Department of Tourism; Department of Arts and Culture; National House of Traditional Leaders; and South African Heritage Resources Agency: Heritage and Cultural Tourism as a means of economic development for rural communities: Hearings

Meeting report

Introduction and welcome
The Chairperson welcomed Members, delegates, all participants and guests. Referring to the 2010 FIFA World Cup, he said that South Africa had experienced a technological revolution, in which, for the first time, millions had been able to watch World Cup matches by means of devices such as cellular telephones configured to receive television pictures and access to matches had been further extended by means of fan parks, not only in South Africa but in other countries, such as Nigeria. ‘A re-branding [of] tourism experience was born.’ South Africa’s streets were clean, and its security forces made them safe. Together South Africans had taken Africa to a world-class level and rediscovered themselves. For this, he thanked South Africa’s leadership in Government, in the private sector, in civil society, as well as all the political parties for a great partnership.

He noted that the meeting’s objectives were to develop and improve cultural and heritage tourism, and to improve the profile of existing heritage sites, for the purpose of developing their value to the public and for purposes of tourism. The meeting would also seek to highlight challenges to this kind of tourism for the purpose of improving access, particularly for heritage sites in rural areas, where one often found that there were no roads by which to access those sites. Moreover, road signs were lacking to direct visitors to those sites. Also these sites were not on the Global Positioning System (GPS). As a result, these sites remained unknown. It was important to learn from regional and international experience. It was important to consider the potential contribution of cultural and heritage tourism to job creation, for example, increasing the opportunities for crafters in rural areas, who could have partnerships with some of these heritage sites. There was potential to increase the income from activities that were already taking place, to improve the crafters’ access to markets, to create the necessary synergy for growth, and to improve the geographical spread of tourism so that visitors to Table Mountain, for example, would also visit Soweto. ‘Everything started with a quiet discussion.’

The Chairperson proposed a summit in September 2010, during Heritage Month, to take further the outcome of this meeting and make cultural and heritage tourism the best it could be.

Department of Arts and Culture. Presentation
Mr Irwin Langeweld, Director:Heritage, Department of Arts and Culture (DAC), presenting on behalf of Mr Themba Wakashe, Director-General, DAC, and Mr Vusithemba Ndima, Acting Director-General, DAC, from whom apologies had been received. He stated that South African heritage had the potential to contribute significantly to the country’s economic development. According to a 2004 South African Tourism (Satour) report, the tourism industry had identified museums, South African cuisine, African curio shops and township experiences as product gaps that required improvement and diversification. There was also a strong perception that although the cultural resource was seen as a strong advantage, the industry believed that it was underperforming relative to its potential.

The Department submitted that cultural products needed to be more focused, more authentic and more sophisticated. Heritage sites of local, provincial and national significance formed part of the tourism project. World Heritage Sites were the joint responsibility of the Department and the Department of Environmental Affairs. There was a need for greater collaboration on strategy and management of these important resources. The tourism industry had a tourism levy which was reinvested into the industry. While the cultural and heritage sector was an important part of tourism, none of the levy went directly to the sector. This needed to be rectified. There were discussions in the heritage sector for a heritage levy, alternatively for modalities that would result in the sharing and fair distribution of the tourism levy.

The Department recommended that annual cultural festivals, such as the Grahamstown National Arts Festival, the Annual Jazz Festival, and Macufe Festival, which were supported by the Government, should be used to mobilise and attract tourists. There was also an increasing market for battlefield tours – these attracted researchers and military buffs. It was important to promote, with a view to attracting tourists, craft outlets that sold crafts produced by diverse cultural groups, the graves of kings and queens of historical significance, and the grave sites of struggle heroes.

The Department noted that globally the tourism industry was one of the fastest growing industries. This offered opportunities not only for the growth of the industry in South Africa but also for the expansion of the South African economy. There was a need for aligning the programmes of various governmental departments with regard to tourism, for example, the tourism indaba and the exhibition on things of beauty, and Heritage Month with Tourism Month.

Since international tourists often crossed borders to enjoy wildlife in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, and since South Africa shared cultures with many SADC countries, there was a need for an integrated regional approach to the development of tourism that encompassed the whole region. Cultural villages, museums, monuments and galleries were to be found throughout the country.

Because of the importance of culture in the tourism industry, the Department was collaborating with the Department of Tourism to mainstream culture in tourism activities, as well as making tourists an essential part of the audience in the many arts, culture and heritage festivals that took place in the country. The two Departments were also working together to develop a strategy for heritage and social history tourism over a period of the next five years. This strategy would produce a comprehensive plan to engender synergies between culture and tourism.

Discussion
Ms T Tshivhase (ANC) highlighted the dependence of rural people on arts and culture and asked what was being done to assist them.

Mr Langeweld replied that the Department had an arts and crafts initiative aimed to assist in particular rural communities, especially women. This initiative covered all provinces. The Department had had the first opportunity to exhibit the initiative at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Also results of the initiative had been exhibited and sold at the Pan-African Exhibition at Sandton during the FIFA World Cup. 

The Chairperson said that although the meeting was now being conducted as a hearing, he wished to maintain the spirit of a seminar, which had been the original intention. Therefore even non-Members of Parliament could ask questions of clarification.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) asked when the strategy for cultural and heritage tourism would be completed and implemented.

Mr Langeweld replied that the Department had, as one of its key strategic objectives in the current financial year, the intention to negotiate and sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Tourism.

