South African Heritage Resources Agency & National Heritage Council: Legislative mandates and roles in identification, conservation and management of cultural resources

NCOP Education, Sciences and Creative Industries

18 March 2015
Chairperson: Ms L Zwane (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and National Heritage Council (NHC) briefed the Committee on their mandate and key performance areas, as outlined by the respective governing legislation, and the Department of Arts and Culture also gave input to some of the questions asked by Members. The two entities gave an overview of their current activities, achievements and successes to date, and outlined their responsibilities for various aspects of heritage, in particular the formulation of policies, management, repatriation of heritage projects, funding of projects, and promotion of heritage awareness. SAHRA conducted heritage assessments in areas where mining and other activities were taking place, to determine the impact of the activity, and it would identify, conserve, protect and promote heritage resources, which ranged from historic settlements to landscapes to cultural heritage under water. It was planning a Heritage and Development Indaba to inform society about the importance and significance of heritage and how it interplayed with development in society. South Africa was a member of the World Heritage Committee, and had eight world heritage sites, which assisted with cultural tourism. SAHRA was named as custodian of sites in seven provinces, and must ensure that any structural development would maintain the cultural integrity of the area. It also oversaw 36 heritage properties donated to the state. SAHRA mentioned that it would like to upgrade some to holiday accommodation but this was not a core mandate, would need to be outsourced to experts, and was a long term plan still being discussed with the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC). It had provincial offices in three provinces, and sites were graded to determine which sphere of government was responsible. It would be requesting further allocations from National Treasury.

NHC had a new Board, and noted that there was growing national and regional interest in heritage. NHC differed from the SAHRA not only because it fell under different legislation but because it was the overarching body for heritage management in South Africa, included representatives from other agencies, was responsible for intangible heritage such as knowledge production and discourse, national days, and provided advice to the Minister of Arts and Culture. It wanted to achieve reform in the education curriculum, and other attempts to promote heritage included greater use of social media to reach the youth, promotion of the national anthem on mobile phones, and greater awareness of the significance of national days.

Members appreciated the presentations but sounded a note of caution that there was too little awareness of their existence and work. They asked about the criteria for determining and issuing heritage permits, the grading of sites and how they were managed. They discussed commemoration of national days, and stressed the need to discover and apply better ways to achieve social cohesion and dispel the perception of these as ruling party days, particularly questioning how to achieve greater youth participation. Members questioned the distortion of language, but the agencies responded that they preferred to see language as dynamic and changing as culture developed. Members also asked how heritage sites were preserved and how families' rights would be protected, asked why Sara Baartman was not mentioned, and why nothing specific was said about Mpumalanga, and what was being done to maintain Robben Island. They were interested in the level of collaboration with the Department of Basic Education and tertiary institutions, the level of engagement with the Department of Arts and Culture and would try to arrange a workshop to address several issues. They asked whether funding was likely to be forthcoming, asked for more detail on upcoming projects, stressed the need to collaborate with municipalities, asked who was responsible for promoting new names, and explored whether there was sense in bringing the institutions under one roof, as there did appear to be some overlap in mandates. They asked whether developers were complying with heritage permits, recognised that cultural unity would not happen overnight. Members wanted to know whether there was work with neighbouring countries on repatriation of remains, specific interventions to recognise the heritage of the KhoiSan, and asked about the status of the White Paper.
 

Meeting report

A moment of silence was observed to commemorate Honourable Minister Collins Chabane and the two South African Police VIP protectors who passed away this week.

Identification, conservation and management of cultural resources: Legislative mandates, roles and projects of heritage agencies
South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) briefing

Ms Veliswa Baduza, Chief Executive Officer, SAHRA, circulated a revised hard copy of the presentation, with an additional two slides. She noted that records of heritage objects were being digitised by SAHRA to ensure better protection and conservation.

She explained that SAHRA conducts heritage assessments in areas where mining and other such activities are taking place, to determine the impact of the activity on the heritage of that location. The mandate of SAHRA was set out in detail on page 4 of the presentation, noting SAHRA's responsibilities for the identification, conservation, protection and promotion of heritage resources. Heritage resources ranged from objects of cultural significance to historical settlements; landscapes, scarce sites and underwater cultural heritage.

SAHRA was planning to hold a Heritage and Development Indaba to inform society about the importance and significance of heritage and how it interplays with development in society. The Committee Members would be added to the SAHRA database so that they could be invited to relevant meetings and ceremonies such as repatriation of remains, grave restoration and declarations.

