAHRA had not had any litigation. 

Dr Sibusiso Khuzwayo, Committee Content Adviser, referred to a presentation which the SAHRA had made to the Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture in August 2015. He asked for clarity as to whether hotels formed part of the SAHRA’s products, and were the buildings under SAHRA to be declared hotels?

Ms Motsisi said it was not the intention of the SAHRA to run hotels. The SAHRA had a property management strategy but it was in its infancy and had to be enhanced with its role-players. The issue was about having funding models to continue the maintenance of properties.

Ms Baduza added that SAHRA did not own any properties. The SAHRA owned the protection and preservation of sites.

Mr Vos said that the SAHRA needed to promote heritage sites more. Marketing was considered key. There was a place in SA’s history for the Voortrekker Monument as well. He was not too convinced that it was a good thing that when the SAHRA handed over a site to a province or municipality then the SAHRA no longer had any responsibility over that site. He felt it was something that needed to be relooked at. The SAHRA should still have responsibility over a site even though it had been handed over to a province or municipality. He pointed out that the state of affairs at Robben Island was an insult to the history of SA. On the Langa Township issue in Cape Town he felt that new developments in the Township had to incorporate heritage.  Vredefort Dome had similar problems as those at Robben Island. Both these places had been badly run. What were the challenges at these places of historic significance?

Ms Baduza responded that the SAHRA would intensify its heritage marketing efforts.

Ms Adams re-asked how SAHRA preserved oral traditions. On a visit to Grahamstown she had not been allowed to visit the gravesite of struggle stalwart Mr Steve Biko; there were protocols that had to be observed in visiting the gravesite.

Mr Manetsi said that he used to be an official of the SAHRA. He confirmed that the SAHRA did look at oral traditions and their preservation. The SAHRA had a holistic approach on the preservation of heritage objects. The SAHRA had engaged with research institutions to record memories that were done orally. There were certain protocols that had to be observed at gravesites. The SAHRA interacted with communities and stakeholders in order to be better informed on protocols. He confirmed that UNESCO had criteria that had to be met in order for a site to qualify as a World Heritage Site. The NDT had a MOU with the DAC on issues of heritage and cultural tourism. The SAHRA was a key stakeholder on cultural tourism. The NDT worked with the SAHRA on the conservation of heritage and promoting heritage sites. The University of Pretoria was training tour guides on World Heritage Sites.

Ms Padayachee stated that SA Tourism’s mandate was to market SA domestically and internationally. If the mandate were carried out correctly then jobs would be created. Much of SA Tourism’s work was based on research. Cultural experience was in demand by both local and foreign tourists. When tourism packages were put together both hard and soft cultural activities were packaged. It was important to know the needs of the market. SA Tourism worked with tour operators and had hosted a cultural and heritage workshop some years back.  SA needed to be sold in such a way that that it brought in revenue. 

Committee Minutes

Minutes dated the 21 August 2015 were adopted as amended.

Draft Oversight Programme to KwaZulu-Natal

The Committee very briefly discussed its oversight programme to the KwaZulu-Natal Province.

The meeting was adjourned.