A Member asked if any research had been conducted on the origin of arts and crafts that were being sold in South Africa. He felt that some items sold had been imported from China. Therefore perhaps a co-operative should be established to promote genuine South African arts and crafts both in South Africa and overseas.

The Chairperson agreed that the above point needed some research. He doubted that artists would be content with mechanical reproduction of their crafts.

Mr Langeweld replied that the Department had not yet explored the authenticity of craft products that were available in the country. Such an exploration should be a key objective of the strategy that was being developed in conjunction with the Department of Tourism.

Mr Langeweld said that the Department had not yet completed research to quantify the extent to which cultural heritage contributed to the South African economy, but had this year begun to undertake such a study. There would be collaboration with the Department of Tourism, and it was hoped that this study would inform the cultural and heritage strategy.

Mr Langeweld pointed out that the Satour report of 2004 might be outdated.

Ms M Shinn (DA) asked if any market research would be carried out before the end of the year on the economic potential of cultural and heritage tourism.

Mr Langeweld replied that the Department was in the process of beginning such research. He confirmed that it was an internal Departmental initiative.

Ms Shinn was concerned that it was not being outsourced to a professional market research company.

Mr Langeweld confirmed that it was being driven by the Department but would be carried out by a professional market research company.

The Chairperson was aware of similar research carried out by the Human Sciences Research Council but was not sure if this research substantiated the above observations. He asked the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA) if it had done such research.

Mr Dumisani Sibayi, Executive Officer, SAHRA, replied that at present the organisation had not gathered such information, but was endeavouring to collaborate with the relevant institutions. His organisation was concerned with conservation rather than research, and relied on other institutions for research and SAHRA worked closely with them.

The Chairperson noted that it was unfair that none of the tourism industry’s tourism levy was reinvested directly into the cultural and heritage sector, while this sector was an important part of tourism. He sought more information.

Department of Tourism. Presentation
Ms Sindiswa Nhlumayo, Deputy Director-General: Tourism Development Programme, Department of Tourism, indicated the background to the Department of Tourism’s proposed approach to developing a culture heritage and tourism strategy for South Africa in the context of rural development. The Department’s rationale for its approach was that culture and heritage tourism offered an increased diversity of experiences for visitors, and an improved sustainability for cultural and heritage places through a higher public profile and educational awareness. Also culture and heritage tourism allowed more South Africans and visitors to share the rewarding and enormously varied opportunities for exploring the individual stories, communities, places and ideas that shaped our social and physical environment. The needs for the strategy emanated from the White Paper on Sustainable Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa (1996); the Global Competitiveness Study (2003); the Draft National Tourism Sector Strategy (2010); and the draft cooperation agreement between the Department and the Department of Arts and Culture (2010).

Culture and heritage tourism had the potential to improve the economic vitality of rural communities; broaden South Africa’s tourism base; and improve awareness, appreciation and conservation of physical and intangible heritage. Globally, this type of tourism had been growing but it was largely invisible to Government and the tourism industry. Lately, jurisdictions around the world had come to recognise the considerable benefits of culture and heritage tourism.

Its primary benefits included long term economic value; high sustainable growth rates; the generation of investments for the development of heritage products; complementing and engaging other tourism products; and the rejuvenation of communities. It facilitated these in a low impact, protective and expansionary way.

Its non-economic benefits were to promote, protect and sustain the heritage base; to address the traditions and values that defined the nations and communities; to recognise multicultural legacies linking nations; and to engage local, provincial and national governments.

It had further important educational functions. Culture and heritage tourism existed in many parts of South Africa, but its potential was under-realised. Its profile was largely absent. However, the opportunity existed to stimulate and nurture it by incorporating it in relevant Government policies and giving it the attention that it deserved.

The strategy would examine issues pertinent to culture and heritage such as concept definition; global trends and developments; economic indicators; leadership options; key stakeholders and partners; markets and products; and priorities and classification.

Ms Nhlumayo explained definitions. Culture related to society’s history, beliefs, values, traditions and icons as manifested in an artistic format. It embraced indigenous and natural heritage. Tangible heritage related to built structures and surrounds, cultural landscapes, historical sites, areas and precincts, ruins, archaeological and maritime sites, sites associated with mining, industrial, scientific and agricultural heritage, sites of important events and commemorations, and collections and created landscapes

Intangible heritage related to oral traditions, languages, rituals and beliefs, social practices, knowledge, human activities, multicultural interactions, and events, festivals, stories and histories that shaped the essence and character of South Africa and South Africans.

Cultural heritage tourism related to sustainable tourism activity that was or could be aligned to culture, tangible and intangible heritage.

Sustainable tourism related to its meeting the needs of current and future generations through integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity.

Ms Nhlumayo said that tourism was a global industry that had enjoyed strong growth. In 2009 there were 880 million international arrivals throughout the world. The number of international arrivals was forecast to grow at around 3-5%. South Africa in 2009 attracted 1.1% of international arrivals with around 9.9 million visitors. South Africa was a long haul destination reliant on transport by air, sea and land. In 2015 the number was expected to reach 13.5 million visitors. International visitors represented 25% of tourists to South Africa with domestic tourists representing 75%. International visitors spent R79.2 billion (78%) and domestic tourists spent R22.4 billion (22%). Expenditure was weighted towards international visitors in terms of tourists’ yields. Tourism represented about R189.4 billion (7.9%) of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and direct and indirect employment of 919 000 people or 7% of the country’s workforce.