She noted that South Africa is part of the World Heritage Committee, as the country has eight world heritage sites. The international recognition of these sites assisted with cultural tourism to South Africa.

SAHRA was the custodian of certain sites across seven of the nine provinces. Ms Baduza emphasised that the structural development that took place at the heritage sites must be done in a way that maintained the integrity of the area. The structures fitted into the topography of the landscape and were developed with least disturbance to the local fauna and flora.

36 heritage properties had been donated to the State, which SAHRA had the mandate to oversee. SAHRA would like to upgrade some of these sites into holiday accommodation, but was aware that this was not a core mandate, so would rather approach hospitality experts to assist with this objective. This was a long-term plan which could result in some of the properties becoming an income source for SAHRA.

SAHRA did have provincial heritage authorities, but only three of these were fully functional, in KwaZulu-Natal; Eastern Cape and Western Cape. SAHRA was working on getting the other provinces to the same level of functionality. Provincial authorities were responsible for Grade 2 heritage sites located in their province. The grading of heritage sites (between 1 and 3) indicated which authority (national, provincial or local) would be responsible for the management of the site.

Ms Baduza indicated that, given the responsibilities of SAHRA, it would be making a request to National Treasury for an increase in the allocations to deal with the resources. It was working with the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) in formulating this request. She had mentioned that SAHRA was looking at generating income from some of the heritage sites, but this was a long-term plan, and in the interim SAHRA did require financial assistance. Whilst is was possible that SAHRA could become self-sufficient with the revenue model that had been developed, this would take time. Finally, she asserted that there was little overlap in the role and mandates of SAHRA and the National Heritage Council.

National Heritage Council (NHC) briefing
Adv Sonwabile Mancotywa, Chief Executive Officer, National Heritage Council, informed the Committee members that there was a newly appointed Board for the National Heritage Council (NHC).

Adv Mancotywa sketched the strategic context that informed the NHC programming. It had been seen, over the last decade, that there was a growing interest in heritage nationally, as well as on the Continent. The African Union's Agenda 2063 was given as an example, where heritage and culture featured prominently.

NHC was established as a new body in 1999, as distinct from SAHRA, which was the transformation of the former National Monument Council under the National Monument Council Act. The two entities were governed by different legislation. The NHC was the overarching body for heritage management in South Africa, and the Board of the NHC included representatives from other heritage agencies.

NHC was responsible for intangible heritage which included knowledge production, and therefore must position heritage as a strategic resource to nation building and national identity, whilst initiating and managing discourse around heritage. An example of this would be the current debate taking place about the Rhodes statue at the University of Cape Town, and the recent actions taken abound the presence of that statue. The use of national days to enhance social cohesion was another discussion area which had been taken on by the NHC. Importantly, the NHC is required to provide advice to the Minister of Arts and Culture on heritage policy issues and lobby for and advise on funding for the heritage sector in South Africa. The mandate of the NHC was set out in detail on page 8 of the presentation.

Adv Mancotywa raised the importance of reforming the education curriculum to reflect the heritage of South Africa's people. He suggested that an important step could be the inclusion of local literature into the curriculum. To initiate the process, a minimum of five books could be identified and translated into three languages.

The Chairperson interjected to ask for the titles of the books that were mentioned by Adv Mancotywa.

Adv Mancotywa replied that he would not only send through the names of authors, but would provide books, free of charge, to Members.

He then took Members through the remainder of the presentation, which outlined in detail the programmes and projects in which the NHC was currently engaged (see attached document for all details).

In conclusion, Adv Mancotywa indicated that the NHC would make a package of heritage knowledge available for the Committee Members.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the entities for their presentations and acknowledged the extent of their work and mandates. She also wanted to note and appreciate the involvement of the MECs for Arts and Culture inthe provinces.

Ms P Tlake (ANC, Free State) commended the presenters for the information shared and asked what would happen to the residents of a particular building that was declared a heritage site. She noted that in respect of the Maphikela home in Free State, the residents were unhappy with the treatment that they had received from government around the management of the site, and asked what was being done about their concerns. She also noted no mention in the presentation of the grave of Sara Baartman, and asked if there was a particular reason for its omission. She asked what was being done about the maintenance of Robben Island, as it is currently looking very dilapidated.

Ms T Mampuru (ANC, Limpopo) thanked NHC and SAHRA for their presentations and passion for arts and culture. It was mentioned that their mandates are large, but good work was being done to preserve South Africa's heritage for the current and coming generation.

She asked what collaboration there was with the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and tertiary institutions for the preservation of culture, artists, poets and literature. She made the point that the only time the country was encouraged to remember its heritage was on commemorative days, and she believed that it should be encouraged as part of ongoing, everyday living. She asked if there was anything specific planned for Human Rights Day on 21 March that would promote art and culture, and also asked what specifically was being done to promote traditional music. The preservation and promotion of heritage related information should not be done in a "boring manner", and she asked if the entities had considered more youth-friendly methods, such as movies, and technology based platforms? She expanded on this in another language. Finally, she welcomed the suggestion of language translation for local literature, commended the agencies on their efforts and encouraged them to keep up their good work, to ensure a sound legacy of heritage and history. 

Ms L Dlamini (ANC, Mpumalanga) thanked the presenters, but said that she needed to sound some notes of caution. There were ten members of the Committee. Some were only hearing this sharing of information for the first time today, and if the Members were unaware of these heritage organisations, then it was a serious problem for it meant that very few South Africans probably knew about them and their work. She was most concerned that the young generation did not understand the issues of heritage shared in the presentations, and this would lead to loss of heritage. The whole issue of awareness was vital and she asked what they were doing to create greater public awareness around their roles and South African heritage? 

Ms Dlamini asked SAHRA why additional funding was required, and what would be done with these funds. The Committee was interested in the impact and outcomes of SAHRA and the NHC, and she asked for more specific detail on these. SAHRA mentioned that one of its mandates was to issue permits, and she would like to hear more on the processes and criteria for issuing permits, whether the decision on the approval of permits was made in collaboration with other arms of government, how many permits hade been issued by SAHRA and what was the value of these permits to South Africa?

Ms Dlamini addressed the issue of social cohesion, and stated that South Africans were "drifting apart". She asked what each of the entities was doing to ensure social cohesion, and if there were any upcoming projects?

Ms Dlamini said that she is a proud ANC member, but complaints had been received from opposition parties that commemorative days were full of ANC members, and she wondered if justice was being done to the social cohesion aim, if this was the perception. She asked for an appraisal of where the country may have gone wrong, and what the entities were doing, where something was incorrect, to advise, and ensure that the celebrations did promote social cohesion, which needed to be further improved.

Ms Dlamini asked, tongue-in-cheek, whether Mpumulanga was regarded as part of South Africa - there was nothing listed about this province in the presentations. In addition the heritage properties listed did not speak to the history of black people, but were instead more heavily representative of the colonial and apartheid era of South Africa. She wondered why there were no heritage sites that related to the indigenous wars, such as the Mpumalanga caves. She also felt that the content of this presentation was not adequately addressing all the provinces and reminded the presenters that Members were in the NCOP as provincial representatives.

Ms Dlamini cautioned the presenters about the comment that municipalities lacked understanding of the name changes process. The municipalities did understand, as they are at the core of the issues. It should be noted that some competencies were not held by municipalities - for example river name changes. The subject of name changes was important but the process was very slow and still there were names that did not represent the majority of South Africans. A further problem was that even after the name had been changed, the new name was not being used: for instance, the name "Nelspruit" was still being used at all airports, although the area was referred to as Mbombela. She asked who was monitoring the enforcement of name changes, and checking that the new name was being used.

Finally, Ms Dlamini suggested that a workshop was needed with SAHRA, the NHC and the Committee to talk in detail about these issues. She had thought that the presentations also identified some overlaps. The funding issues needed to be prioritised, and the areas for funding were not clear.

Mr M Khawula (IFP, KwaZulu-Natal) thanked the presenters, and supported Ms Dlamini's suggestion of arranging a workshop with the entities and Department. He agreed that there was a need for clarity on the overlaps, and said the presentations had not clearly outlined the differences in the mandates for SAHRA and the NHC. He wondered if at times both entities were not looking at or working on the same projects, which could lead to a strain in their working relationships? He wondered if there would be any major disadvantages to bringing entities together under one roof, whether there was a legal reason for the separation, or combination would make more sense.

Mr Khawula asked about compliance, by developers, to the terms of the heritage permits and their interaction with local government. He asked how SAHRA dealt with the relationships between developers and local authorities (who could be taken for a ride) and the removal of heritage from those locations. He also asked what was being done to empower local municipalities to raise awareness about heritage and the agencies. Mr Khawula also noted the lack of expertise in the country in regard to accessing documentation for the heritage value, and being able to archive the documents and artefacts, and what was being done toddress the lack of expertise of officials from other agencies, to improve the ability to deal with heritage issues.