The cultural and heritage objectives of cultural heritage tourism were to be aligned in terms of product development and marketing, with an integrated rural tourism development strategy. Rural tourism was useful for a country with a majority of people in rural areas. Industrialisation and development had had an urban-centric approach. Urbanisation led to falling income levels and lesser job opportunities.

Cultural heritage tourism contributed to a solution by a growing interest in heritage and culture, improved accessibility and environmental consciousness. Any form of tourism that showcased the rural life, art, culture and heritage at rural locations thereby benefited the local communities economically, socially as well as allowing interaction between the tourists and the locals for a more enriching tourism experience.

Ms Nhlumayo indicated trends and issues in culture and heritage tourism. It was one of the rapidly expanding tourism segments in terms of visitor numbers globally. Its growth was driven by discretionary income and personal interests. Regardless of primacy of travel motivations there was a strong propensity for tourists to visit culture and heritage attractions. Culture and heritage tourism identified and presented the places where national or local values were created and continued to reside. It could be integrated into other tourism experiences. Changing travel patterns stimulated culture and heritage tourism. Access to technology was critical to decision-making. Political championship was crucial for culture and heritage tourism.

Economic benefits of culture and heritage tourism were many, and included, in terms of the highest yield, spending 38% more per day and staying 34% longer, and a stimulation of retail sales. The return on investment from programmes to stimulate depth and breadth in tourism, would include the creation of new markets for local regional arts and crafts, the extension of the tourism seasons, and encouraging the adaptation of existing products. It was important to spread economic benefits across broader geographic area through themed routes rather than single locations.

A study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the economic importance of culture indicated that, in several major economies, the value of cultural industries was between 3% and 6% of the total economy between 1998 and 2002. In Australia it was 3.1% of the total economy; in Canada 3.5%; in France 2.8%; in the United Kingdom 5.8%; and in the United States 3.3%. More than 50% of tourist activity in Europe was driven by cultural heritage and cultural tourism.

Ms Nhlumayo reviewed a case study of Thailand, where there was a Royal Project to encourage hill tribe villagers to shift from the cultivation of opium poppies to alternative crops. The drug industry threatened not only the natural resources of the regions, but also the cultural heritage of the area. The Royal Project combines agriculture and cultural elements. It supported more than 100 000 people in 36 rural projects in five provinces. International tourists visited the Project in increasing numbers. Thai people had found a means to sustain themselves economically and preserve their unique cultural heritage. The main focus was farming, but visitors also experienced the local culture of the villages through overnight stays, trekking, attending traditional ceremonies as well as insight in the important role of natural resources and management according to local wisdom.

Ms Nhlumayo reviewed a case study of India where there was a rural village project in which each state was requested to submit one proposal for the promotion of rural tourism. Based on merit 10 projects were identified per annum for implementation. An assistance scheme provided for improvement of the surroundings of the village; improvement to local roads; illumination in the village; solid waste and sewerage management; construction of wayside amenities; and procurement of equipment related to tourism. An assistance scheme provided for refurbishment of the monuments; signage; and reception. The project provided for other activities related to tourism, such as tourist accommodation, and management of assets.

Ms Nhlumayo reviewed a case study of Singapore where home stays were promoted with the purpose of encouraging rural villagers to open their homes to foreign guests so that they could have a taste of the village lifestyle to cherish for a lifetime. Traditional villages were positioned as the fastest and easiest way for visitors to get to know real locals. Visitors established a bond with their warm and welcoming families who will treat them like family members, and experienced the full spectrum of village life such as home cooking and traditional games. Visitors enjoyed cultural dances, music performances and participated at local weddings. They lived as part of the family, and returned home with memorable cultural experiences and friendship of a family that would be happy to welcome them when they returned. Participating families committed to the programme and to welcome guests. They were carefully selected and conformed to guidelines set by the national department. As to marketing, promotional material was developed to market families; a mechanism was put in place to monitor visitor satisfaction; guidelines were established on how visitors should behave; and funding was in place to support concept development, implementation and marketing.

The situation in South Africa was that the country had a wealth of culture and heritage related tourism products that were of global significance. South Africa was a true melting point of a number of different cultures that provided something unique and exciting as a tourist destination. In addition a number of World Heritage Sites (natural and cultural) had been declared. A number of key tourist attractions had already been developed.

Ms Nhlumayo illustrated examples of South Africa’s diverse cultures (slides 26 and 27), and gave examples of a number of world heritage sites – natural and cultural (slides 28 and 29 [Robben Island]). There were a number of well developed tourist attractions such as Freedom Park (slide 30) and Maropeng (slide 31).

Ms Nhlumayo said that the following would deliver the strategy: the Department of Tourism (at national and provincial levels); the Department of Arts and Culture (also at national and provincial levels); the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; the Departments of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; tour operators; and a Culture and Heritage Advisory Group.

The Department of Tourism would build culture and heritage into its objectives and structure as an integral part of the tourism mix. The Department of Arts and Culture would foster support for tourism by leveraging links with Government, private sector and communities. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform would be act as the custodian for rural development and community empowerment. The Departments of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs would support economic development across the country and foster community initiatives. Tour operators would package attractions for tourists. The Culture and Heritage Advisory Group would be made up of all stakeholders to oversee finalisation of the strategy.