Mr Khawula questioned what "South African culture and identity" actually was - whether it was characterised by food, behaviour or other things, and whether the agencies were looking into and attending to those issues? He also noted that language was being distorted, and quoted a phrase in isiZulu and discussed how phrases had been interpreted that had a positive and negative meaning, but might be different to the original intention of the phrase. He also asked what was being done by the agencies about the distortions in culture as this was misleading to younger generations. Last year, there was a big issue around "Freedom Day" (sic) being turned into "Braai Day". These distortions were popularised and young people would lose sight of the real reason for the commemmoration, and the essence was being diluted and forgotten.

Ms Tlake stated that it was necessary to not lose sight of the strategic objectives of this country, which was to be united, democratic, non-racial and non-sexist, amongst others. These entities were developed to preserve heritage and assist the DAC in achieving its objectives. Although there were not many years in fact between 1999 and the present, a lot had been achieved, and this must be recognised. Adv Mancotywa reminded the Members that heritage was scattered, and the NHC had been bringing this together over the last few years, and she appreciated the information given about the status of heritage management. She recognised that it was still at the stage of developing milestones, and time should be given for development. She recommended that the Committee must give the entities support and allow them to do more.

Ms T Mpambo-Sibhukwana (DA, Western Cape) asked if there were bursaries or scholarships being offered to promote the vision and mission of the NHC, as this did not come out clearly from the presentation. She, personally, would not like to see the two entities combined, partially because there was a need to create jobs. She questioned why nothing was mentioned in the presentations about the Jewish Holocaust Museum; a visit to this museum would show that a lot was being done to promote social cohesion. Ms Mpambo-Sibhukwana urged the agencies to go and visit this Museum to see what it was doing.

Ms Dlamini clarified that the Committee had to do oversight, and the questions were not in any way suggesting that the agencies were not doing their work, but were intended to supplement and present other angles. She asked what was being done about graves and repatriation; she had heard nothing about Zambia, where there were still many human remains, as Zambia was one of the countries used extensively by the liberation movement, so this and other neighbouring countries should be checked for graves and repatriation of remains. Secondly, she was concerned about what was being done for the Khoi and San people. The NCOP recently visited Stilbaai, which had a long and rich history for the Khoisan people, who were removed from the area, and the sites there were not well maintained. This Committee had promised the community that SAHRA and the NHC would go and check the sites to see what could be done, and she urged them now to do so.

The Chairperson added that any finer details around this site could be shared after the meeting.

The Chairperson asked how evaluations for heritage sites were done, and how the value for heritage properties was determined. She also wanted an explanation, along the same lines, for site grading, and the criteria for grading, emphasising that under-grading should not happen. She referred to the comment in the presentation that if people were not given appropriate recognition, it could lead to tension, and noted that the President, in the State of the Nation Address, had mentioned the Khoisan people. She asked if the agenices and country were ensuring that their heritage was taken care of and integrated into the whole country? 

The Chairperson agreed that it would be desirable to organise a workshop, where more issues could be dealt with, but in view of the NCOP's busy timetable, a suitable time would need to be identified.

The Chairperson noted that SAHRA had made profound comments on funding, when it mentioned developing heritage sites into income generating accommodation. She asked what the DAC's response to this had been?

The Chairperson asked the DAC to comment what it was doing about policies that were still pending without having been concluded, and asked when guidance would be given on these.

Ms Paula Mabizela, Chief Director: Heritage, Department of Arts and Culture, said she would respond to aspects that concerned the Department. The White Paper on Arts and Culture had been extensively reviewed, but the Minister of Arts and Culture was not satisfied with it, and had asked that there be more consultation to make it more fully representative. The consultations started on 18 March and would be completed by the end of May. Once this process had been concluded, the Paper would go back to Cabinet to be finalised. Entities could then draw on that legislation. In regard to funding, she said that all departments and entities were looking to National Treasury for more money. Although SAHRA had a solid case in relation to its mandate, the reality was that there were fiscal constraints. Support was given, within reason, however it might be difficult to justify more money in light of the other priorities of South Africa.

Ms Mabizela noted that in this financial year Robben Island had received a sizeable allocation of funds from the Department. The operational challenges in management of the Island had been noted and the Department was in the process of addressing the governance issues, before further funding can be released.