Key elements of the action plan would be leadership, partnership and resources; product and market development; communication and profile raising.

The Department envisaged ‘low hanging fruits’. These included completion of an agreement of cooperation agreement with the Department of Arts and Culture covering cooperation in the development of a strategy; positioning festivals and events; packaging and marketing of heritage sites; integration of culture into marketing platforms; integration of culture and heritage in mainstream tourism; positioning of films and documentaries to tell the South African stories; auditing and mapping of cultural and heritage attractions; and funding of culture, heritage and rural tourism projects through a social responsibility programme.

The next step would be a culture and heritage tourism workshop to map out and audit what existed in all provinces; establish a mechanism to lay the foundation for a national strategy; study international best practices; and consider marketing, packaging, technology, sponsorship, and institutional arrangements.

Discussion
Ms Tshivhase was worried that nothing had been said about the exploitation of the craft work by the tourists, who bought items at a minimal price and took them home and then resold them for a huge profit. She asked for a strategy to control this exploitation of craft work.

Ms Nhlumayo replied that when she had worked in the Western Cape she had participated in a survey to determine what could be done to integrate crafts and tourism. The results showed that less than 5% of the crafts sold in the Western Cape had been made there. Issues of lack of innovation and training had been revealed. The Cape Crafts and Design Institute was working successfully to address these issues and should be invited to a workshop. This institute sought to train the crafters in innovation, but most importantly in pricing, packaging, and business matters. It was a model that should be replicated nationally, and it worked in cooperation with the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. It was often found that people were creative but they did not understand pricing. It was necessary to help the crafters become business people.

The Chairperson remarked that this could also be a question for the Department of Arts and Culture.

Ms J Manganye (ANC) asked if the Department of Tourism had learnt anything from the case studies that could be applied in South Africa.

Ms Nhlumayo replied that the Department had learnt that it was necessary to begin with practical projects to test if the strategy was working. This required strong cooperation at local governmental level. Without waiting for the strategy, there were already projects in operation.

Ms Manganye asked if international tourists were encouraged to visit the rural areas.  She asked for examples of theme routes.

Ms Nhlumayo explained that 9.9 million tourists had visited South Africa in 2009. This was 1.1% of the total of international arrivals throughout the world. Three out of five tourists were reported to visit heritage sites, but they did not revisit, and did not spend much at these sites, perhaps because there was not sufficient opportunity. It was necessary to develop these sites as tourist attractions to encourage people to spend money.

Ms Shinn said that the Department’s reference to ‘highest yield, spend 38% more per day and stay 34% longer’ (slide 15) did not make sense. Who was spending 38% and how was this being measured.

Ms Nhlumayo replied that the information on trends and issues was derived from the United Nations. A study had shown that cultural and heritage tourists were more committed to the areas which they visited and therefore spent more than leisure tourists.

Ms Shinn asked about the India case study (slides 20-21). She sought an analysis of exactly what the Indian government was involved in. Was it providing infrastructure or actually running the project?

Ms Nhlumayo replied that there was a partnership between national, provincial and local government. The role of national government was to establish a framework and ensure that this kind of tourism was integrated into broader national strategies.

Ms Shinn asked about the funding of culture, heritage and rural tourism projects through Social Responsibility Programme (slide 34).

Ms Nhlumayo replied that the Department currently had funding to the extent of R740 million, and aimed for a holistic approach.

Ms Njobe said that it was important to follow-up since Members’ role was oversight to ensure that departments fulfilled their responsibilities. With regard to inter-departmental cooperation, she asked who would deliver the strategy in terms of the budget. None of the beautiful things mentioned by the Department would happen unless one was ready to make them happen. The most important way to make them happen was budgeting.

A Member called for the monitoring of projects and promotion of cultural heritage.

The Chairperson asked about the respective role of provinces and municipalities. He suggested that the Committee might learn more about this in a subsequent workshop. 

The Chairperson asked SAHRA about the status a certain large town in the North West.

Mr Sibayi replied that the site was divided between various farms. SAHRA was negotiating with the land owners and the communities to declare the site a national heritage site. The process, however, was very complicated and difficult. The Constitution protected certain rights. It was a vast site, and SAHRA was identifying the best parts of it.

A Member said that she had not heard anything about training. Also there was a perception that South Africa was largely Westernised, while indigenous cultures were insufficiently perceived by tourists.

Ms Nhlumayo said that it was of higher priority to capacitate people than to provide infrastructure. It was also necessary to promote authenticity while recognising that, as a diverse society, the Western influence had to be recognised.

The Chairperson asked for clarification on resources and personnel, money and plans. It seemed to him a huge task and he asked for suggestions on the best way of approaching it. However, it was a task that the nation had to accomplish. This might also be a topic for a subsequent workshop or even an indaba. It was important for Government leadership to understand what was involved.

Ms Nhlumayo addressed a few issues. Firstly, he acknowledged that there was a need ensure that everything that was undertaken was sustainable, and could be used for future generations. Secondly, he mentioned that the Department preferred to appoint specialists rather than consultants to conserve resources within the Department. Thirdly, he stated that the Department was aware of the need for full cooperation with provinces. Finally, he alluded to the Minister’s performance agreement with regard to the Department’s commitment to deliver.

The Chairperson regretted that the National House of Traditional Leaders had not commented on the case studies.

National House of Traditional Leaders. Oral submission
Khosi Kutama, Chairperson, National House of Traditional Leaders, explained the context of traditional leadership. More than 17 million people owed allegiance to the institution of traditional leadership in traditional community areas in South Africa. This included even some who had settled in urban areas but who still had their roots in traditional communities. Traditional leadership was one of the oldest governance institutions in the world, and operated through traditional councils, local houses, provincial houses, and the National House of Traditional Leaders. Traditional leaders had performed key governance, service delivery, development and judicial functions before 1994, and were recognised in terms of the new Constitution (1996) and their roles were defined in terms of national and provincial legislation. Though by no means a fourth sphere of Government, traditional leadership structures were organs of state as defined in Section 239 of the Constitution, and were key partners of Government at all levels and critical role-players in governance, service delivery and development.

The Constitution accorded customary law and the system of traditional leadership a place in South Africa’s legal system by recognising it in Chapter 12. It further provided that national and provincial legislation must provide for the roles of traditional leaders as well as the establishment and functioning of houses of traditional leaders. The primary aim of these entities was to be partners with Government to ensure that service delivery and development did indeed take place in South Africa’s communities.

The primary role of houses of traditional leaders was to promote socio-economic development; promote service delivery; contribute to nation-building; promote peace and stability amongst the community members; promote the social cohesiveness of communities; promote the preservation of the moral fibre and regeneration of society; promote the social well-being and welfare of communities; and, of especial importance, promote and preserve the communities’ culture and tradition.

The legislated roles of the houses of traditional leaders at national and provincial levels were to advise Government and participate in developing policies impacting on rural communities; advise Government and participate in the development of legislation that impacted on rural communities; participate in international and national programmes geared to the development of rural communities; participate in national initiatives to monitor, review and evaluate governmental programmes in rural communities; advise national Government on the customary interests of traditional communities; and perform tasks as might be determined by a member of the national Cabinet or as might be provided for in national legislation.

A traditional council had the functions of administering the affairs of the traditional community in accordance with customs and tradition; assisting, supporting and guiding traditional leaders in the performance of their functions; supporting municipalities in the identification of community needs; facilitating the involvement of the traditional community in the development or amendment of the integrated development plan of a municipality in whose area that community resided; recommending, after consultation with the relevant local and provincial houses of traditional leaders, appropriate interventions to Government that would contribute to development and service delivery within the area of jurisdiction of the traditional council; participating in the development of policy and legislation at a local level; participating in development programmes of municipalities and of the provincial and national spheres of Government; and promoting the ideals of co-operative governance. A traditional council also had the functions of integrated development planning, sustainable development and service delivery; and promoting indigenous knowledge systems for sustainable development and disaster management: its roles included alerting any relevant municipality to any hazard or calamity that threatened the area of jurisdiction of the traditional council in question, or the well-being of people living in such area of jurisdiction, and contributing to disaster management in general. Moreover, its duties included sharing information and co-operating with other traditional councils; and performing the functions conferred by customary law, customs and statutory law consistent with the Constitution.

The National House of Traditional Leaders submitted that tourism was the fourth largest earner of foreign exchange in South Africa. There was a very real potential for South Africa to develop its tourism industry, to triple the industry’s contribution to the national income, and at least to double its foreign exchange earnings. The successful political transformation in South Africa had opened the country’s tourism potential to the rest of the world and indeed to the previously neglected groups in South Africa itself. Tourism had become a fiercely competitive business. For tourist destinations the world over, as indeed for South Africa, competitive advantage was no longer natural, but increasingly manmade and driven by science, technology, information and innovation.

In explaining the specific roles of traditional leadership in development and tourism, the National House of Traditional Leaders submitted that the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act in Sections 19 and 20 provided for Government departments to allocate roles or delegate functions to traditional leadership. These included economic development, tourism, management of natural resources, arts and culture, and the environment. Currently the cultural tourism potential of the country was not being fully exploited. If exploited, it was mainly done by individuals or companies like hotels for their individual benefit and in most instances did not include traditional leaders as the custodians of culture and heritage in South Africa.

For traditional leadership, the main objective should be for traditional leaders and traditional communities to begin to take charge of their own economic potential to exploit the rich heritage that attracted visitors to our beautiful country.

Resources in rural areas were often exploited by business people who sometimes ignored traditional leaders and communities. Very little benefit went to local people except some low level employment in lodges and hotels established in rural communities. The culture and heritage of those areas was exploited as a tourist attraction mainly for foreign tourists, but very little benefit accrued to local people.

Indigenous dances, beadwork, foods, attire, language, unique archaeological sites and battlefields were mainly situated in rural areas and attracted thousands of tourists, but these attractions were mainly not owned by local rural people.

Traditional leaders were the custodians of land, language, cultures and customs of people in most rural areas. If these leaders were to be involved, much benefit could accrue to them and their communities. Traditional leaders should be involved in developing the economic development plans as part of integrated development plans (IDPs) and local tourism should be part of this process. Traditional leaders want to be fully involved in granting development rights for their areas, including tourism development to stimulate local economic development. 

The National House of Traditional Leaders noted several challenges. While some actions were being taken to involve traditional leaders in development, traditional leaders still faced inadequate material support to the institution of traditional leadership at all levels. This led to inability to explore the development potential in rural areas. There was a lack of understanding of the role and relevance of the institution of traditional leadership by some sections of society. There was a need to resolve issues around the involvement of traditional leaders in municipal council meetings with clear guidelines as to their role. Allocation of roles to traditional councils by Government departments had not happened. There was a need for capacity building of traditional leadership structures, in particular, skills development and resource provision. It was necessary to include traditional leaders in governance, service delivery and development programmes, not just for public participation purposes, but as key respected partners and role players. It was also necessary to involve traditional leaders in structures and ward committees of municipalities at all levels, and respect and adhere to the correct protocol acceptable to the traditional leaders and communities. 

Khosi Kutama noted that he had been contacted by members to rural communities who had to resort to cutting down trees for firewood because the recent increases in electricity tariffs were simply unaffordable. Such action was understandable but had grave consequences for the environment.

Discussion
The Chairperson referred to the role of the Government Communication and Information Service (GCIS). Communication and commented that further engagement was necessary on this matter. He added that the issue of the Constitution would be contested repeatedly.

Ms Njobe thanked Khosi Kutama for the presentation and asked about the key functions of the houses of traditional leaders and traditional councils. She alluded to the constitution of Ghana and its influence on South Africa with regards to the institution of traditional leadership. She noted that legislation was being developed to establish traditional councils whose members would be elected by members of the community. There seemed to be a conflict between the working of local government and traditional institutions. Also functions did not seem to be clearly distinguished. She asked how the Ghanaian constitution dealt with this problem.

Ms Njobe asked about the promotion of social development as one of the functions of traditional leadership. She noted that departments did not always involve traditional leaders in the development of their programmes. She asked what traditional leaders themselves had done to ensure that departments involved them.

Khosi Kutama began to respond, but the Chairperson asked him to wait until a number of questions had been asked.

Ms Shinn asked what was being done to preserve and cultivate a sense of pride in traditional issues amongst the communities. What did school children know about their history and heritage? If one wanted strangers to be interested in one’s culture, it was firstly necessary to be interested in it oneself.  

Ms Shinn asked if traditional leaders had considered asking successful businesses to contribute financially to a business plan strategy to preserve traditions, culture and language. She gave the example of the Jewish people who were perhaps the most successful fundraisers to preserve their heritage which they believed was under threat. There could be a successful campaign to involve businesses and perhaps there could be some modification of the legislation on economic empowerment to secure support for traditional development as part of a corporate social responsibility strategy. Perhaps tax deductions might be available to participating companies. It was necessary to be creative in raising money, since tax payers were already increasingly stressed by the demands upon them.  

Ms Tshivhase acknowledged the role of traditional leaders as custodians of culture. She said that “our children had no idea of what was going on culturally and traditionally”.

Ms Tshivhashe believed that it was acceptable perhaps even necessary to mix to mix indigenous cultures with Western civilization. However, the problem existed when other cultures did not want to accommodate traditional cultures and instead wanted to dominate it. African cultures should not be treated as inferior.

A Member suggested that the National House of Traditional Leaders should work closely with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, which was the main department that could assist traditional leaders. She also agreed that the Departments of Tourism and Arts and Culture should give the National House an opportunity to state its needs for the rural areas.

The Chairperson said that Members, as leaders, had a responsibility to be positive in defining what should happen, given the existing constraints. It was for Members to prove if something was in the public interest.

Khosi Kutama said that what the National House of Traditional Leaders had noticed was that the problems that Ghana was experiencing were similar to those experienced in South Africa. These problems included land, service delivery, and many other matters. However, South Africa was in a better position because the National House of Traditional Leaders had signed a memorandum of understanding with the South African Local Government Organisation (SALGA) between the traditional leaders and the councillors.

Khosi Kutama said that at present there was no clear policy of what traditional leaders must do in promoting indigenous cultures. The Department of Arts and Culture and the National Heritage Council were doing something to promote these cultures. It was important to come together and agree on one policy. Because the institution of traditional leadership was the custodian, it was necessary to give it the resources and mandate to promote cultures, so that other structures followed what traditional leaders were saying, because they were the custodians. Currently policies were being drafted by the Department of Arts and Culture, but traditional leaders were not participating as an institution. 

Khosi Kutama referred to an article in The Star, 19 July 2010, in which it was reported that white people had objected to Nelson Mandela’s wearing traditional dress when he was detained, since such traditional dress would influence the masses because culture was very strong. He referred to a book Decolonising the Mind. The author stated that until Africans tried to write their books in their own languages, Africans would still be stuck with that old mentality; it was necessary to change our mindset and start engaging our institutions of higher learning and many other institutions in the country, as well as the educated people of the country, to begin to write books in our own languages. Availability of magazines in our own languages would help the people in the rural areas.

Khosi Kutama said that, as the Chairperson had said, it was necessary to empower the institution. This year the National House of Traditional Leaders’ budget was R18 million. This amount was only for travel of members of the House to Cape Town for meetings, and related travel. For projects there was no mandate and funding. The House had wanted to buy a village near Pretoria to develop it according to the ideas of members of the House. However, the House was denied that budget. The Constitution was cited as the document which prevented the House from being given that budget.

Khosi Kutama said that much history was hidden. He noted that his great-grandfather had refused to be photographed by white people, since his photograph could be reproduced and distributed: thereby his enemies could identify him and trace him easily. This kind of information was valuable and necessary, and people should be aware of it. Because this institution was the custodian of our culture and languages, Khosi Kutama pleaded for it to be empowered. This was the first step. He said that it was necessary for the various structures to be synchronised.

Mr Nathi Mpungose, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, National House of Traditional Leaders, said that there were now two separate departments – the Department of Cooperative Governance and the Department of Traditional Affairs. There was a project to coordinate all the departments that were concerned with the roles which should be allocated to traditional leaders in terms of the law. It might seem that because the Department of Arts and Culture and the Department of Tourism were present, one was focusing allegations of ‘not coming to the party’ on them. However, generally the governmental departments did not want to be coordinated in involving traditional leaders. This difficulty remained. The policy existed, but the legislation of 2003 remained to be implemented.

Mr Mpungose said that there was conflict between the roles of traditional leaders and those of municipalities. Sometimes this was real conflict, at other times it was perceived conflict. In his view, the roles were very clear. An issue which really involved conflict was that of protocol. It was necessary to be sensitive to the difference in being elected to a position and being born into a position. It was necessary to harmonise this conflict. In many areas there was understanding, however. Traditional leaders had brought this matter to the President, and a national summit was proposed to be held before the end of this year to discuss these issues. The House was working with SALGA towards this summit.

Mr Mpungose said that he thought that traditional leaders had not done anything in earnest to raise funding to preserve traditions, culture and language, but he thought that the Department of Arts and Culture might be working with some wealthy people towards such funding.

Mr Mpungose said that the clash between modern civilization and culture was a well-known phenomenon. It was easy to respond by saying that culture was not static but dynamic. However, ultimately, if we were not careful, we would see the obliteration of cultures. However, traditional leaders and many other people were working on these issues. There had to be a national debate. The President had raised this issue in his discussions with traditional leaders and had asked how do define a moral code for South Africans, bearing in mind the issue of unity in diversity.

Mr Mpungose said that traditional leaders wanted to be involved in heritage sites from the planning stage. Consultation must be encouraged.

The Chairperson noted that the National House of Traditional Leaders yearned for more participation with governmental departments. 

South African Heritage Resources Agency. Presentation
Mr Dumisani Sibayi, Executive Officer, South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA), acknowledged the submission from Khosi Kutama and did not want to appear to repeat what the latter had said. Mr Sibayi remarked that before 1999 one never saw conservation and tourism working together. Tourism used to be seen as another destructive activity. Also communities were seen as potential destroyers of conservation sites. SAHRA’s focus was more on the conservation of heritage resources.

Mr Sibayi gave an overview on the role of cultural and heritage tourism towards rural development. He outlined the contribution of heritage tourism to this objective. Such tourism provided an opportunity to address issues related to the alleviation of poverty. It could generate employment and offer opportunities for development. It could revive traditions and restore cultural pride. The benefits would include education and training, as well as the creation of jobs. On the other hand, its negative effects could include cultural alienation, and, if uncontrolled, it could lead to the destruction of heritage. An audit of existing heritage resources showed a growing interest in rural and traditional cultural heritage. Sites associated with living heritage were great destination attractions. Most of these sites were located in rural areas.

Heritage was envisaged as a tool of sustainable rural development. A strategy for heritage tourism encompassed establishing working relations with traditional leaders and local authorities, and creating management authorities or conservation management associations, and allowing for community participation and management. 

It was necessary to achieve a ‘buy-in’ from the community. To this end SAHRA advocated gaining entry into a multitude of communities and building trust; establishing a core working team; developing a working strategy and terms of reference; identifying critical areas; and conducting workshops or meetings for the adoption of the strategy.

Thereafter it was necessary to conduct an assessment of needs in order to identify the critical needs of communities; observe protocols; involve women and young people; and build capacity and provide training.  Fund-raising and budgeting would include an audit of critical needs, determining costs, and developing a fund-raising capacity. In assessing the potential market it was necessary to identify the users of sites, and identify local, national and international visitors.

It was further necessary to identify business partners. Networks should be established with heritage bodies. There should be collaboration with relevant tourist organisations, and partnerships with local and big business. There was need for a heritage management plan, the development of infrastructure, and the identification of other related economic activities – including crafts and intellectual property rights.

Discussion
Ms Njobe asked whom SAHRA’s document (slide 12) was addressing with regard to strategies to promote heritage tourism. Was it other organisations or SAHRA as a juristic person? If so she would have expected SAHRA to have reported on audits of heritage sites.

Ms Shinn asked what was being done to encourage communities to take pride in their local heritage sites. What was being done to interest schoolchildren?

Ms Shinn also asked about the preparation of tour guides, and expressed dissatisfaction with some of the tour guides on Robben Island.

Mr Sibayi replied that SAHRA did its very best to provide tour guides with accurate information. Unfortunately some of the tour guides were greedy. However, SAHRA did not control tour guides.

Ms Shinn also asked if there was room for a privately funded heritage body to look after buildings such as churches that had historical significance. This might not be a priority to SAHRA but was of concern to certain communities, including visitors from overseas.

Mr Sibayi replied that SAHRA’s Act allowed for a privately funded conservation body.

Ms Shinn pleaded for adequate road signs to direct visitors to heritage sites.

Ms Tshivhase said that her colleague had anticipated several of her questions, in particular about tour guides. She asked for a strategy to empower tour guides.

Mr Sibayi replied that SAHRA compel not compel tour guides to give accurate information but it sought to empower and inform them.

Ms Nhlumayo said that it was unacceptable and embarrassing that tour guides gave inaccurate information. She suggested that it was perhaps the role of the Department of Arts and Culture, not the Department of Tourism, to ensure that people were appointed to define the role of particular sites and ensure that there was proper recording of the history of those sites. 

Ms Tshivhase asked if SAHRA visited schools to engage the interest of schoolchildren. Knowledge was power. Traditional leaders needed to be empowered financially.

Mr Sibayi replied that SAHRA had approached schools but had been told that the children must not leave their classrooms and SAHRA would have to apply for permits.  

Ms Tshivhase acknowledged the association between religion and culture, and called for discussion with the religious leaders, not just the traditional leaders, to advise them that people should know their origins and be acquainted with their ‘hidden history’. ‘Knowing your background is no sin.’ 

Mr Sibayi said that religious people sometimes presented a problem when discussions arose on archaeological evidence for evolution. The Cradle of Humankind was an example, when some religious groups took offence at evolution. As practitioners, members of SAHRA had to be independent. However, SAHRA did encourage them to conserve their churches, buildings, mosques, and cultural sites.    

Mr Sibayi said that Members would be surprised at how much communities knew about their heritage and relevant protocols. However, they often lacked the resources to conserve these sites. Also the regulatory framework made it difficult for communities to conserve their heritage sites. He suggested, moreover, that some heritage sites were vulnerable to unintentional damage by foreign researchers who chipped rock paintings with the aim of preserving them.

Mr Langeweld added that the Department had received many reports of confusing and inaccurate information given by tour guides on Robben Island. The Minister had written to the newly appointed chairperson of the new Robben Island Museum council to ask her to intervene urgently to ensure standardisation and accuracy of the narratives given by tour guides.  The Department would be following up on the matter.

Ms Ceelliine Muller, Manager: Grading and Declaration, SAHRA, said that Robben Island had an integrated management plan. This included an interpretation plan. It was the responsibility of site management to ensure that tour guides adhered to that interpretation. This was a standardised story. Sometimes tourists did ask for an alternative version, but this was the exception. This applied to all heritage sites in South Africa. There was also a development plan to balance conservation with development needs, which also related to community advocacy and empowerment. It was SAHRA’s responsibility to monitor adherence. She emphasised the importance of management plans.

Mr Sibayi said that history was the systematic interpretation of past events. It was difficult sometimes to confine people to one interpretation.

Ms Muller said that SAHRA acknowledged the validity of alternative narratives.    

A Member said that Mr Sibayi’s presentation reflected Members’ own experience from visits.

Mr Sibayi, explained that SAHRA did not have sufficient capacity to engage the people in rural areas. SAHRA had now learnt the need to observe protocols. So it was developing its strategy on the basis of its trial-and-error experiences, and the strategy would be shared with rural people.

Ms Njobe reflected at length on the history of the Department of Arts and Culture from the perspective of her service, together with Ms Tshivhase, on the former Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. In those days there had been a bias towards Science and Technology, whilst Arts and Culture was a ‘Cinderella. The former Portfolio Committee had raised this point, and Ms Njobe referred to Hansard. She noted that the Department of Basic Education received the largest share of the budget, and it was to be hoped that the curriculum would address cultural heritage.

Ms Njobe suggested that municipalities assist in the auditing process of heritage sites. The role of the Department of Transport was crucial. Marketing was also important. The role of traditional leadership was integral.

Ms Shinn called for public participation in a series of parliamentary hearings rather than a ‘grandiose’ summit, which, she felt, would be too introspective. It was necessary to have credible research on which to base decisions. She noted that tourism was a market-driven retail industry. A business plan to ensure sustainability was essential. It was unwise to create many unrealistic expectations of what cultural and heritage tourism could do to address the concerns of rural populations. Tourism’s potential for job creation in the rural areas had been exaggerated. This was irresponsible, if not dangerous.    

Mr Langeweld suggested that a summit would nevertheless be valuable, but, if possible, should be preceded by such a series of hearings, if at all possible given the short time available between now and Heritage Month. He noted that September was also Tourism month. A summit would help to link the two activities.

Ms Nhlumayo commented on Ms Manganye’s observations on marketing. The Department was reviewing legislation with a view to requiring a shift towards targeting certain niche sectors that could generate more income from tourism, rather than simply marketing destinations as pleasant places to visit. It was necessary to market also products of South Africa.

Ms Nhlumayo suggested a dual approach: a summit in September to sensitise people to the issues, followed by local engagement. She emphasised that the tourist industry was about creativity and innovation.

Mr Sibayi thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present and thereby gain more experience and wisdom through interacting with Members. He assured Members of that SAHRA was not a body of mere functionaries but was willing to be advised and nurtured, especially with regard to heritage.   

The Chairperson noted that the Cape Peninsula University of Technology had been invited to give an overview on the role of heritage and cultural tourism from an academic perspective, but was not represented at the meeting. He thanked participants and noted that more partnerships would be beneficial, since tourism related to many other departments and sectors, for example, security, transport, local government, and provincial government, but did not control them. So therefore it was necessary to act as catalysts. It was necessary to ensure that culture and heritage were more sought after: this was related to promotion and marketing. Long term economic value had to be the driving force in whatever we did. He hoped that participants would maintain the vigour and momentum generated in the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

The meeting was adjourned.