She noted that in relation to social cohesion, the national days were seen as one of the most impactful ways to promote social cohesion. The sad reality was that, despite 20 years of engagement with wider communities, there were still challenges in getting representative participation. However, the Department had been engaging communities across the spectrum, on racial factors. To date there had been little success in full integration, as the largest turnout of people at national events was black Africans. This work was, however, ongoing and the Department had not given up on its efforts. All communities were being encouraged to partake in national commemorative days. 

On the matter of geographical name changes, Ms Mabizela mentioned that this was a strong and detailed process initiated by communities. The process of name changes was consultative and then approved by the necessary authority. She responded specifically to the issue raised by Ms Dlamini, and said that the local authority where the name change had taken place must oversee that the new name was being used, and should engage on any name change misuses. In relation to the "Braai Day", the Department had approache the founder of the "Braai Day", expressing concerns that promoting the day under this title was actually moving away from the national significance of Heritage Day, and whilst he had a full constitutional right to braai on any given day, provided he did not infringe on other people's rights, the Department would prefer proper attention to be given to the significance of the Heritage Day. A request for Braai Day to partner with the Department, to gain national prominence, was declined, but it was recognised that people had the right to braai on this day if they chose, as it was a part of South African culture.

Ms Baduza started by responding to the Sara Baartman question and said that she was not ignored and her grave was one of those being protected. The issues pertaining to preservation of this site, and her heritage, were being taken care of. She had not been specifically mentioned in this presentation because the activities happened in previous years; this presentation focused on recent activities of SAHRA.

SAHRA acknowledged the need to improve its communication with the public on its mandate, and it would be starting to promote the work that government was doing on the preservation and promotion of heritage. SAHRA also wanted to get into the social media space, to capture the attention of the younger generation. This had been highlighted as a priority, and work was being done to establish those platforms.

Ms Baduza mentioned that there were many beautiful geographical sites, such as the Mpumalanga Caves and God's Window, which were being looked into for maintenance needs and in order to declare them as a heritage site of South Africa. SAHRA thought of a national campaign that could be initiated to get citizens to identify other such heritage sites. This was work in progress, and there were processes around how to protect old areas and sites from the colonial and apartheid eras. Caves were also being excavated and declared as heritage sites.

Ms Baduza noted that, in relation to human remains in neighbouring countries, there were initiatives at provincial leve.. For example, some Members of the Eastern Cape Parliament would be accompanying SAHRA to Mozambique and Zimbabwe, to repatriate the remains of some fallen heroes. She stressed that it was important to ensure that Members of the Executive Council (MECs) at provincial levels were aware of their responsibilities in regard to repatriation.

Ms Baduza addressed Ms Tlake's question on people living in heritage sites and assured her that SAHRA did respond to the needs of residents. In particular, money was paid to members of the Maphikela home for fire damage that happened in the late 1990s.

SAHRA was also engaged in youth programmes where young people were being trained on heritage management, and this currently was happening in Eastern Cape, Northern Cape and Limpopo.

Ms Baduza noted that there were some challenges to certain sites, particularly in the Western Cape (District Six and Langa), due to the large cultural area. Problems may arise when changes to the structure of a building on the site were requested, as permission needed to be sought from SAHRA. The larger the site, the more laborious it was to manage requests.

She noted that SAHRA was well aware of the Khoisan sites, and had already been working with the community. There had been some development on this, but again the site was large, which presented challenges around permits.

in answer to the questions on grading, she noted that this was covered by legislation setting out the criteria. The grading given to a site did not reduce the significance of the site, but specifed which authority managed the site. There was a list of the heritage sites that had been identified, and their grading. Local authorities could take over some of the functions pertaining to the management of heritage sites in their location, but provinces needed to devolve these functions. A challenge often faced at the local level was the funding to preserve and promote the local sites.

Ms Baduza noted that necessary experts were consulted when it came to assessing permits. If there was a need, extensive consultation could be done on certain objects. There was a list of permits available, which can be provided to the Committee. It was noted that permits were issued mainly for research purposes. The object may leave South Africa for a period of time, however it must always be returned, along with the completed research.

The heritage indaba that SAHRA was organising would extensively address the issue of social cohesion through heritage. Plans were also under way to hold heritage round table discussions with the heritage sector itself. On the issue of using properties to generate income, SAHRA will be consulting people with the necessary expertise to provide input on the idea of transforming some sites into holiday accommodation. Finally, she noted that there had been engagements between SAHRA and the South African Local Government Association. A partnership has been developed to support and provide heritage assistance, through SALGA, to local government, and it was recognised that this relationship was essential as SAHRA only had a provincial reach.

Adv Mancotywa responded that there were a number of ways in which the NHC was engaging the younger generation on heritage education. One of these was a collaboration with the Deparment of Basic Education (DBE) and the South African National Parks (SANParks). Learners and educators were identified through DBE, and camps were then held at SANParks venues where there are heritage sites. NHC was also planning a campaign with DBE and Vodacom to promote the national anthem in a youth friendly method, using cellular phones. Adv Mancotywa agreed that in the area of social cohesion there was much that could still be done. However, he also said that the status would not change overnight, and it was unrealistic to expect to rectify over one hundred years of oppression and segregation within a decade. NHC had identified this as a priority area, which formed part of the outcomes of its focus areas. The Ubuntu Honours was a partnership with DBE where school outreach on different topics aimed to promote cohesion.

On the question of merging SAHRA and NHC, Adv Mancotywa agreed with Ms TlaT that this was undesirable. The employees of the respective organisations wanted to keep bread on the table for their families, but even more than that, he stressed that of great importance was the level and maturity of the leadership. SAHRA and NHC worked well together and there was no tension between the organisations. There was a a lot of work to be done, and both entities were aware of their separate mandates yet also worked collaboratively towards protecting and promoting South Africa's heritage.

The NHC had set up bursaries and scholarships for students who wanted to pursue studies in heritage management and related fields. There was also an intention to establish a Heritage Chair at one of the tertiary institutions in South Africa, the decision on which university was still being discussed. There were also negotiations under way with the University of Dares Salaam, Tanzania, around an exchange programme. Later this year a workshop and discussion would be held to determine the Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement. There were various projects at the Universities of Fort Hare and the North West. The NHC would also be meeting with the University of Johannesburg to enter into similar agreements.

Adv Mancotywa confirmed that even though Mpumalanga was not mentioned explicitly in the presentation there are a lot of projects taking place in the province. It is the only province to have a heritage area dating back to about two million years ago. The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) were also an active agency in the Mpumalanga province.

Adv Mancotywa reiterated that social cohesion and memory were very difficult areas to work with. There was a nation building project done by Parliament, which included research into how South Africans viewed themselves, and how they identified as South Africans. There were different responses, according to age of the participant. The focus varied from the under 20 South Africans, to professional identity, and ethnic identity in the over-40 cohort. This survey provided useful information that could be used to develop a nation building programme. He agreed that there was a challenge of National days only attracting a handful of South Africans. The NHC was drafting a document on how South Africa did celebrate its national days, and how it could ensure that celebration and commemoration was inclusive.

Adv Mancotywa spoke to the question raised around language and the distortions that were taking place, and stressed that there was a need to move away from the idea of merely preserving language, to developing it, pointing out that, like culture, language was dynamic and grew as society developed. There was a need to find ways to harmonise the development of language and society.

Finally he mentioned that there was an impact study being developed, to determine the meaning and effect of heritage on society. The Department had been requested to ensure that specific heritage policies were taken to the next level. The devil was often in the detailed implementation of the policies, rather than in the policies themselves.

Adv Mancotywa expressed full agreement with the suggested workshop. He also requested the support of the Committee so that the NHC could achieve its objectives. He added that the NHC needed the participation of the Department of Basic Education and tertiary institutions.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters for the detailed answer to probing questions. She noted that the Committee would try to arrange a workshop with the Department, SAHRA and NHC, and the DAC might be asked to sponsor this workshop. She reiterated that the work of these entities needed to be showcased to the public, as the work that was being done was good and important.

She noted that it was in the wisdom of the Minister of Arts and Culture to determine whether to keep the two entities separate. It had been shown that they did not compete with each other and that they augmented the work of each other, although there may be areas of overlap. She encouraged SAHRA and NHC to bring municipalities on board.She thanked both for working well and urged them to keep up the good work. The Committee was well aware that the mandate was large but the budget small. In conclusion, she reminded NHC about the further information and packages to be provided to the Committee. The Committee would engage with the entities again, and would be specifically addressing how the heritage and these entities were linked to tourism.

Other business
The public was requested to leave the meeting while the Committee adopted its Committee programme and minutes of the meeting on 25 February 2015.

The open session of the meeting was adjourned.
 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: