Found 189714344 3292354

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT
SimonMakuvaza Editor
The Management
of Cultural World
Heritage Sites and
Development in Africa
History, Nomination
Processes and
Representation on the
World Heritage List
123
SpringerBriefs in Archaeology
Archaeological Heritage Management
Series editors
Douglas Comer, Baltimore, USA
Helaine Silverman, Urbana, USA
Willem Willems, Leiden, The Netherlands
For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/10187
Simon Makuvaza
Editor
The Management of Cultural

World Heritage Sites and
Development in Africa
History, Nomination Processes
and Representation on
the World Heritage List
13
Editor
Simon Makuvaza
Department of Archaeology
Leiden University
Leiden
The Netherlands
ISSN 2192-5313 ISSN 2192-5321 (electronic)

ISBN 978-1-4939-0481-5 ISBN 978-1-4939-0482-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2
Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014933567
The Author(s) 2014

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts
in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of
being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright
Law of the Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained
from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance
Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Foreword
When Simon Makuvaza first asked me to review the chapters in this book, I
thought it would be a great opportunity to learn more about the progress on the
World Heritage front in Africa. I have little firsthand knowledge of the continent,
having only visited once for the 1999 World Archaeological Congress in Cape
Town. In my teaching, research, and especially my professional service, though, I
have become familiar with the outlines of Africas place in human history as well
as the challenges faced by colleagues at the coalface of archaeological and cultural
heritage work in the region. Even so, as I read the chapters, I was surprised by
how few bright spots there seem to be in relation to cultural World Heritage Sites.
What encouraged me was the fact that everyone was still willing to give it a go
against the odds, to advance the ideals of the World Heritage Convention in ways
that work in the varied African contexts that the chapters describe.
I was further heartened by news from the World Heritage Centre that African
Culture Ministers called for balancing heritage conservation and social and eco-
nomic development at the 37th Session of the World Heritage Committee held
in Cambodia in mid-2013. The press release included the usual generic mother-
hood statements about heritage and development, but went on to explicitly draw
attention to the African World Heritage Fund (AWHF) and its capacity building
programmesfor nominations, disaster-risk preparedness training, management
and conservation. The meeting saw Kenya and Namibia pledge further support
for the AWHF. Astonishingly, it also saw Cambodia, one of the worlds least-
developed economies, pledge support for safeguarding Malis heritage. Cambodia
is well aware of the issues surrounding heritage and development, being home to
the ruins of Angkor and other cultural heritage icons. Its support for the AWHF
shows that even impoverished countries facing their own complex heritage issues
want to help with the problems faced by World Heritage managers in Africa.
As I write these words, I am preparing to leave for Angkor to oversee progress
on the 2014 Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association (IPPA). Partly
prompted by the location, and the problems it brings to mind for archaeologists
and heritage managers, IPPA will for the first time have a substantial heritage
v
vi Foreword
component in the conference program. Reading through the session and chapter
abstracts, I see my colleagues referring to many of the same issues raised in rela-
tion to Africa in the present volume. No one, however, has suggested that we set
up something like the AWHF for the Indo-Pacific region. Thinking about the les-
sons, I have learned from the chapters below, it is definitely time for us to start
thinking along those lines!
Brisbane, Australia Ian Lilley

Preface
This book is one of the International Committee on Archaeological Heritage

Management (ICAHM) book series, which deals for the first time, exclusively
with The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites and Development in
Africa. The book is the result of a resolute and highly successful effort to bring
together academics and practitioners from across the globe to explore various
issues concerning the management of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa. Most
of the contributors have worked or they carry out research in Africa as archaeolo-
gists, anthropologists, or managers of cultural World Heritage Sites. The volume
is a platform from which their wealth of experiences and know-how is explored in
view of determining the extent to which the sites have been or are managed in rela-
tion to development in the continent. The management of World Heritage Sites in
Africa and in particular, cultural World Heritage Sites has always been considered
to lag behind modern international standards and best practices when compared
with other regions of the world such as Europe, the Americas, and Oceania. For
this reason, the contents of the book form the basis of ongoing discussions on The
Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites and Development in Africa.
Cultural World Heritage Sites are a component of heritage, and heritage is a
set of values fashioned by people. These values include norms and beliefs as well
as material and technological aspects, where in most cases, especially in Africa,
nature and culture cannot be separated. The values of heritage thus include the
physical and intangible elements, which are of equal significance for the authen-
ticity and integrity of the heritage. Viewed from this angle, there are many herit-
ages, the contents and meanings of which change through time and across space.
In Africa, cultural World Heritage Sites, therefore, consist of different types of
properties, which relate to a variety of settings and they include not only impor-
tant monuments and historic areas but also, by and large, the built environment.
However, the notion of cultural World Heritage Sites can be understood in a much
broader sense than this. Given that there are a variety of cultural World Heritage
Sites, specific protection, management, and development approaches may vary
considerably according to the context and values that each site may have as is
demonstrated in the chapters of this book.
Although this volume does not cover all cultural World Heritage Sites,
countries, or regions in Africa, it has endeavored to explore, in their widest sense,
management issues of these sites and development in the continent. Therefore, the
vii
viii Preface
sites, countries, and management issues that are examined and given as examples
in this book are only a representative sample or a subset of the broad issues, which
concerns the administration of cultural World Heritage Sites and development in
the continent.
The book is structured around major themes based on selected topical issues
and on the current view that the management of World Heritage Sites and devel-
opment in Africa should be complementary rather than conflictual. The prevailing
view is that if properly supported and managed, cultural World Heritage Sites can
propel development in many African countries, predominantly through cultural
heritage tourism-related pursuits. Tourism not only increases foreign exchange
income but also creates employment opportunities for the many local communities
subsisting close to cultural World Heritage Sites. While it can bring development
at the sites, tourism can in turn cause land degradation, pollution, spread of dis-
eases, and conflicts among the local communities and administrative organizations
if it is not properly managed.
Throughout this book, these themes all play central roles, acclimatizing them-
selves to different contexts as they arise. But as one reads through this volume, it
becomes clear that there are various areas of overlap such that some of the sec-
tions can fit with satisfaction in more than one chapter of the book. This is not
intentional by the authors nor is it a result of deliberate control by the editor, but it
demonstrates the similarities and interconnectedness of the management issues of
cultural World Heritage Sites and development in many African countries. When
editing this book, a decision was therefore made not to superficially regard various
research and managements issues as if they are disconnected. In fact, the overlap-
ping nature of the chapters is considered to be one of the unique attributes of this
volume.
To set the tone of the book, the first chapter by Janette Deacon is a synopsis
of the protracted history of the nomination of cultural World Heritage Sites in
Africa, from the commencement of the World Heritage Convention in 1972 to its
40th anniversary in 2012. In her review, Deacon argues that initially, the nomi-
nation and management of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa was strongly
influenced by European values, a subject that is also raised and dealt with at some
length by Colin Breen in Chap. 7. This is in part because the notion of World
Heritage Sites was first developed and matured in Europe before it was taken to
other parts of the world. However, the Eurocentric approach of nominating sites on
the World Heritage List (WHL) has since been modified in order to accommodate
more sites on the List, especially in regions of the world where there are few sites
such as Africa and Asia. While the figures and percentages discussed by Deacon in
her chapter show a general increase in World Heritage Sites in Africa on the WHL
partly as a result of the overhaul of the nomination criteria, nomination of cultural
heritage sites to the List has not kept pace when compared with other parts of the
globe, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
The underrepresentation of heritage sites on the WHL and the need to assist
African States Parties to the 1972 World Heritage Convention to nominate more
and to properly manage their World Heritage Sites has led to the establishment
Preface ix
in 2006, of the African World Heritage Fund (AWHF). Since its inception, the
AWHF has successfully managed to set up an endowment fund and to carry out
various programs in several African countries to help nominate and manage World
Heritage Sites in much of the continent. Details about the establishment of the
AWHF and some of its various programs of nomination and conservation of World
Heritage Sites in Africa are broadly explored by Herman Kiriama in Chap.2.
However, even though the AWHF has largely succeeded in achieving some of its
objectives as argued in this chapter by Kiriama, it is still faced with challenges
of balancing the requirements of World Heritage Sites in all African countries.
Kiriama concludes this chapter by advocating for the need for more African coun-
tries to make considerable contributions to the AWHF even if they have weak
economies. This would make it possible for the AWHF to successfully implement
its objectives and in turn lead to development in the continent.
In Chap. 3, Douglas Comer explores the wish by ICAHM to help African States
Parties nominate cultural heritage sites that have potential as World Heritage Sites
through the African Initiative Program. The Program was launched at the joint Pan
African Archaeological Association for Prehistory and Related Studies (Panaf)/
Society of Africanist Archaeologists (SAfA) conference in November 2010 at the
University Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar, Senegal. In this chapter, Comer discusses
a number of issues, including the lack of a credible and well-balanced WHL, as
one of the major reasons why ICAHM wishes to help African countries nominate
cultural heritage sites onto the List. Arguing for this desire, Comer cites a number
of cultural heritage sites in Africa that have the potential to be successfully nomi-
nated on the WHL. But efforts by ICAHM to help nominate African cultural herit-
age sites onto the WHL are up till now faced by a number of challenges such that
this aspiration is yet to be realized.
The State Partys primary responsibility to the World Heritage Convention is
to nominate and maintain the values for which cultural heritage sites are inscribed
on the WHL. In Chap. 4, Makuvaza and Chiwaura explore why some African
countries do or do not support the nomination and management of cultural World
Heritage Sites. In their wide ranging investigation of the issues concerned, they
discuss several reasons why many African governments fail to support the nomi-
nation and management of cultural World Heritage Sites in their countries. These
reasons range from lack of funding to lack of understanding by some African gov-
ernments that proper management of these sites can actually impel development in
their countries. As argued by Makuvaza and Chiwaura in this chapter, and by the
majority of the authors in this book, lack of funding appears to be one of the most
troublesome issues that inhibit many African countries, which desire to nominate
and manage their cultural World Heritage Sites properly. However, further enquiry
of the issues by Makuvaza and Chiwaura showed that identity and nation building
as well as development and promotion of tourism are some of the important rea-
sons why some African governments support the nomination and management of
cultural World Heritage Sites in their countries.
In Africa, many communities that live close to cultural World Heritage Sites
have no idea as to what this actually means. Decades earlier, many of these
x Preface
communities were pushed to marginal areas by the colonial administrators when

some of the cultural World Heritage Sites were initially established as protected
and conservation areas. However, most communities are neither involved in the
proclamation of cultural World Heritage Sites nor is it made clear to them how
they could benefit from these sites. In Chap. 5, Sinamai argues that although the
management of cultural World Heritage Sites is often associated with infrastruc-
tural development such as the construction of roads, hotels, and lodges and con-
nection of water pipes to hotels through villages, not many communities living
close to cultural World Heritage Sites benefit from these developments. With risks
that are often associated with tourism at sites such as Great Zimbabwe still not
explained properly to the local communities, many of them are exposed to dangers
that are connected with tourism while trying to eke out a living from the industry.
In contrast however, other local communities that understand what cultural World
Heritage Sites mean to them have in fact actually taken advantage of tourism to
uplift their lives as is the case in the sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests in Kenya.
The thought of sustainable use of World Heritage Sites was directly influenced
by debates from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, where the vital role of local com-
munities in the protection of biodiversity through sustainable use was recognized.
It was only in 2005 when a clause was incorporated in the Operational Guidelines
for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, which reflected discus-
sions in the World Heritage community and in the sessions of the World Heritage
Committee. As a consequence of this development, the need for local people to
sustainably benefit from protected areas such as cultural World Heritage Sites has
now filtered through World Heritage management discourses. In Chap. 6, Ibrahima
Thiaw discusses the management of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa and
their contribution to sustainable development in the continent. Citing examples of
the Island of Gore and Fort James in the Gambia, and the Forts and Castles of
Ghana in West Africa, Thiaw contends that although local communities have to be
allowed to benefit from these sites, without proper control, sustainable use of these
sites can be very complicated as the communities cause conflicts, degradation,
pollution, and deliberate destruction of the sites. Although there are various prob-
lems associated with the management of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa
as Thiaw argues, these problems should not camouflage the ability of the sites to
drive development in the continent.
In Chap. 7, Colin Breen examines the opportunities World Heritage Sites across
Africa play in the construction and preservation of cultures against the pressures
these sites face from a variety of anthropogenic and natural processes of change. In
this chapter, Breen briefly traces the proclamation history of cultural World Heritage
Sites in Africa, arguing that their proclamation was strongly influenced by European
values, which placed emphasis on their physical aspects. Breen further explores the
threats and pressures that these sites face in Africa and he contends that as a result
of these threats, the social fabric of communities is torn apart and there is an aban-
donment of traditional management systems. Breen blames both the anthropogenic
and natural processes of change, as the ones which make it difficult to construct and
preserve African cultures. However, although this is the case, Breen argues that there
Preface xi
is light at the end of the tunnel as successive conservation projects initiatives at Ilha
de Mozambique, for example, focused more on the promotion of intangible cultural
heritage, which include stories, songs, and dance.
The management of cultural World Heritage Sites and their contribution to the
economic empowerment of the local communities living near them is examined by
Charles Musiba in the last chapter. He begins his chapter by giving an example of
the development of a flagship Maropeng visitor complex in South Africa for the
fossil hominid sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, and Kromdraai. Examining the
successes of the Maropeng project, Musiba showed and argued that the project is
now benefiting local communities through direct and indirect employment as it has
become a tourist visitor attraction near Johannesburg, Tshwane, and Ekurhuleni.
Having recognized the achievements of the Maropeng project, plans have now
also been tabled in Tanzania to develop the paleoanthropological sites of Laetoli
and Olduvai Gorge, which are located in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. In
this chapter, Charles discusses several developmental projects at these two World
Heritage Sites and he contends that when completed, the project would benefit the
local communities living near the sites. However, while the planned development
of Tanzanias cradle of humankind is noble, it remains to be seen if it will be able
to contribute to the economic empowerment of the local communities in a manner
similar to the Maropeng project in South Africa.
It is clear from the various chapters that the management of cultural World
Heritage Sites issues is inextricably intertwined and cannot be separated, and that
the wide spectrum of perspectives presented in this book combine to make an
important contribution to a new aspect of a continuing discussion.
The editor is sincerely grateful to all friends and colleagues who responded to
the call to contribute chapters for this book. During the course of the editing, the
contributors enthusiastically agreed to make significant changes to their original
chapters. The editor is also indebted to many people who contributed in various
ways to the project. In particular, Prof. Ian Lilley tirelessly reviewed all the chap-
ters and made useful suggestions on how the manuscript could be improved while
Dr. Douglas Comer took trouble to have the text successfully printed. Grateful
appreciation is also conveyed to the series co-editors, namely Dr. Douglas Comer,
Prof. Helaine Silverman, and Willem J. H. Willems who accepted to have this
book published as one of the ICAHM book series. Lastly, the editor would like
to sincerely thank the Faculty of the Built Environment and its members of staff
at the National University of Science and Technology in Bulawayo for providing
space and time to coordinate and edit this book. The interest indicated and encour-
agement expressed by the university and in particular, the faculty, to carry out
research is openly acknowledged in this preamble.
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, September 2013 Simon Makuvaza

Contents
1 An Overview of the History of the Nomination of Cultural

World Heritage Sites in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Janette Deacon
2 The Role of the African World Heritage Fund in the Conservation

of African World Heritage Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Herman O. Kiriama
3 The Contribution of ICAHM to the Nomination of African

Cultural World Heritage Sites on the World Heritage List
Through the Africa Initiative Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Douglas C. Comer
4 African States Parties, Support, Constraints, Challenges and

Opportunities for Managing Cultural World Heritage
Sites in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Simon Makuvaza and Henry Chiwaura
5 The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa

and Their Contribution to the Development of the Continent. . . . . . . 55
Ashton Sinamai
6 The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa

and Their Contribution to Sustainable Development
in the Continent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Ibrahima Thiaw
7 World Heritage Sites, Culture and Sustainable Communities

in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Colin Breen
xiii
xiv Contents
8 The Administration of Cultural World Heritage Sites

and Their Contribution to the Economic Empowerment
of Local Communities in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Charles M. Musiba
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Author Biography
Janette Deacon graduated from the University of Cape Town in 1960; she
completed two short-term teaching positions at the University of Cape Town,
after which she spent 17 years as editor of the South African Archaeological
Bulletin and senior researcher at the University of Stellenbosch. Here, she ana-
lyzed several Later Stone Age artifact collections for her Ph.D. (1982) and in
1985 began a project on rock art in the /Xam landscape of the Northern Cape.
In 1989, she was appointed as Archaeologist at the National Monuments Council
and became involved in the management of archaeological resources and draft-
ing of new legislation and guidelines in South Africa. From the mid-1990s,
Dr. Deacon has been the coordinator for the Southern African Rock Art Project
(SARAP) that has developed training workshops to assist African States Parties
to the World Heritage Convention to nominate rock art sites and develop man-
agement plans. After retiring at the end of 1999, she continued with SARAP
workshops. By 2006, six rock art sites had been inscribed on the list in Tanzania,
Malawi, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa. She has also assisted
with management plans for archaeological and rock art sites at the Matobo
Hills and Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape World Heritage Sites, and has been
appointed as mentor by the African World Heritage Fund to assist Swaziland
and Uganda with their World Heritage nominations. Since 2008, she has been
an advisory member of the rock art section of the HEADS program at the World
Heritage Centre that has assessed sites relevant to Human Evolution, Adaptation,
Dispersal, and Social Development. Among other honorary positions, Dr. Deacon
has served as a council member, secretary, and president of the South African
Archaeological Society and the Association of Southern African Professional
Archaeologists (formerly the Southern African Association of Archaeologists),
as ICAHM Vice-President for sub-Saharan Africa, as a Council member of the
South African Heritage Resources Agency, and as Chairperson and Council mem-
ber of the provincial heritage resources authority, Heritage Western Cape. Email:
hjdeacon@iafrica.com
Herman Kiriama holds a Ph.D. in Heritage Management from Deakin
University in Australia and an M.Phil. in Archaeology from Cambridge University.
He has taught at a university for over 15 years, and worked at ICCROM as program
consultant. He was also an immovable heritage coordinator at the Centre for Heritage
xv
xvi Author Biography
Development in Africa (CHDA). He is currently the Team Leader of Projects at the

Australian Cultural Heritage Management in Australia. Email: k iriamah@yahoo.com
Douglas Comer holds a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, College Park.
He is the recipient of numerous grants for the development of aerial and satel-
lite remote sensing technologies and GIS for archaeological research and cultural
resource preservation, and has published extensively on archaeology site and land-
scape management. A Fulbright Scholar in cultural resource management and for-
mer Chair of the Maryland Governors Advisory Committee on Archaeology, he
served two terms on the Board of Trustees for the United States Committee for the
International Council of Monuments and Sites (US/ICOMOS) and has been Chair
of the Nominations Committee for the Register of Professional Archaeologists.
He is currently Co-President of the International Committee on Archaeological
Heritage Management (ICAHM) for ICOMOS, and ex-officio member of
the US/ICOMOS Board of Trustees representing the Society for American
Archaeology (SAA). Email: dcomer@culturalsite.com
Simon Makuvaza (editor) is currently reading for a Ph.D. in Archaeological
Heritage Management as an external student at Leiden University in Netherlands.
He is also a Research Fellow in the Faculty of the Built Environment at the
National University of Science and Technology in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
Previously, he lectured in Archaeology and Heritage Management at the Catholic
University of Malawi in Limbe. Earlier to that he had worked for the National
Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe as a Curator of Archaeology from 1997
to 2010. His research interests are local indigenous communities and the manage-
ment of cultural heritage sites, cultural heritage and development, conservation,
and the management of World Heritage Sites with an objective of finding sustain-
able solutions to public heritage-related management problems in contested herit-
age settings. Email: Makuvazas@yahoo.com
Henry Chiwaura is a lecturer of archaeology and museum studies at the Great
Zimbabwe University in the Department of Museums and Heritage Studies. His
research interests are heritage legislation, indigenous knowledge systems, her-
itage, and society and museology. He holds a B.A. in Economic History and
Archaeology from the University of Zimbabwe, Postgraduate Diploma in Care of
Collections and Heritage Management from the University of Nairobi in Kenya,
and an M.A. in Heritage Studies from the University of Zimbabwe. He previously
worked for the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe for 12 years,
during which he managed the Ziwa archaeological cultural landscape and Great
Zimbabwe among others. Email: hchiwaura@yahoo.com
Ashton Sinamai is a Ph.D. student at Deakin Universitys School of History,
Heritage and Society in Melbourne, Australia. Previously, he was a lecturer in
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management at the Midlands State University
in Zimbabwe. He has worked as an archaeologist at Great Zimbabwe and at
Khami World Heritage Sites, and as a Chief Curator for the National Museum
of Namibia. As Chief Curator, he took part in the excavation of Africas larg-
est shipwreck, the Oranjemond Shipwreck in southern Namibia. He has been a
resource person and coordinator for several ICCROM/Africa 2009 courses and
Author Biography xvii
workshops, including the 6th Technical Course on Impact Assessment as a Tool

for Heritage Management held in Merowe, Sudan in 2008, where he was the
academic consultant. He has published several papers on heritage management
in Africa and has also co-edited a book, Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in
Africa: An Overview, published by The Centre for Heritage Development in Africa
(Mombasa, Kenya). His area of interest includes politics of heritage, cultural
resource management, environmental impact assessment as well as cultural land-
scapes. Email: asinamai@yahoo.co.uk
Ibrahima Thiaw is the director of the archaeology laboratory of IFAN, a
research institute-based at the University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar. He is also
the director of Muse Thodore Monod dArt Africain, the oldest and largest
museum in Senegal. He received a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Rice University
(Houston, Texas, USA) in 1999. He also holds a Masters degree in History from
the University Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar (Senegal) and, in Prehistory from the
University of Paris X (Nanterre, France). Over the past 10 years, he ran several
research programs on sites associated to the Atlantic slave trade and European col-
onization including Gore Island, Fort Senoudebou, and Tata Almamy (Senegal).
He received several fellowships including a Fulbright at the University of
Minnesota (2005, Minneapolis, USA) and at the Centro de Estudos Afro Orientais
(2008, Salvador, Brazil) where he was also a fellow at the Fabrics de Ideas
in 2010. He has worked in several African countries including, Senegal, Mali,
Guine, Sierra Leone, and Congo. His research interests focus primarily on the
trans-Saharan and Atlantic trade systems, slavery, material culture analysis, iden-
tity, commemorations, and the politics of the past and the future of traditions.
He is also involved in cultural heritage management in Senegal and elsewhere in
Africa. He recently edited a book (2010) on Espace, culture matrielle et identits
en Sngambie published by CODESRIA. Email: thiawi@yahoo.com
Colin Breen studied archaeology and development at the National University
of Ireland, the Open University and the University of St Andrews, Scotland.
He was previously a government archaeologist in the Republic of Ireland and a
Research Fellow at the Queens University, Belfast. He is currently a senior lec-
turer at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. His research interests include
historical archaeology, conflict, and development studies. He recently published
Archaeology and International Development (Duckworth, London 2010). Email:
cp.breen@ulster.ac.uk
Charles Musiba is an associate professor of biological anthropology in
the department of anthropology at the University of Colorado Denver. He is a
Tanzanian, born on the shores of Lake Victoria in Mwanza town where he attended
primary and secondary school education before pursuing his undergraduate studies
at the JW Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany (1985) followed by a mas-
ters degree in Human Ecology from the Free University of Brussels in Belgium
in 1991. He received his second masters degree in Biological Anthropology in
1996, followed by a Ph.D. in 1999 from the University of Chicago. Charles has
extensively worked at Olduvai Gorge and Laetoli in northern Tanzania since 1999.
His research work on human origins focuses on reconstructing past environments
xviii Author Biography
(3.54.0 million years ago) using proxy data. He is actively involved in conser-
vation and sustainable use of paleoanthropological resources not only to a small
select group of people but to everybody in the world through education and cul-
tural exchange programs. His previous work includes the evolution of upright
posture and bipedal gait in humans with particular emphasis on the interpretation
of the 3.5-million-year-old fossil proto-human footprints from Laetoli in north-
ern Tanzania. Charles is currently a member of an International committee that
is helping Tanzania to come up with a sustainable conservation solution for the
3.5-million-year-old footprints at Laetoli and has championed for a museum to
be built on-site to provide access to scientists, educators, and visitors alike to see
one of humanitys prehistoric past preserved in solidified volcanic ash. In 2012,
Charles and his colleagues received perhaps one of the largest grants Tanzania has
ever given for a single project ($8 million). They received a 5-year grant for devel-
oping a training and research program to meet the needs of the newly proposed
footprint museum in Tanzania. Email: Charles.Musiba@ucdenver.edu
Chapter 1
An Overview of the History of the
Nomination of Cultural World Heritage
Sites in Africa
Janette Deacon
Introduction
Africa, as defined in this chapter, has 61 countries. It comprises both the Africa
Region recognised by UNESCO for the purposes of the World Heritage Convention
with 54 countries (on the continent south of the Sahara as well as islands in the
Atlantic and Indian oceans) and 6 countries north of the Sahara that UNESCO
includes in the Arab States Region (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco
and Tunisia).
In its fortieth anniversary year in 2012, the World Heritage Convention Concerning
the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 had been signed
by 190 States Parties worldwide and the World Heritage List (WHL) comprised
962 properties in 157 States Parties. Table1.1 summarises the number of inscribed
properties in each of the regions at the end of 2012 with 745 described as cultural,
188 as natural and 29 as mixed (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/statistics). Of these,
124 (12.9%) cultural, mixed and natural properties were in the whole of Africa. If
transnational sites are counted twice as individual properties in each of the neighbour-
ing states, the total in Africa is 129 (13.9%) (World Heritage Centre 2011).
The first African sites to be inscribed on the WHL were the Simien National
Park in Ethiopia, the Island of Gore in Senegal and the Rock-hewn Churches at
Lalibela in Ethiopia, all in 1978. These three properties coincidentally encapsulate
some of the key issues that have characterised Africas World Heritage properties
that were, initially at least, strongly influenced by European values.
The Simien National Park, like several other natural sites on the continent,
was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996 because of a major
J. Deacon(*)
Honorary Research Associate, Rock Art Research Institute, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa
e-mail: hjdeacon@iafrica.com
S. Makuvaza (ed.), The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites 1

and Development in Africa, SpringerBriefs in Archaeological Heritage Management,
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_1, The Author(s) 2014
2 J. Deacon
Table1.1Number of World Heritage properties by region (UNESCO 2013)

2013
Regions Cultural Natural Mixed Total (%) States parties with inscribed
properties
Africa 47 35 4 86 9 32
Arab States 67 4 2 73 8 17b
Asia and the Pacific 148 55 10 213a 22 32
Europe and North 393 59 10 462a 48 50
America
Latin America and the 90 35 3 128 13 26
Caribbean
Total 745 188 29 962 100 157
a The property Uvs Nuur Basin (Mongolia, Russian Federation) is a trans-regional property
located in Europe and Asia and the Pacific region. It is counted here in the Asia and the Pacific
region
b Six of these countries (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) are included
in Africa in this paper so the numbers in this table do not always tally with the numbers quoted
for Africa in the text
increase in the human population in the Park and consequent problems with man-
agement. The two cultural sites are identified with historical events that had as
much to do with the history of other continents as they did with Africa. Gore
Island highlighted the role played by Africa in supplying slaves to the Americas,
and Lalibela epitomises the early architecture inspired by Christianity on the
African continent. Ethiopia was not only the first African country to nominate a
natural and a cultural site, but also shares with Morocco the distinction of having
more World Heritage Sites (9) than any other country in the Africa and Arab States
Regions. This perhaps reflects the strong historical and cultural ties that Ethiopia
has with Italy, which itself has more World Heritage Sites (47) than any other
country in the world, ahead of Spain with 44 and China with 43.
By the early 1990s, the strong emphasis on European properties in the WHL had
become a concern for the World Heritage Committee, particularly in Africa and South
America. Following a decision on a global strategy taken in Phuket in 1994, a meeting
was held in Harare in Zimbabwe in October 1995 organised by the World Heritage
Centre to address the poor representation of Africa on the WHL. Leon Pressouyre
(1995, p. 13) noted at the time that 142 states had ratified the Convention, of which
34 were in Africa (i.e. Africa south of the Sahara). There were 468 sites on the WHL
in 1995 (UNESCO 2013), and of the 48 properties in Africa south of the Sahara, 28
were natural properties, 3 were mixed sites and 17 were cultural (Pressouyre 1995).
Together they comprised 10.25% of the World Heritage Sites. The 17 cultural sites in
Africa south of the Sahara represented a mere 3.63% of the world total.
The wake-up call to overcome this obvious imbalance was taken seriously by
African countries, and a concerted effort was made to encourage those not yet sig-
natories to the Convention to ratify it. As a result, an additional 17 African states
became States Parties, increasing the number by 50% from 34 in 1995 to 51 in 2012.
1 An Overview of the History of the Nomination of Cultural World 3
In the same time period, inscription of African World Heritage Sites, both cul-
tural and natural, increased by 38.7% from 48 in 1995 to 124 in 2012, increasing
Africas global share of all World Heritage Sites from 10.9% in 1995 to 12.89%
in 2012. The increase in the number of all World Heritage Sites over this same
time period was 45%, so although the African effort was laudable, it still lagged a
little behind the global trend. Africa never the less remains under-represented. For
example, the 51 States Parties from Africa comprise 26.8% of the 1901 signatories
to the Convention but have 12.89% of the inscribed sites, whereas 32 States
Parties (16.8%) in Latin America and the Caribbean have a more comparable
13.3% share of the total number of World Heritage Sites in 2012. The relative sig-
nificance of 38 natural sites in Africa (Table1.1), representing 20.2% of all natu-
ral sites on the WHL in 2012, and 17.2% of all mixed sites, is closer in proportion
to the percentage representation of States Parties in Africa, yet the proportion of
African cultural sites on the list remains anomalously low.
Excluding for the moment the 6 African States Parties in the Arab States
Region, the 17 cultural properties in sub-Saharan Africa quoted by Pressouyre in
1995 represented 3.63% of all World Heritage Sites in that year. Although the
number increased to 47 in 2012, they now represent only 0.05% of the global
total of 962 properties and comprise only 6.3% of the 745 cultural sites inscribed
on the WHL in 2012. However, if the cultural sites inscribed on the WHL for
the 6 African States Parties in the Arab States Region are added to those for sub-
Saharan Africa, the situation is more cheerful: the total of 89 cultural sites for the
whole of Africa represents 11.9% of the worlds cultural heritage sites versus
12.08% for 90 cultural sites in Latin America and the Caribbean.
What these figures highlight is that African countries have taken note of the
anomalies that were drawn to their attention in 1995, but nominations of cultural
sites have not kept pace, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. The details of, and
reasons for, this anomaly are the subject of discussion in other chapters of this
book that will focus exclusively on cultural sites and the countries that nominated
and manage them.
African States Parties
Following formal acceptance of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention on

16November 1972, the first African country to become a signatory was Egypt
on7 February 1974, followed by Sudan, Algeria, Congo, Nigeria and Niger later
in the same year. The most recent signatories are Swaziland (30 November 2005),
Sao Tom and Principe (25 July 2006), and Equatorial Guinea (10 March 2010).
1 This total includes 13 States Parties in Africa and 6 States Parties in Latin America and the
Caribbean that are signatories to the Convention but have not yet successfully nominated sites to
the WHL.
4 J. Deacon
Of the 51 countries in Africa that have ratified the Convention, 30 have cul-
tural heritage properties on the WHL and a further 13 countries are signatories to
the World Heritage Convention but have no World Heritage Sites as yet (Table1.2).
Eleven have ratified the Convention but have no cultural sites on the List. The total
number of States Parties in Africa that have signed the Convention is 51 out of a
total of 61 countries on the African continent and surrounding islands. The countries
not on this list are Somalia, Somaliland and Western Sahara that are not yet signa-
tories and the Canary Islands and the islands of Ceuta, Madeira, Mayotte, Melilla,
Reunion and St Helena, which are not signatories in their own right, but are part of
other States Parties such as Spain, France and the United Kingdom (Table1.2).
Nomination Procedures
One of the first tasks for a State Party after it has gone through the formalities
of ratification is for it to prepare an inventory of heritage sites and draw up a
Tentative List of properties that it considers worthy of nomination to the WHL.
Only sites on the Tentative List may be nominated for inscription on the WHL. As
the number of nominations increased in the early 2000s, it became difficult for the
World Heritage Committee to process them and a limit was placed on the number
that a State Party may nominate. Currently, a State Party may submit a maximum
of one cultural and one natural site each year.
All nominations submitted by States Parties are advised to follow the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
prepared by the World Heritage Centre (UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee
for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 2012) and available
on the website http://whc.unesco.org. The Guidelines have been regularly updated
over the past 40years to keep pace with changing values and priorities and
describe the nomination process in detail. Amongst other features, the Guidelines
include a copy of the Convention and description of the process for becoming a
State Party, copies of relevant decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee
and the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible WHL. The
format for nomination dossiers, the time frame for submission and assessment and
relevant bibliographic references are appended. Further details are available in a
well-illustrated resource manual entitled Preparing World Heritage Nominations
(UNESCO 2011) that can be downloaded from the website.
The size and context of the site is important to establish in order to decide
whether it is to be nominated as a single, serial or transnational property. The
boundary of a single site must enclose all the outstanding universal values of the
property. If there are either large or small geographical gaps between places with
the same or similar values, they should be presented as a serial nomination. If the
cultural values cross over national boundaries, all the countries involved must
work together to nominate and manage a transnational site.
Table1.2Status of African states parties with no cultural World Heritage sites

State party Status No.
(a) African states parties that have ratified the convention but have not yet successfully
nominated a property on the WHL
Angola (1991) No sites inscribed 1
Burundi (1982) No sites inscribed 2
Comoros (2000) No sites inscribed 3
Djibouti (2007) No sites inscribed 4
Equatorial Guinea (2010) No sites inscribed 5
Eritrea (2001) No sites inscribed 6
Guinea-Bissau (2006) No sites inscribed 7
Lesotho (2003) No sites inscribed 8
Liberia (2002) No sites inscribed 9
Rwanda (2000) No sites inscribed 10
So Tom and Principe (2006) No sites inscribed 11
Sierra Leone (2005) No sites inscribed 12
Swaziland (2005) No sites inscribed 13
(b) African states that have ratified the convention but have no cultural properties on the WHL
Cameroon (1982) No cultural sites inscribed 1
Canary Islands (Spain 1974) Not an independent signatory 2
No cultural sites inscribed
Central African Republic (1980) No cultural sites inscribed 3
Chad (1999) No cultural sites inscribed 4
Congo (1987) No cultural sites inscribed 5
Democratic Republic of Congo (1974) No cultural sites inscribed 6
Guinea (1979) No cultural sites inscribed 7
Niger (1974) No cultural sites inscribed 8
Seychelles (1980) No cultural sites inscribed 9
St Helena (United Kingdom 1974) Not an independent signatory 10
Zambia (1984) No cultural sites inscribed 11
(c) African states that have not yet ratified the convention or are not independent signatories
Canary Islands (Spain 1974) Not an independent signatory to the convention 1
Ceuta (Spain) Not an independent signatory to the convention 2
Madeira (Portugal) Not an independent signatory to the convention 3
Mayotte Not a signatory to the convention 4
Melilla Not a signatory to the convention 5
Runion Not an independent signatory to the convention 6
St Helena (United Kingdom 1974) Not an independent signatory to the convention 7
Somalia Not a signatory to the convention 8
Somaliland Not a signatory to the convention 9
Western Sahara Not signatory to the convention 10
6 J. Deacon
Table1.3Criteria used for nomination of cultural World Heritage sites in Africa in 2012
Criteria Human Sub-Saharan North African Slavery, colo- Total and (%)
evolution, settlements and settlements and nial settlements properties using
hunter-gatherer structures structures and modern this criterion
and rock art cities
heritage
(i) 3 6 8 2 20
23%
(ii) 1 9 15 6 32
37%
(iii) 12 17 22 7 64
74%
(iv) 4 15 14 6 43
50%
(v) 2 8 12 27
31%
(vi) 5 7 9 10 31
36%
(vii) 3 1 6
7%
(viii) 2 3
3.4%
(ix) 2 4
4.6%
(x) 3 6
7%
Note that 5 of the cultural landscapes and mixed sites are each listed under two categories and
the total number of inscribed sites in 2012 was 89
After appointing a steering committee and working group to write the nomination,
information is gathered to help decide which of the criteria for cultural or mixed sites
are the most appropriate for the property. It is against these criteria that the nomi-
nation will be evaluated. There are 10 criteria that used to be specific to either cul-
tural (i)(vi) or natural (vii)(x) sites, but the distinction has been removed and one
or more of any of the ten may now be used. Table1.3 lists the criteria and the num-
ber of times they have been selected for all the cultural and mixed World Heritage
Sites in Africa. Criterion (iii) is used for 74% of the cultural and mixed sites already
inscribed. The next most common criterion, used in 50% of cases, is (iv).
Definition of Criteria from the World Heritage Committee

Operational Guidelines 2012
Criterion (i) represents a masterpiece of human creative genius;

Criterion (ii) exhibits an important interchange of human values, over a span
of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or
technology, monumental arts, town planning or landscape design;
Criterion (iii) bears a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tra-

dition or to a civilisation which is living or which has disappeared;
Criterion (iv) is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in
human history;
Criterion (v) is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land
use or sea use which is representative of a culture (or cultures) or human inter-
action with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the
impact of irreversible change;
Criterion (vi) is directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions,
with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding univer-
sal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be
used in conjunction with other criteria);
Criterion (vii) contains superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
Criterion (viii) is an outstanding example representing major stages of earths
history, including the record of life, significant ongoing geological processes in the
development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
Criterion (ix) is an outstanding example representing significant ongoing ecolog-
ical and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh-
water, coastal, and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
Criterion (x) contains the most important and significant natural habitats for
in situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threat-
ened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or
conservation.
The motivations submitted to the World Heritage Committee for World
Heritage status were initially quite short and seldom provided comparative exam-
ples. The statement of significance was an essential requirement during the 1990s
and early 2000s. More recently, nominations have focused more on the outstand-
ing universal value of the property, or OUV, that specifically requires a brief
description as well as information on the integrity and authenticity of the property.
A detailed comparative analysis of the property in relation to others that may or
may not be already inscribed is part of the OUV.
To make the descriptions comparable, all States Parties were requested to review
the statements of significance for properties already inscribed on the WHL and to
submit an updated statement of OUV together with a short description. It is these
short descriptions that are currently posted on the UNESCO and other websites.
Since the mid-1990s, there has been greater pressure on States Parties to sub-
mit a management plan for each property that is nominated. Initially, the nomi-
nation was only required to indicate whether or not a management plan existed.
Management plans are now mandatory and are an important tool for the long-term
conservation of the property that should be revised at least every 5years.
Once a nomination dossier for a cultural property has been submitted to the
World Heritage Centre and is checked and found to be complete with all the
requisite documentation, signatures, maps, photographs and annexures, it is for-
warded to ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, for an
8 J. Deacon
independent review. Specialists, preferably members of ICOMOS from the same

region as the nomination and with experience in the relevant fields, are appointed
to undertake two types of confidential evaluation. One is a cultural assessment of
the OUV and the other reports on the management and conservation of the prop-
erty, including the impact of tourism, following an on-site mission (UNESCO
World Heritage Centre 2011). The ICOMOS Executive Committee and staff use
the reports to draft recommendations to the WHC where representatives of State
Parties vote on the nomination at the annual meeting. The nomination may be
accepted or referred back to the State Party for further information, or deferred
pending more substantial changes.
After inscription on the WHL, the State Party is bound to honour the moni-
toring programme included in the management plan and the World Heritage
Committee is responsible for ensuring that a periodic report is submitted
every 5years. In cases where management problems arise, the World Heritage
Committee may appoint experts to evaluate the situation and take the necessary
action. The Operational Guidelines provide a process for identifying properties
as World Heritage in Danger, or deleting a site from the WHL. Recent political
upheaval in Mali has placed two sites (Timbuktu and the Tomb of Askia) on the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
Sites Inscribed
Table 1.4 lists the States Parties in Africa included in the UNESCO regions
of Africa and the Arab States with details of their 89 cultural and mixed World
Heritage Sites. For the purposes of this volume, the following general categories
were identified:
Sites nominated mainly for fossil hominids, hunter-gatherer and/or rock art
heritage (13 properties).
Sub-Saharan settlements and structures (28 properties).
North African settlements and structures (31 properties).
Slave history, post-fifteenth century colonial settlements and modern cities
(17 properties).
Despite the richness of unequivocal evidence that Africa is the cradle of human-
kind and that more habitation sites for the Stone Age dating from at least 3million
to a few hundred years ago are found in Africa than anywhere else on earth, there
are only 13 properties (4 that emphasise human evolution and 9 that were inscribed
mainly for their rock art), representing 14.6% of the 89 African cultural sites, that
have been placed on the WHL. What these numbers do not reflect is that some of
the properties inscribed mainly for their natural values include places with evidence
for hunter-gatherer occupation over hundreds of thousands of years, and sometimes
rock art as well, but this evidence has not been cited as a primary value. Examples
are the Rift Valley in Kenya and the Cape Floral Region in South Africa.
Table1.4Cultural World Heritage sites in Africa by category
State party and year of ratification Name of cultural site Year listed Criteria
Proposed
(a) World Heritage sites in Africa: human evolution, hunter-gatherer and rock art heritage sites
Algeria (1974) Tassili nAjjer 1982 Mixed
(i), (iii), (vii), (viii)
Botswana (1998) Tsodilo 2001 (i), (iii), (vi)
Ethiopia (1977) Lower valley of the Awash, Afar region 1980 (ii), (iii), (iv)
Ethiopia (1977) Lower valley of the Omo 1980 (iii), (iv)
Gabon (1986) Ecosystem and relict cultural landscape of Lop-Okanda 2007 (iii), (iv), (ix), (x)
Mixed
Libya (1978) Rock art sites of Tadrart Acacus 1985 (iii)
Malawi (1982) Chongoni rock art area 2006 (iii), (vi)
Namibia (2000) Twyfel-fontein or/Ui-//aes 2007 (iii), (v)
South Africa (1997) The fossil hominid sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, 1999 (iii), (vi)
Kromdraai and environs
South Africa (1997) uKhahlamba Drakensberg park 2000 Mixed
(i), (iii), (vii), (x)
Tanzania (1977) Kondoa rock art sites 2006 (iii), (vi)
Tanzania (1977) Ngorongoro conservation area 1979 Mixed
1 An Overview of the History of the Nomination of Cultural World
Extended 2010 (iv), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x)

Zimbabwe (1982) Matobo hills 2003 (iii), (v), (vi)
(b) World Heritage sites in Africa: Sub-Saharan settlements and structures
Benin (1982) Royal palaces of Abomey 1985 (iii), (iv)
Burkina Faso (1987) Ruins of Loropni 2009 (iii)
Ethiopia (1977) Aksum 1980 (i), (iv)
Ethiopia (1977) Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar region 1979 (ii), (iii)
Ethiopia (1977) Harar Jugol, the fortified historic town 2006 (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
(continued)
9
10
Table1.4(continued)
Proposed
Ethiopia (1977) Konso cultural landscape 2011 (iii), (v)
Ethiopia (1977) Rock-hewn churches, Lalibela 1978 (i), (ii), (iii)
Ethiopia (1977) Tiya 1980 (i), (iv)
Gambia (1987) Stone circles of Senegambia 2006 (i), (iii)
Ghana (1975) Asante traditional buildings 1980 (v)
Kenya (1991) Lamu old town 2001 (ii), (iv), (vi)
Kenya (1991) Sacred Mijikenda Kaya forests 2008 (iii), (v), (vi)
Madagascar (1983) Royal hill of Ambohimanga 2001 (iii), (iv), (vi)
Mali (1977) Cliff of Bandiagara (land of the Dogons) 1989 Mixed
(v), (vii)
Mali (1977) Old towns of Djenn 1988 (iii), (iv)
Mali (1977) Timbuktu 1988 (ii), (iv), (v)
Mali (1977) Tomb of Askia 2004 (ii), (iii), (iv)
Nigeria (1974) Osun-Osogbo sacred grove 2005 (ii), (iii), (vi)
Nigeria (1974) Sukur cultural landscape 1999 (iii), (v), (vi)
Senegal (1976) Bassari country: Bassari, Fula and Bedik cultural landscapes 2012 (iii), (v), (vi)
Senegal (1976) Saloum delta 2011 (iii), (iv), (v)
Senegal (1976) Senegambia (see Gambia)
South Africa (1997) Mapungubwe cultural landscape 2003 (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
South Africa (1997) Richtersveld cultural and botanical landscape 2007 (iv), (v)
Togo (1998) Koutammakou, the land of the Batam-mariba 2004 (v), (vi)
Uganda (1987) Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi 2001 (i), (iii), (iv), (vi)
Inscribed on list of sites
in danger 2010
Zimbabwe (1982) Great Zimbabwe national monument 1986 (i), (iii), (vi)
Zimbabwe (1982) Khami Ruins national monument 1986 (iii), (iv)
(continued)
J. Deacon
Table1.4(continued)
Proposed
(c) World Heritage sites in Africa: Early North African settlements and structures
Algeria (1974) Al Qals of Beni Hammad 1980 (iii)
Algeria (1974) Djmila 1982 (iii), (iv)
Algeria (1974) Kasbah of Algiers 1992 (ii), (v)
Algeria (1974) MZab valley 1982 (ii), (iii), (v)
Algeria (1974) Timgad 1982 (ii), (iii), (iv)
Egypt (1974) Abu Mena 1979 (iv)
Egypt (1974) Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis 1979 (i), (iii), (vi)
Egypt (1974) Memphis and its Necropolisthe pyramid fields from Giza to 1979 (i), (iii), (vi)
Dahshur
Egypt (1974) Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae 1979 (i), (iii), (vi)
Egypt (1974) Saint Catherine area, South Sinai 2002 (i), (iii), (iv), (vi)
Egypt (1974) Tipasa 1982 (iii), (iv)
Libya (1978) Archaeological site of Cyrene 1982 (ii), (iii), (vi)
Libya (1978) Archaeological site of Leptis Magna 1982 (i), (ii), (iii)
Libya (1978) Archaeological site of Sabratha 1982 (iii)
Libya (1978) Old Town of Ghadams 1986 (v)
Mauritania (1981) Ancient Ksour of Ouadane, Chinguetti, Tichitt and Oualata 1996 (iii), (iv), (v)
1 An Overview of the History of the Nomination of Cultural World
Morocco (1975) Ksar of Ait-Ben-Haddou 1987 (iv), (v)

Morocco (1975) Archaeological site of Volubilis 1997 (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi)
Morocco (1975) Historic city of Meknes 1996 (iv)
Morocco (1975) Medina of Fez 1981 (ii), (v)
Morocco (1975) Medina of Marrakesh 1985 (i), (ii), (iv), (v)
Morocco (1975) Medina of Touan (formerly Titawin) 1997 (ii), (iv), (v)
Sudan (1974) Gebel Barkal and the sites of the Napatan Region 2003 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi)
Sudan (1974) Archaeological sites of the Island of Meroe 2011 (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
Tunisia (1975) Amphitheatre of El Jem 1979 (iv), (vi)
11
(continued)
12
Table1.4(continued)
Proposed
Tunisia (1975) Archaeological site of Carthage 1979 (ii), (iii), (vi)
Tunisia (1975) Medina of Tunis 1979 (ii), (iii), (v)
Modified 2010
Tunisia (1975) Punic town of Kerkuane and its Necropolis 1985 (iii)
Tunisia (1975) Kairouan 1988 (i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi)
Tunisia (1975) Medina of Sousse 1988 (iii), (iv), (v)
Tunisia (1975) Dougga/Thugga 1997 (ii), (iii)
(d) World Heritage sites in Africa: Slavery, colonial settlements and modern cities
Cape Verde (1988) Cidade Velha, historic centre of Ribeira Grande 2009 (ii), (iii), (vi)
Cte dIvoire (1981) Historic town of Grand-Bassam 2012 (iii), (iv)
Egypt (1974) Historic Cairo 1979 (i), (v), (vi)
Gambia (1987) James Island, Kunta Kinteh Island and related sites 2003 (iii), (vi)
Ghana (1975) Forts and Castles, Volta Greater Accra 1979 (vi)
Kenya (1991) Fort Jesus, Mombasa 2011 (i), (iv)
Mauritius (1995) Aapravasi Ghat 2006 (vi)
Mauritius (1995) Le Morne cultural landscape 2008 (iii), (vi)
Morocco (1975) Medina of Essaouira (formerly Mogador) 2001 (ii), (iv)
Morocco (1975) Portuguese city of Mazagan (El Jadida) 2004 (ii), (iv)
Morocco (1975) Rabat, modern capital and historic city 2012 (ii), (iv)
Mozambique (1982) Island of Mozambique 1991 (iv), (vi)
Senegal (1976) Island of Gore 1978 (vi)
Senegal (1976) Island of Saint-Louis 2000 (ii), (iv)
South Africa (1997) Robben Island 1999 (iii), (vi)
Tanzania (1977) Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and ruins of Songo Mnara 1981 (iii)
Tanzania (1977) Stone town of Zanzibar 2000 (ii), (iii), (vi)
J. Deacon
One could argue that the monumental architecture of Egypt and Ethiopia is
more spectacular than places where fossils and hunter-gatherer histories have
been preserved. Yet it is equally true that many of the places, particularly in
North Africa, celebrate the culture of invaders such as the Romans or more recent
European colonial rule that introduced Christianity, Islam and slavery, rather than
acknowledge the achievements of indigenous African cultures. There is an increas-
ing trend in African cultural heritage nominations, however, towards merging
intangible heritage valuesparticularly ceremonies and beliefswith those that
are tangible, since the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage was introduced in 2003. These properties include rock art sites
such as Chongoni in Malawi and Twyfelfontein/Ui-//aes in Namibia, the Sacred
Mijikenda Kaya Forests in Kenya and the Bassari country cultural landscapes in
Senegal.
Aware of the disparity between pre- and post-colonial properties, the World
Heritage Centre, in collaboration with the Spanish Chair of the thirty-third ses-
sion of the World Heritage Committee held in Sevilla, Spain, in 2009, launched a
programme to address the under-representation of properties dating to periods of
early human history throughout the world. The title of the programme was later
changed at the World Heritage meeting in Brazil in 2010 to the acronym HEADS,
representing Human Evolution: Adaptations, Dispersals and Social Developments
under the leadership of Dr Nuria Sanz at the World Heritage Centre (Sanz and
Keenan 2011, p. 58). It aims to implement action plans that will lead to the nomi-
nation of sites and improve the credibility, conservation, capacity building, com-
munication and communities of properties that fall within the scope of HEADS.
After a meeting in Addis Ababa in 2011, a series of narratives that focus on Africa
and its contribution to human evolution were identified and gaps that could be
filled in the WHL were suggested (Sanz et al. 2012, pp. 239240). At the same
meeting, Dennell (2012, p. 81) suggested that amendments could be made to the
criteria for inscription of human evolution sites because many of these sites tend to
be ephemeral and the significance of the places is often reduced when the fossils
and artefacts are removed to a museum or university after excavation. The HEADS
initiative, combined with the concerns of ICAHM and the African World Heritage
Fund, is a timely reminder that although States Parties have responded to peer
group pressure to become signatories to the World Heritage Convention, they have
been slow to make the African contribution to the WHL representative, balanced
and credible.
Tentative List
Properties on African States Parties Tentative Lists suggest a slightly different

emphasis from the List of inscribed sites (Table1.5). Fossil hominids, hunter-
gatherer and rock art heritage are consistently under-represented on both Lists, but
there is an apparent change towards a larger number of properties in Africa that
14 J. Deacon
Table1.5Number and percentage of African sites in broad cultural categories on the WHL and
approximate number on the Tentative List
Type of listing Human Sub-Saharan North African Slavery, colo- Total
evolution, settlements and settlements and nial settlements
hunter-gatherer structures structures and modern
and rock art cities
heritage
World Heritage 13 28 31 17 89
list 14.60% 31.50% 34.50% 19.10% 99.70%
Tentative List 21 29 47 66 163
12.90% 17.80% 28.80% 40.50% 100%
Total 34 57 78 83 252
13.50% 22.60% 30.90% 33.00% 100%
are linked to the history of slavery, European colonisation after the fifteenth cen-
tury and modern cities. This category is represented by 19.1% on the WHL but
accounts for 40.5% of properties on the Tentative List. Superficially, this could
be interpreted as a trend. On the other hand, the fact that the 66 sites include 10
churches and fortresses from Angola that were placed on the Tentative List in
the mid-1990s could mean that States Parties are not selecting sites in this cat-
egory from their Tentative Lists for World Heritage nomination. If the Lists are not
revised, the less popular themes remain there.
Management
The World Heritage Convention was designed to promote the conservation of

cultural (and natural) heritage and has indeed achieved modest success by elevat-
ing the status of places with OUV and monitoring their progress. Insistence that
management plans must be submitted with nomination dossiers has seen posi-
tive results even though implementation is sometimes slow to materialise. The
ICCROM programme AFRICA-2009 had a positive effect between 1999 and
2009 by building capacity and training cultural heritage managers, especially with
regard to consultation with local and neighbouring communities. There are never-
theless some recurring issues that are not necessarily exclusive to Africa.
Cultural heritage issues tend to be low on the priority list of most governments,
with the result that staff members responsible for World Heritage properties
are neither skilled nor well paid. They have limited resources, there is a rapid
staff turnover, institutional memory is limited, and site managers are often far
from their superiors in government departments who are responsible for devis-
ing annual budgets. It could be time for more emphasis to be placed on training
some cultural heritage staff in business skills, tourism and income generation to
make World Heritage properties self-sustainable.
African cultural heritage managers have learned, sometimes the hard way, that
local communities must be involved in decision-making about both the promo-
tion and conservation of cultural heritage sites at an early stage in the develop-
ment of a management plan. There is also evidence that cultural heritage sites
and practices are more sustainable if communities are given a voice and are ena-
bled to continue with traditional management systems and to receive tangible
benefits (Chirikure and Pwiti 2008).
The wish expressed in the UNESCO resource manual for preparing World
Heritage nominations is that management arrangements should be in place and
in working order before a nomination is submitted, but this is seldom the case.
Time and budgets are often too short to enable reviewers to judge how well the
management system will sustain the potential OUV through the proposed meth-
ods for effective protection and conservation. States Parties could be encour-
aged to delay nomination until a management plan is in place rather than rush to
submit a plan that will not be implemented.
The relationship between the managers of a World Heritage property and the
local community on the one hand, and central government on the other, is inevi-
tably dynamic. Long-term mutual support cannot necessarily be ensured, par-
ticularly when political priorities, job opportunities, financial benefits or income
from tourism constantly change the sustainability of the enterprise. Management
plans therefore need to be flexible so that they can respond to change, particu-
larly with respect to capacity building, stakeholders and sources of income, yet
retain the significance and OUV of the place as their core business. This is espe-
cially challenging when tourism is the main source of income. The commitment
of government to support the management of a World Heritage Site in the long
term should therefore be rigorously tested by reviewers.
Conclusion
There are many reasons why some States Parties in Africa have been slow to nom-
inate sites and why some properties are more likely to be nominated for World
Heritage listing than others. These include political will, the cost of, and expertise
for, preparing a nomination dossier, training officials to be responsible for the site,
the expense of securing a World Heritage property and maintaining it, the pros and
cons of opening a site for tourism against the uncertainty of making it sustainable,
inevitable changes in land use and priorities of neighbouring communities, and
bureaucratic capacity at both the local and national level. The challenge is to find a
way to ensure that the significance of African cultural heritage sites takes its right-
ful place in the pantheon of World Heritage. For cultures in sub-Saharan Africa
in particular, there is a special challenge to overcome a lack of confidence in the
authenticity and significance of their heritage, and to recognise their OUV so they
can be promoted on the global stage. Some of the chapters in this volume describe
how the challenge has been or could be met.
16 J. Deacon
References
Chirikure, S., & Pwiti, G. (2008). Community involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage
management: An assessment from case studies in Southern Africa and elsewhere. Current
Anthropology, 49(2), 467485.
Dennell, R. (2012). ICOMOS vision of how to fill the gaps on the African World Heritage List
related to human evolution. In N. Sanz & P. Keenan (Eds.), Human evolution: Adaptations,
dispersals and social developments (HEADS) World Heritage thematic programme. UNESCO
World Heritage Papers 29 (pp. 7083). Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Pressouyre, L. (1995). Cultural heritage and the 1972 convention: Definition and evolution of
a concept. In D. Munjeri, W. Ndoro, C. Sibanda, G. Saouma-Forero, L. Levi-Strauss &
L.Mbuyamba (Eds.), African Cultural Heritage and the World Heritage Convention. First
Global Strategy Meeting (Harare 1113 October 1995, pp. 1319). Harare: National Museums
and Monuments of Zimbabwe.
Sanz, N., & Keenan, P. (Eds.) (2011). Human evolution: Adaptations, dispersals and social
developments (HEADS) World Heritage thematic programme. UNESCO World Heritage
Papers 29. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Sanz, N., P. Keenan, Ametller, N., Connaughton, C., Lachaud, E., & Lawrence, C. (2012).
Human origin sites and the World Heritage Convention in Africa. UNESCO World Heritage
Papers 33. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. (2012). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. World Heritage Centre 12/01 July 2012. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2011). Preparing World Heritage nominations. Paris:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (2013). http://whc.unesco.org/en/list. Accessed on 8 January 2013 and on 28 February
2013.
Chapter 2
The Role of the African World Heritage
Fund in the Conservation of African World
Heritage Sites
Herman O. Kiriama
Introduction
For a long time, African heritage sites have been and are still under-represented on
the World Heritage List (WHL). However, even those sites that are listed, most of
them are poorly managed and preserved, leading to nearly a quarter of them being
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. This is attributed to the fact that
African countries lack the capacityboth human and capitalto prepare nomina-
tion dossiers acceptable to the World Heritage Committee and also to manage the
listed sites. As a result of this realisation, African heritage experts and the African
Permanent Representatives to UNESCO proposed to African countries and to
UNESCO to set up an organisation that would enable African countries to develop
the capacity to source funds as well as train African professionals in both the
development of the nomination dossiers and management of heritage sites. This
proposal was accepted and led to the establishment of the African World Heritage
Fund (AWHF) in 2006.
Background
In order to ensure that there is balance and representativeness in the WHL, the
World Heritage Committee adopted the Global Strategy for a representative, bal-
anced and credible WHL in 1994 (World Heritage Committee 1994). The aim of
the strategy was to ensure that the WHL reflects the worlds cultural and natu-
ral heritage of outstanding universal value (OUV). As a follow-up to the Global
Strategy decision, several experts meetings meant to increase the appreciation of
H. O. Kiriama(*)
Australian Cultural Heritage Management (Vic) Pty Ltd, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: kiriamah@yahoo.com

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_2, The Author(s) 2014
18 H. O. Kiriama
African cultural heritage amongst both African policy makers and professionals
were conducted within Africa between 1995 and 2000 (Munjeri et al. 1995). Some
of the results of these meetings included recommendations for the identification,
study, protection and promotion of the archaeological, architectural, technical and
spiritual components of African cultural heritage. In addition, the experts meetings
felt that African cultural heritage was defined by both its tangible and intangible
aspects, and therefore, it was important for the intangible elements to be recog-
nised as well (Munjeri 2004).
The World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in
2002 had, as part of the meeting, a workshop on World Heritage in Africa
and Sustainable Development. This workshop adopted a declaration dubbed
the Johannesburg Declaration on World Heritage in Africa and Sustainable
Development, which amongst other things, recognised that the efficient manage-
ment of heritage can be an effective tool for the promotion of sustainable develop-
ment and wealth creation and that World Heritage status can contribute immensely
to sustainable development of African countries. The workshop urged African gov-
ernments to be politically committed to the promotion of heritage management and
to put in place legal and policy frameworks, which link nature and culture. This is
partly because in most African countries, there is no distinction between the natural
and the cultural; the two are intertwined in a circle, which leads one to the other.
African governments were also encouraged to sensitise decision-makers in-and-out
of the continent the important role that heritage could play in promoting sustain-
able development. Finally, the workshop encouraged African governments to not
only devote more resources to heritage management but also to recognise the criti-
cal role that local communities play in the management and ownership of heritage
resources.
In the same year (2002), at its 26th Session in Budapest in Hungary, the World
Heritage Committee adopted the Africa Periodic Report (World Heritage Committee
2002). Like the workshop in Johannesburg, the Periodic Report pointed out the
challenges that African countries faced in the implementation of the 1972 World
Heritage Convention, especially in regard to the nomination, conservation and pro-
tection of World Heritage Sites. The Report noted that Africa was by that time the
most under-represented continent accounting for only 7% of properties on the
WHL.1 There were many African countries which, although they are signatories to
the Convention, did not have sites on the WHL. At the same time, there were a few
African countries that had not ratified the Convention. In 2002, of the 35 sites on the
List of World Heritage in Danger, 14 or 40% were African sites. It was argued that
amongst the reasons for this situation were inadequate resources, weak institutional
frameworks, inadequate training and capacity building, low level of information and
awareness-raising, poor networking, low levels of local participation, and
1 As of 2013 the WH List has 981 properties with 88 (9 %) being in Africa. There are 44 sites on
the Danger List with 16 of them (36 %) being African sites.

2 The Role of the African World Heritage Fund 19
inadequate regional and international cooperation (Munjeri et al. 1995; World

Heritage Committee 2002). Consequently, in order to ameliorate this situation, the
Africa Periodic Report recommended that an African World Heritage Fund be estab-
lished to supplement the financial resources required to deal with the challenges that
face the conservation, protection and management of World Heritage properties on
the African continent.
As a follow-up to the recommendations of the Periodic Report, between 2004
and 2005, a group of African Ambassadors to UNESCO (The Africa Group)
developed a position paper on Africa, which they presented to the 29th Session
of the World Heritage Committee in Durban, South Africa, in July 2005 (World
Heritage Committee 2005). The African paper was also submitted to the Council
of Ministers of Culture of the African Union (September 2005), the General
Assembly of States Parties to the Convention (October 2005) and finally to the
African Union Summit (January 2006). The position paper proposed a 10-year
action plan that comprised of eight strategic objectives and several expected out-
puts. These objectives were:
To ensure that heritage played a role in sustainable development and poverty
eradication.
African governments to strengthen and improve their institutional, policy and
legal frameworks in order to effectively and efficiently manage and conserve
heritage and also to implement the World Heritage Convention.
Establish, in accordance with the Africa Periodic Report (2002), an AWHF and
other financing mechanisms, drawing from experiences of other organizations to
facilitate effective and efficient heritage conservation, in general and implemen-
tation of the World Heritage Convention on the continent in particular.
Increase and strengthen human resource capacity for the protection, con-
servation and management of heritage through education, training and
awareness-raising.
Establish a mechanism for information and knowledge exchange about tangible
and intangible African heritage.
Conduct an audit and update national inventories and Tentative Lists of cultural
and natural heritage.
Increase inscription of new sites by ensuring that African nominations are in
conformity with the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention and to reduce and eventually remove all African
properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Strengthen heritage protection, conservation and management, particularly in
conflict, post-conflict and natural disaster situations (World Heritage Committee
2005). As a result of this initiative by the African States Parties, the AWHF2 was
launched in May 2006 as a Trust, based in Midrand, South Africa to support the
2 In this chapter, the terms AWHF and the FUND are being used interchangeably.
20 H. O. Kiriama
effective conservation and protection of natural and cultural heritage of OUV in

Africa. The main objective of the Fund was to develop a strategy for dealing
with the challenges faced by African countries in the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention.
The objectives laid down for the Fund included:
To provide support for the identification and preparation of African sites for
inclusion on national Tentative Lists and nomination for inscription on the
WHL.
Provide support and assistance for the conservation and management of heritage
sites in Africa, particularly those already inscribed on the WHL.
Rehabilitate sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Train heritage experts and site managers through continuing capacity building.
Together with local communities build sustainable development around World
Heritage Sites in Africa (see African World Heritage Fund 2011).
In October 2009, the AWHF became a Category II Centre under the auspices of
UNESCO. Category II Centres contribute to the strategic objectives of UNESCO,
implementing its mandate throughout the world.
Capacity Building
In order to achieve its objectives, the AWHF has taken capacity building as an
integral part of its activities. The AWHF has, therefore, developed programmes
with training components on thematic areas and World Heritage processes such
as OUV, integrity, Tentative Listing, nominations and conservation and site man-
agement. The AWHF has also supported some applied research efforts such as the
Gap (Situational) Analysis on the Tentative List and studies on the effect of tour-
ism at World Heritage Sites (Okello Abungu Heritage Consultants 2009; Taboroff
and Deacon 2011).
Training Courses
As part of its capacity-building strategy, the AWHF organises courses on nomina-

tion and Tentative Listing processes for African heritage professionals. The aim of
these courses is to improve the skills of these professionals and, therefore, ensure
that the quality of nomination files submitted to UNESCO is improved; this in
turn will increase the chances of the sites being inscribed on the WHL. These pro-
grammes train local site managers and executives on the World Heritage nomina-
tion process, as well as on conservation and site management.
The AWHF in collaboration with World Heritage institutions and African States
Parties initiated a nomination training course for African States Parties in 2008.
This was in response to the fact that in spite of its very rich heritage, sub-Saharan
Africa has continued to have the least number of sites (9%) on the WHL. The
main objective of the training course is to build competence and capacity amongst
African heritage practitioners in the development of nomination files as required
by the World Heritage Committee when considering properties for inscription
on the WHL. The course has been held for three cycles, and its implementation
is coordinated by regional training institutions in Africa, namely the Centre for
Heritage Development in Africa (CHDA) for English-speaking Africa, the School
of African Heritage [Ecole du Patrimoine Africain (EPA)] for French-speaking
Africa and a local institution of the host country for Arabic-speaking Africa.
The nomination training course is meant amongst other things to build compe-
tence amongst natural and cultural heritage professionals and, therefore, improve
the quality of nomination files submitted by African countries to the World
Heritage Centre. The course is also meant to create a network of African heritage
professionals working on World Heritage properties and finally to set up a support
and follow-up mechanism to facilitate delivery of credible nomination files.
The course is a 1-year programme, which is divided into four segments:
a 2-week training course during which participants learn about the World Heritage
nomination process; an 8-month field project when participants return to their
countries and continue working on the nomination dossiers; a 2-week training
workshop, during which the participants get together again to conduct a compara-
tive analysis of the work they have done and at which time the resource people
assess the progress of the participants, and a final period of work in their own
countries when participants together with their colleagues in their home institutions
finalise the draft nomination dossier for submission to the World Heritage Centre.
The training programme also includes a follow-up on mentorship by experts
from various African heritage institutions who guide the participants on the prepa-
ration of the dossiers and also ensure that the property the participants are work-
ing on is either submitted for nomination or proper conservation mechanisms have
been put in place to protect it. Since 2008, the AWHF has carried out a total of
seven nomination training courses (three for English-speaking, two for French-
speaking and one each for Portuguese- and Arabic-speaking countries), with a
total of 96 participants (Fig.2.1). A total of 48 sites have had their management
plans developed. Eleven of these sites were submitted to the World Heritage
Centre for listing on the WHL, and five of them were successfully listed in 2011.
The participants who attend the course are given 100% scholarships that cover
airfare, accommodation and a living grant. However, this has created a culture of
dependency in that the countries that are the ultimate beneficiaries of the training
see development of nomination dossiers and even management of World Heritage
Sites as the responsibility of the AWHF. The result is that some of these countries
do not take the work of the participants seriously, to the extent that participants
are sometimes withdrawn from the course before completion or are given other
22 H. O. Kiriama
Fig.2.1Participants of the 2nd nomination dossier training course in Namibia. Photo by author
responsibilities not associated with the course. Second, with dwindling financial
resources from donors, the current funding model may in the long run make the
course unsustainable. There is, therefore, the need for countries sending partici-
pants to meet some of the costs of the course. For instance, countries can be made
to bear the travel or part of the travel costs of their participants.
Nomination Grants
Other than the training, another capacity-building programme of the AWHF is the
provision of nomination grants for the further improvement of nomination files.
The maximum amount awarded for nomination work is US$15,000. Several coun-
tries have benefited from this grant, including Uganda to prepare the nomination
dossier for Nyero rock-art painting and associated hunter-gatherer sites in east-
ern Uganda. The nomination proposal is expected to be submitted to UNESCO in
2013. Mauritius received funding for the Black River Gorge National Park, and the
nomination dossier is also expected to be submitted to UNESCO in 2013. Zambia
was granted support for the preparation of the Barotse cultural landscape, and the
nomination dossier was submitted to UNESCO in January 2012. Ethiopia won
assistance for the Konso cultural landscape, and this site was inscribed on the WHL
in 2011. Kenya was funded to complete the revision of the deferred nomination
of Fort Jesus, and the site was inscribed in 2011, and lastly, Swaziland received a
grant to prepare the nomination dossier of Ngwenya mines.
Fig.2.2Fort Jesus, Mombasa, Kenya. Photo by Steve Okoko
Inscription on the WHL
During the 35th session of World Heritage Committee held in Paris, in June 2011,
the Committee inscribed five African sites on the WHL. These sites had received
either financial or technical assistance from the AWHF. The five inscribed sites
were:
Archaeological sites of the Island of Meroe (Sudan) (technical assistance).
Fort Jesus (Kenya) (financial assistance) (Fig.2.2).
Kenya lake system in the Great Rift Valley (Kenya) (technical assistance).
Konso cultural landscape (Ethiopia) (financial assistance).
Saloum delta (Senegal) (technical assistance).
Heritage and Sustainable Tourism
While the main objective of setting up the AWHF was to assist in the manage-
ment of African World Heritage Sites, it is now generally acknowledged that the
listing of a site should lead to local economic benefits through increased tourism
and associated activity such as the sale of local crafts, music and cultural prod-
ucts to visitors, which in turn can contribute to better economic opportunities and
livelihoods for the local communities (Loulanski 2007). But increased tourism can
create challenges for heritage conservation without necessarily achieving signif-
icant local economic participation, especially of the local communities, and this
24 H. O. Kiriama
may lead to complications for the management of the site (Kiriama 2012). For the
benefits to be tangible and sustainable, there is need for appropriately designed
management plans at these sites.
To ensure that the World Heritage status serves as a catalyst for environmental,
economic and social development for the local communities around African World
Heritage Sites, the AWHF initiated a Programme on Heritage and Sustainable
Tourism. The main objective of this programme was to identify ways in which to
exploit the potential of these sites and in particular how the local economy can
enjoy the positive effects of World Heritage status. As part of the Heritage and
Sustainable Tourism Programme, a planning workshop was held in Botswana in
2011, the objective of which was to design pilot projects for improving local com-
munities livelihoods and promote local sustainable development through tourism.
Selected sites in a number of countries are being used as test cases for the pro-
gramme, including the Okavango Delta in Botswana, Namib Desert in Namibia
(both of which are also being prepared for World Heritage listing) and the South
African World Heritage Site of Mapungubwe.
Another dimension of this programme was to carry out a situational analysis of
the infrastructural needs for tourism development in targeted World Heritage Sites.
The aim of the analysis was to understand how best to develop African World
Heritage properties as tourism destinations in order to unlock the economic oppor-
tunities and benefits that tourism can bring to the rural communities. These studies
looked at issues such as the existing and potential visitor markets, the socio-
economic and impacts of community participation and inclusion in the process of
development and operations. There was also a study of the institutional structures
in place both on paper and in practice and the financing models as well as revenue
streams. The sites where the studies were carried out include Bwindi National
Park in Uganda, Victoria Falls on the border of Zambia and Zimbabwe (African
World Heritage Fund 2009a), Great Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe (African World
Heritage Fund 2009b), Kilwa Kisiwani in Tanzania (African World Heritage Fund
2009c) and Forts and Castles of Ghana (African World Heritage Fund 2009d).
Some countries such as Ghana have implemented some of the recommendations
of these studies and are reporting an improvement in both the way the site is pre-
sented, local community involvement, visitor appreciation and revenue collection.
For instance, Ghana is working with the communities living near Fort Appolonia
in Beyin and Fort Batenstein in Butre. They are also in the process of mounting an
exhibition in Fort St. Sebastienin Axim (Kofi,3 personal communication, 2012).
None of the other countries replied to requests for information on what has
happened since the studies were carried. It can be assumed that nothing has been
implemented.
3 Fredrick Kofi is the Executive Director of the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board.
World Heritage and Sustainable Development
The report of the Second Cycle of World Heritage Periodic Reporting for the
Africa Region, presented to UNESCO in 2011, underscored the delicate relation-
ship that exists between conservation and development and the need to create a
balance between the two. In order to create this balance, the AWHF initiated the
World Heritage and Sustainable Development Programme. The objective of the
programme is to find a balance between conservation and development and also
explore ways in which the two initiatives can coexist and generate benefits for
local communities. The Programme takes place through events such as workshops
and meetings attended by representatives from both the conservation and devel-
opment communities. This format may be a drawback since the local community
members who are supposed to be beneficiaries usually do not attend these meet-
ings or, if they attend, more often than not, do not understand the technical lan-
guage used by professionals at these events. There is, therefore, a need to come up
with an initiative that will make the community active participants in the process
rather than just being passive bystanders.
Conservation Grants
Another AWHF programme makes available annual grants to State Parties for
conservation of their World Heritage Sites. Some of the funds have been used to
organise training for site managers and workers to improve the management of
sites. The maximum amount, which can be awarded, is $60,000 per State Party.
This grant can be awarded on the basis of matching funds; that is, the State Party
should be willing to contribute at least 50% of the total cost of the conservation
works, and the Fund will contribute the remaining half. As of 2011, 43 grant appli-
cations from 30 countries had been received by the Fund. Some of the countries
that have received the conservation grants include Niger for the conservation
of the W National Park, which was threatened by poaching, illegal grazing and
encroachment of agricultural land. In South Africa, a workshop was organised to
discuss and develop a regional strategic plan for the Liberation Heritage Route of
southern and eastern Africa. The Liberation Heritage Route consists of a series of
sites that in combination express the struggle for justice and freedom and the fight
against gross human rights violations, during the Apartheid period. The Republic
of Benin was also given a grant to repair unexploited sections of the Royal Palaces
of Abomey. The Royal Palaces were the decision-making centre of the Kingdom
of Dahomey from 1625 to 1900. Protecting the palaces stops the scene of impor-
tant historical events from vanishing and conserves the important testimonies of
a kingdom that symbolises a desire for independence, resistance and fight against
colonial occupation.
26 H. O. Kiriama
Management of Natural World Heritage Sites
Though West and Central Africa have 16 natural sites inscribed on the WHL,
many of these are, however, facing conservation and management challenges,
and consequently, some of them have been put on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. To ameliorate this situation, the AWHF has since 2009 partnered with the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to implement a project
for the improvement of the management of West African natural resources. The
objectives of the project are to strengthen the capacities of the heritage managers
as well as to provide technical support to the sites. This programme has trained 59
heritage professionals on diverse topics such as the monitoring and evaluation of
natural and cultural properties and protected areas management. The programme
has also conducted studies on the impact of mining on natural heritage properties
and on the contribution of ecotourism to the conservation of protected areas.
Workshops
Other capacity-building methods that the AWHF uses are workshops. Some of the
workshops that have been organised have addressed issues such as the preparation of
the draft statement on OUV, strategies to remove Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara
from the List of World Heritage in Danger (African World Heritage Fund 2009e)
and the legal framework for Grand Bassam Historical Town of Cote dIvoire.
Projects
To further its mission, the AWHF has also carried out projects that focus on site
management. For instance, one such project aims to improve the management of the
Senegalese side of the World Heritage Site of the Stone Circles of Senegambia.4
Universities
Research is important in understanding how local communities perceive World

Heritage Sites in their vicinity and the role that these sites have played or play in
the daily lives of these communities. Thus, the AWHF has developed a partnership
with the University of Witwatersrand, in South Africa, the objective of which is to
4 This is a trans-boundary site that is in both Senegal and the Gambia.

encourage postgraduate students to work on World Heritage topics and particularly

on sacred sites. The aim is to understand how the OUV of these sites can be dem-
onstrated, how to mitigate conflicts, how to gauge the effects of climate change on
heritage and also to understand how communities can be involved in the conserva-
tion and management of sites.
Gap Analysis
One of the requirements of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines is that

no nomination to the WHL can be considered unless the nominated property
has already been included on the States Partys Tentative List (World Heritage
Committee 2008). Tentative Lists provide an important planning and evaluation
tool early in the process of identification of the OUV of the site and, as such, are
relevant tools for States Parties, the World Heritage Committee and its Advisory
Bodies such as the international council on monuments and sites (ICOMOS), the
World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the Secretariat to the Convention. Through
the Global Strategy for a balanced WHL, State Parties are encouraged to prepare
Tentative Lists, in addition to preparing nominations of properties from catego-
ries and regions that are under-represented on the WHL. To achieve this, the World
Heritage Committee encourages its Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN) to
carry out an analysis of both the Tentative Lists and the nomination documents.
For instance, during its 28th session in 2004, the World Heritage Committee
reviewed analyses of the World Heritage and the Tentative Lists prepared by
ICOMOS and IUCN. Both analyses were carried out on regional, chronological,
geographical and thematic bases in order to evaluate the progress of the Global
Strategy.
According to the ICOMOS study, the reasons for the gaps in the WHL fall
into two main categories: (a) structural: relating to the World Heritage nomi-
nation process and the management and protection of cultural properties; and
(b) qualitative: the way properties are identified, assessed and evaluated (Jokilehto
2005). The IUCN studies, on the other hand, found out that the natural and mixed sites
currently inscribed on the WHL cover almost all regions and habitats of the world and
have a relatively balanced distribution. The studies revealed that there are still major
gaps in the WHL for natural areas in that sites from several zones such as tropical/
temperate grasslands, savannahs, lake systems, tundra and polar systems, and cold
winter deserts are under-represented (Badman and Bomhard 2008; Engels et al. 2009;
Wood 2009).
The identification of the gaps in both cultural and natural types as well as
regional distribution of sites has contributed to the critical attention given to
Tentative Listing, especially by the World Heritage Committee. As such, State
Parties are encouraged to take into account the studies carried out by the Advisory
Bodies, as these have the potential to address incongruences in themes, regions
and geo-cultural groupings as well as bio-geographical provinces. Consequently,
28 H. O. Kiriama
the AWHF commissioned a Gap Analysis (also referred to as a Situational

Analysis) on the Tentative List for both cultural and natural sites in Africa, which
included an analysis of sites, which are already listed as well as those that have
potential for listing. The studies included a stocktaking of the work being done to
nominate sites in various countries and an evaluation of their readiness and also
an outline of areas needed to be addressed to ensure quality nominations. The
studies also identified professionals working on nominations in each country and
sites that had potential for immediate listing, mid-term listing and long-term list-
ing, including sites which had been referred or deferred (Okello Abungu Heritage
Consultants 2009, 2011).
The study found out that cultural properties have generally been accorded more
attention by African State Parties in their current Tentative Lists. For instance, out
of a total of 286 properties on these Tentative Lists, 170 were cultural properties,
while only 76 were natural properties and 40 were mixed properties. This trend
could be explained by the fact that the natural sites in the continent are large areas
that are difficult to put together convincingly as circumscribed units, as opposed to
cultural properties that could range from a town to a single building.
The analysis also found out that countries nominate properties to the list
depending on their comparative advantages. For instance, countries in the north of
Africa and close to the Sahara Desert, which have a long history of human urban
development and trade that led to the creation of complex societies at a very early
period, tend to go for cultural heritage sites, whereas eastern and southern African
countries, which have a long history of nature conservation as well as strategic
heritage sites, tend to have much more balanced lists.
The Gap Analysis also found out that Tentative Listings from Africa repre-
sented various heritage sites, and these include cultural landscapes, forts, vernacu-
lar architecture, other buildings, towns and trade routes. These sites represent, of
course, categories that are found in other continents, and the inscription of African
sites would depend on the quality of the dossiers vis-a-vis those from other con-
tinents with similar categories of sites. It was further shown in the analysis that
there are areas where the continent is strongest and where it can bring new catego-
ries of heritage to the international community, including places of memory and
spirituality, freedom and slave routes, hominid sites and rock-art sites, amongst
others. These are areas where there are gaps in the WHL, and yet the continent
abounds in such sites. The results of this Gap Analysis formed the basis for plan-
ning of the Tentative List and nomination courses and workshops.
Conclusion
Has the AWHF achieved its objectives? One can argue that it has made a
positive impact on the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in Africa
if the number of grant applications to its schemes can be used as a measure. Out
of the 54 countries in Africa, 30 of them or 55% have made a grant application to
the AWHF. Second, as of March 2012, African countries had contributed a total of
US$3,647,235 to the Fund. Though this amount is relatively small when divided
amongst all African countries, the important thing to note is that this is an indi-
cation that there is potential for political will to conserve African heritage, and it
demonstrates that the AWHF has now been widely accepted in Africa (Taboroff
and Deacon 2011). For instance, between 2008 and 2012, the Fund spent a total of
US$12,189,264 on the various activities related to capacity building, conservation
and management of African heritage sites. Third, since its inception, the Fund has
enabled more African countries to establish or update their Tentative Lists, which
is the first and crucial step in the nomination of sites to the WHL. Additional to
this, in 2011, a total of five African sites that had direct assistance from AWHF
were inscribed on the WHL, and in 2013, nomination dossiers of another five sites
that also have had direct support from the Fund will be submitted to the WHC for
consideration for listing.
The training courses, seminars and the other thematic workshops have contrib-
uted to building the capacity of African heritage professionals as well as estab-
lishing a network of trained African heritage professionals. These are people who,
as a result of the personal contacts that they have established outside the official
bureaucracy, are now in a position to help each other to solve management and
conservation issues that their individual sites may face. This saves the State Parties
both time and financial resources. Being a UNESCO Category II Centre, it is now
possible for the AWHF to interact with other international bodies and, therefore,
bring the issues of African heritage to the international arena. This has led to the
allocation of substantial financial and technical resources to African heritage by
both individual foreign governments and multilateral agencies.
Despite its successes, the Fund is faced with challenges in balancing the needs
of all African countries. There has been criticism that the Fund has concentrated
most of its work in the English-speaking countries and in those areas where there
are strong heritage institutions. The Fund has partly dealt with this issue by start-
ing a programme together with IUCN that looks at the natural sites in western
Africa and also by conducting training courses in both Portuguese- and Arabic-
speaking countries. Although the Fund was set up as a response to the imbalance
in the WHL, in Africa, there is a linkage between tangible and intangible heritage,
and with the passing of the 2003 Intangible Heritage Convention, the Funds man-
date should be expanded to include intangible heritage. This will make it easier for
the Fund to deal with all aspects of World Heritage Sites in Africa.
The AWHF is a non-government trust which relies on the willingness of donors
and benefactors to fund its programmes. The Fund has three categories of donors:
silver (those who have given between US$10,000 and 99,000), gold (US$100,000
and 999,000) and platinum (US$1,000,000 and above). It is noteworthy that the
largest donors so far have been non-African countries; apart from South Africa and
Egypt, which are platinum donors. All other African countries are silver donors.
Taking into consideration the global financial crisis that has affected many donors,
it is anticipated that contributions from these countries will fall or stop, and so
the operations of the Fund will be affected. There is need, therefore, for African
30 H. O. Kiriama
countries to wholly own the Fund and make substantial contributions to it despite
their fragile economies. For instance, out of the 54 African countries, only ten
have made any contribution to the Fund. Taking into account that many countries
are now applying to the Fund for assistance, it would be a good idea to consider
making the Fund a membership body to which all African nations are required to
give annual subscriptions just as they do to UNESCO and other UN agencies. It
is instructive however, to note that African countries have contributed a total of
US$3,647,235 of the total US$5,577,235 of the endowment fund that the AWHF
set up as a long-term funding mechanism of its programmes.
The AWHF currently funds or gives assistance and training to all African coun-
tries regardless of whether they have made a contribution to the Fund or not. This
should be rethought carefully as it does not give an incentive to those who have
contributed to continue contributing, nor does it compel those who have not done
so to contribute. Knowing that assistance is only available to those who have con-
tributed may make many more countries become contributors. Overall, it can be
said that the Fund is making an important contribution to the conservation and
management of African heritage sites.
References
African World Heritage Fund. (2009a). World heritage sites and sustainable tourism: Situational
analysis. Report 1: Great Zimbabwe World Heritage Site. Midrand, South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009b). World heritage sites and sustainable tourism: Situational
analysis. Report 2: Victoria falls world heritage site. Midrand, South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009c). Situational analysis: Kilwa Kisiwani world heritage site.
Midrand, South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009d). World heritage sites and sustainable tourism: Situational
analysis. Report 4: Forts and castles of Ghana. Midrand, South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009e). Report of workshop to strategize on the removal of the
ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and ruins of Songo Mnara world heritage property from the list of
world heritage in danger. Midrand, South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2011). Annual report 2011. Midrand, South Africa.
Badman, T., & Bomhard, B. (2008). World heritage and protected areas: An initial analysis of
the contribution of the world heritage convention to the global network of protected areas
presented to the 32nd session of the WHC, Qubec City, Canada (IUCN World Heritage
Studies No. 3). Gland, Switzerland.
Engels, B., Koch., P., & Badman, T. (2009). Serial natural world heritage properties: An ini-
tial analysis of the serial natural world heritage properties on the world heritage list (IUCN
World Heritage Studies No. 6). Gland, Switzerland.
Jokilehto, J. (2005). The world heritage list: Filling the gapsan action plan for the future.
Paris: ICOMOS.
Kiriama, H.O. (2012). Sustainable heritage management. Unpublished paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management
(ICAHM) (2730 November 2012). Cuzco, Peru.
Loulanski, T. (2007). Cultural heritage and sustainable development: Exploring a common
ground. Journal of International Media Communication and Tourism Studies, 5, 3758.
Munjeri, D. (2004). Tangible and intangible heritage: From difference to convergence. Museum
International, 56(12), 1219.
Munjeri, D., Ndoro, W., Sibanda, C., Saouma-Forero, G., Levi-Strauss, L., & Mbuyamba, L.
(Eds). (1995). African cultural heritage and the world heritage convention-first global strat-
egy meeting. Harare: The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.
Okello Abungu Heritage Consultants. (2009). World heritage tentative list for Africa: Situational
analysis. Midrand, South Africa.
Okello Abungu Heritage Consultants. (2011). World heritage tentative list for Africa: Situational
analysis for cultural sites. Midrand, South Africa.
Taboroff, J., & Deacon, J. (2011). Evaluation of the African world heritage fund, 20082010.
Midrand, South Africa.
Wood, C. (2009). World heritage volcanoes: Thematic study; global review of volcanic world
heritage properties: Present situation, future prospects and management requirements
(IUCN World Heritage Studies No. 8). Gland, Switzerland.
World Heritage Committee. (2005). Africa position paper and draft proposal for the establish-
ment of African world heritage fund (Twenty-ninth session). Durban, South Africa.
World Heritage Committee. (1994). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural
and natural heritage (Eighteenth Session). Phuket, Thailand.
World Heritage Committee. (2002). Periodic reporting: Report on the state of conservation of the
world heritage in Africa (Twenty-sixth session). Budapest, Hungary.
World Heritage Committee. (2008). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world
heritage convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Chapter 3
The Contribution of ICAHM to the
Nomination of African Cultural World
Heritage Sites on the World Heritage List
Through the Africa Initiative Program
Douglas C. Comer
Introduction
The World Heritage Convention, which came into being in 1972, set out an agenda
that remains largely unfulfilled. This is despite the fact that it stands today as the
international treaty signed by more countries than any other Convention in the
world. At last count, 190 countries have become States Parties to the Convention
by signing it.1 We look here at the desire by International Scientific Committee on
Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) to add more archaeological sites
in sub-Saharan Africa to the World Heritage List (WHL) and the means by which
this can be consistent with and, more importantly, advance the broad goals of the
Convention. In 2011, with the Africa Initiative, ICAHM launched what was admit-
tedly something of a topdown effort to redress the clear under-representation of
sub-Saharan Africa sites on the WHL. Our first product was a list of sites sug-
gested by pre-eminent Africanist archaeologists, who could provide the informa-
tion needed to make a World Heritage Site nomination that might succeed based
on truly outstanding and universal scientific and historic value. As ICAHM
became more engaged, it became clear that this would be enough to secure the
required results. More emphasis on bottom-up capacity building would be needed.
Therefore, in 2012, ICAHM developed the Menorca Statement, which it offers as
a way to build management capacity at sites during the nomination process and
that continues during the years after a site is inscribed on the List.
1This count of States Parties to the Convention is as of June 10, 2010 according to
http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ accessed on 22 December 2010. There are 192 Member

States of the United Nations.
D. C. Comer(*)
ICAHM, 4303 N Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
e-mail: dcomer@culturalsite.com

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_3, The Author(s) 2014
34 D. C. Comer
Under-Representation of Sub-Saharan Africa Sites
ICAHM initiated the Africa Initiative at the joint Pan-African Association

(PanAf)/Society of Africanist Archaeologists (SAfA) Conference in November
2010 at the University Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar, Senegal. An ICAHM sympo-
sium there, sponsored by the African World Heritage Fund, was entitled The
Potential Role of the World Heritage Convention, International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and ICAHM in African Archaeological Site
Preservation and Economic Development.2 During and following the Convention,
participants in the symposium and other ICAHM members solicited recommenda-
tions from archaeologists who were knowledgeable about archaeological sites in
Africa regarding sites that might possess outstanding universal value (OUV) and
otherwise be good candidates for inclusion in State Parties Tentative Lists and
therefore possible inscription on the WHL. In short order, we came up with many
strong candidates.
The impetus for the Africa Initiative was the gaps in the WHL that have
been described and discussed for decades (for example, UNESCO 1994, 1998;
Jokilehto et al. 2005). Further, it was and remains the conviction of ICAHM that
the entire concept of World Heritage would be devalued in the face of the con-
tinued paucity of sub-Saharan sites on the WHL. As noted by many, includ-
ing Jokileto et al. (2005) and Labadi (2005), there is a high concentration of
World Heritage Sites in some regions, notably Europe, and relatively few World
Heritage Sites in others. Sub-Saharan Africa is in fact the least represented in
the WHL, having only 5% of World Heritage Sites. Although in 2010 fifty-one
African countries had signed the World Heritage Convention, there were no World
Heritage Sites in five of these.
Candidates
Archaeological research in Africa has revealed the existence of pre-colonial sites

that are of a complexity and importance unknown just short decades ago. Among
them were properties in Benin, Ghana, South Africa, Togo and Zimbabwe.
Benin
Excellent fieldwork and context-based analysis of findings by a number of archae-

ologists has greatly enriched our knowledge of cultures inadequately represented
2 Presenters
and discussants were W. J. H. Willems, D. C. Comer, W. Ndoro, N. Schlanger, M.
Welling, M. Doortmont and S. Makuvaza.
3 The Contribution of ICAHM to the Nomination of African Cultural 35
by historical documents. A prime example of this is that archaeological work now

strongly indicates that the scale of iron production in Benin at Segba to the east
of Dogboduring pre-Dahomean times (twelveth to early sixteenth century AD)
was similar to that of ancient Rome (Willems and Comer 2011). This, of course,
remains largely unappreciated by the world at large. Randsborg and Merkyte
(2009) suggest that the production was for the Muslim-dominated regions to the
north and that it is even possible that the absence of rainforest between Ghana and
Nigeria might be because the area was timbered to make charcoal for iron furnaces.
They report enormous slag piles, the largest 10010012m or more, and argue
that each represents production of more than 2millionkg of raw iron. Slag in the
mounds is now being used for paving roads (Randsborg and Merkyte 2009, Vol. 1,
Chaps. 14, 15). Surely, criterion (iii) from the Operational Guidelines is applicable
here (Okello Abungu Heritage Consultants 2009, pp. 1517); other criteria might
also apply. A similar property, even earlier, is at Sofonhuinta near Bohicon.
The World Heritage Site of the Royal Palaces of Abomey was recently dam-
aged, ironically after restoration and removal from the List of World Heritage in
Danger.3 Yet the site inscription could be enlarged now with the discovery of some
two dozen palaces, segments of what seems to be a huge ditch around Abomey
and thousands of souterrains bunkers constructed in the seventeenthnineteenth
centuries AD. These might have been places where those hunted by slaving parties
could hide. They also were used for water collecting during the dry seasons. These
features can be found in the archaeological park and in the museum at Agonguinto
near Bohicon east of Abomey and are represented by the caves at Kana Hagadon.
The pre-Dohamean site of Sodohome, a previously unknown capital in Africa,
has provided a material culture chronology that might be unprecedented for Benin.
Located to the east of Bohicon, the site is at least 250ha; it dates from the seventh
century BC and into the Dahomean kingdom (seventeenthnineteenth centuries).
Further research is needed urgently as the town of Bohicon expands (Randsborg
and Merkyte 2009, Vol. 1, Chap. 10; Vol. 2, Plates6467).
Ghana
Krobo, located to the northeast of Accra, is sometimes known as the African

Pompeii. After the British forced the inhabitants to relocate, the kings of Kobo
banned all visitations and the removal of objects from the city. It has therefore
been preserved (Huber 1963), although in the absence of protection this cannot
remain the case for long.
3 The property was ravaged by a catastrophic fire in January 2009. The fire has occurred after
the Dahomean Palaces were removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2007, fol-
lowing extensive restoration works. See further Randsborg and Merkyte 2009, Vol. 1 Chaps.
4, 5 (Abomey and palaces) and 7 (caves); Vol. 2 App. 6 (archaeological park and museum at
Agonguinto), Pl. 29 (map of Kana Hagadon).
36 D. C. Comer
In areas, which are relatively unpopulated such as the Ghana-Burkina Faso bor-
derlands, a number of important sites can be found in the national parks. These
range from Oldowan culture Stone Age Sites, farmsteads from the third century, to
hiding places for those avoiding capture as well as the fortified settlements estab-
lished by those who sought to capture people for sale as slaves in the nineteenth cen-
tury. There are also indications for early, pre-Islamic industrial iron production here.
South Africa
Recent archaeological research indicates that Bokoni, the historical name for an
area of the escarpment in Mpumalanga Province, was the scene of pre-colonial
agricultural intensification. Although the landscape features that give evidence
of this persisted for about 500years, they were abandoned by the time of colo-
nial contact. Stone-walled homesteads, agricultural terraces and roads are found
in an area of approximately 150km from the north to the south. Interdisciplinary
research by the University of Witwatersrand (archaeology and history), the
University of Cape Town (archaeology) and Stockholm University (human geogra-
phy) has shown that these features were largely constructed by the Koni, a farming
people who persisted as a political power until the early nineteenth century. While
these large terraces might be the only evidence for such a complex agricultural
system in pre-colonial South Africa, there are other such pre-colonial landscapes
elsewhere in Africa, including Nyanga in Zimbabwe and Engaruka in eastern
Africa (Widgren and Sutton 2004; Soper 2006).
Togo
The walled city of Tado, which lies on the border between Benin and Togo, was
also a centre of pre-colonial iron production. The slag heaps there, as is the case
with those in Benin, are being mined for road construction material. Another out-
standing site is that of Notse, and, like Tado, this site is also threatened (Gayibor
1997, pp. 5458).
Zimbabwe
Kritzinger (2008) has been conducting archaeological research at the Nyanga cul-
tural landscape and, using her findings, has been arguing strongly that the terraces
there are evidence of gold mining, and not agricultural terraces, as they have been
interpreted in the past (Fig.3.1). Laboratory analysis of material recovered from
stone-lined tanks supports this: for example, residual values of 0.0041.78g/t Au
Fig.3.1Nyangui terraces in the Nyanga cultural landscape, which Kritzinger argues has evi-
dence of gold mining. Photo by Ann Kritzinger
have been found in the tunnels and drains in 27 of these tanks (see Soper 2006 vs.
Kritzinger 2010; Fig.3.2). However, neither terrace agriculture nor gold mining
feature in the oral tradition of the area.
First, Do No Harm
The World Heritage Convention documents a global agreement that cultural and
natural resources should be acknowledged and preserved for the benefit of future
generations and identifies capacity building as the means by which this should be
accomplished. These overarching goals are often given far less attention than that
which is lavished on the WHL. It is the objective of ICAHM to not only assist
in the identification of sites in sub-Saharan Africa that fit best with the WHL by
virtue of possessing OUV, but also to ensure that inscription is not the catalyst for
activities that would (1) cause damage to the archaeological materials there, (2)
degrade the natural environment in which they are located or (3) threaten the qual-
ity of life in neighbouring communities and, indeed, in the nation state in which
they are to be found. Regrettably, this has been the case at several archaeologi-
cal World Heritage Sites (Comer 2012). ICAHM is advocating for a responsible,
38 D. C. Comer
Fig.3.2One of the stone-lined tanks from which residual gold was found. Photo by Ann
Kritzinger
effective and sustainable program of nomination and inscription of archaeological

sites in sub-Saharan Africaone that facilitates full realisation of the broad goals
of the World Heritage Convention.
The Relation of the World Heritage Convention to the WHL
With that in mind, let us review Article 5 in the Convention, which lays out many
of the Conventions broad and ambitious goals: to ensure that effective and active
measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural
and natural heritage situated on its territory, each State Party to this Convention
shall endeavour, in so far as possible and as appropriate for each country:
1. to adopt a general policy, which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a
function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that her-
itage into comprehensive planning programmes;
2. to set up within its territories, where such services do not exist, one or more
services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and
natural heritage with an appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge
their functions;
3. to develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such
operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers
that threaten its cultural or natural heritage;
4. to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial
measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation
and rehabilitation of this heritage and
5. to foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres for
training in the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and nat-
ural heritage and to encourage scientific research in this field.
Article 4, further, has this to say:
Each State Party to this Convention recognises that the duty of ensuring the identifica-
tion, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the
cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory
belongs primarily to that State. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own
resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and cooperation, in
particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain.
The WHL is not described until Article 11. That article also addresses the com-
mitment by each State Party to draw up a list of sites, which shall not be con-
sidered exhaustive, which are suitable for inclusion on the WHL. These are sites
with OUV. This list has become known as the Tentative List. Article 12 simply
states that inclusion on the Tentative List should not be construed to mean that
other sites do not possess OUV.
TopDown, Upstream
Our effort presents enormous challenges. The motivation to inscribe more sites in
countries that are under-represented on the WHL is legitimate and has the full sup-
port of ICAHM. We urge here that the project proceed systematically and with
care for both the List and the benefits that might accrue to countries inscribing
sites where capacity to manage protected areas has yet to be fully developed. We
suggest a strategy by which to build such capacity.
Clearly, it would serve the objectives of the World Heritage Convention best
if States Parties were to comply with Article 4, in terms of at least identifying the
monuments, groups of buildings, and sites as defined in Article 1, and the natural
features, geological and physiographic formations, and natural site as defined in
Article 2, before developing a Tentative List. Yet, such identification by means of
sustained and effective programs has been done in a small minority of countries
and is embryonic or non-existent in most (Mabulla 1996; Breen 2007).
The reason for this is evident: most countries simply do not have the financial
or institutional resources with which to develop effective programs for identifica-
tion of the cultural and natural heritage sites as described in Articles 1 and 2. This
is true of many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, many of which have been formed
40 D. C. Comer
only recently, in the post-colonial era, and have only since then begun down the
bumpy road that all countries have travelled as they develop the means by which
to operate as nation state in the contemporary world.
The motivation for inscribing sites on the WHL with the benefit of being able
to draw upon the results of a sustained and structured program of identification
and documentation is strong. Inscription of a site acknowledges the existence and
importance of a country in the world community. It is recognised that a country
has something valuable and often uniquely its own to contribute to global culture.
Further, there are perceived economic benefits that prompt inscription of sites
in countries where inventory and evaluation programs do not exist or where they
have just begun. Economic gain has long been enjoyed by countries with sites
iconic in Western culture that have been inscribed on the WHL, but the millions of
visitors who have been attracted to World Heritage Sites such as Petra in Jordan or
Angkor in Cambodia send a message that inscription on the WHL carries with it
substantial income.
Economic Benefit? and to Whom?
The precise relationship between inscription on the WHL and economic ben-
efit remains largely opaque. ICAHM has searched in vain for several years now
for documentation of how visitation might or might not have increased to a site
because it has been inscribed. The drive to inscribe a site is typically part of a
strategic effort to attract more tourists to the nominating country. Complementary
actions include construction of roads, establishing airline connections and market-
ing through international tourism organisations and global media.
As importantly, there is a dearth of reliable data regarding who benefits eco-
nomically from increased visitation to a site inscribed on the WHL. At World
Heritage Sites like Petra, for example, economic records indicate that the site pro-
vides as much or more income to the county of Jordan than any other sources.
Unknown are the percentages that go to international hotel, restaurant, and tour-
ism corporations and local businesses. Finally, money that finds its way to local
businesses can bypass women and children, who often work as vendors to tourists,
whereas in the case of children, they might do better by attending school.
Establishment of inventory and evaluation programs and the scientific and edu-
cation resources needed to support fully functional ones is one measure of man-
agement capacity at the scale of the modern nation state. Where this management
capacity has not been established at the national level, it becomes doubly difficult
to develop this for individual sites within the country in question. Upper level and
university training of scientific, technical, business and management personnel is
generally difficult to obtain in such cases. There is a need for trained personnel
both at each site and as a pool from which to draw when specialised expertise is
needed on a contractual or cooperating basis.
Ticketing: An Example of Administrative Capacity
As just one example of this, one might consider the importance of establishing
a ticketing program at a World Heritage Site. At the very least, it is important to
ensure that each visitor has purchased a ticket, because each visitor by his or her
presence contributes to the need for personnel and programs needed to prevent
damage to this site and funds for these expenses must be obtained. There is also
the matter of timing visitation. To manage visitor flow, which can become so high
at times in which damage to the site is produced, one must know how many peo-
ple go through the site, on what days in a weekly, monthly and yearly calendar,
and which hours of those days. A ticketing program can also provide demographic
information, which is useful in reaching out to places and groups identified by
such means and to identify those times when more visitors would be beneficial
to the site or to generate a constituency for a site. In countries with well-devel-
oped economies and educational and administrative infrastructures, many quali-
fied organisations or individuals would compete for the opportunity to design and
implement a ticketing program appropriate to the site. In most countries in the
world, this pool of qualified organisations and individuals is small or does not
exist. Neither might the capacity to effectively identify and select qualified organi-
sations, were they to exist, or to develop cooperative associations with them.
The international recognition (see for example, Askew 2010) and perceived
economic benefit that stems from inscription has clearly contributed in no small
part to inscription of sites by the World Heritage Committee that advisory bod-
ies, such as ICOMOS, had evaluated to be premature. In most cases in which
ICOMOS and other advisory bodies had recommended deferral of inscription
and reason of the nomination dossier, the recommendation was in explicit or tacit
recognition that management capacity at the site had not been established by the
dossier. Management capacity should be gauged by attention to what might be
considered administrative details, which is the capacity to develop and implement
an effective ticketing program.
Working Upstream
It has become apparent that a great deal of work must be done prior to inscrip-
tion in order to ensure that sites have or can quickly develop management capacity
before visitation increases. If this is not done, sites are simply used up during the
rush to gain profit from them after inscription. For that reason, the ideal would
be to establish programs, institutions and administrative capacity on a national
level prior to making nominations. The inventory and evaluation of sites, the con-
struction of a Tentative List, and, finally, nomination of specific sites could then
be done in a way that would benefit both site preservation and national and local
economies. The push to inscribe sites by States Parties because of the prestige and
42 D. C. Comer
assumed economic assets that World Heritage Sites convey, however, is obviously
too strong to permit the realisation of this ideal.
ICAHM, therefore, issued the Menorca Statement (see Box 3.1). The statement
is of our intent to develop and issue best practices for the management of archaeo-
logical sites. We will develop the best practices through discussion not only with
leading archaeological professional organisations, but also with key ICOMOS
scientific committees, development agencies, international banks and tourism
associations. An important aspect of our statement is that we intend to utilise it
as we evaluate nomination dossiers. If management capacity is not presented in
a way that makes it clear that the archaeological record will not be compromised,
we will ask for a multi-year plan by which such capacity will be developed. Each
step should be described in detail, and a cost estimate for each step should be
presented.
This will, of course, render the development of a nomination dossier a more
time-consuming process, in which the essential details of building effective man-
agement will have to be presented in detail. Yet, the increased level of effort pro-
vides an opportunity to States Parties who take the time to develop such a dossier.
These States Parties can then request assistance, both financial and technical, from
a wide variety of international aid organisations and lending institutions. Proceeding
in this way will transform the nomination process into a roadmap for successful and
effective management, rendering inscription in the WHL a benchmark in developing
sustainability in terms of both preservation and economic benefit.
Box 3.1. The Menorca statement
The Menorca Statement:
The non-renewable archaeological patrimony at many sites inscribed on

the WHL is being destroyed at an alarming rate. The cause for this destruc-
tion includes, but is not limited to, economic development, excessive tour-
ism pressure, agricultural or urban expansion, and climate change. These
problems are aggravated by inadequate management of archaeological sites,
including lack of financial resources and sufficient numbers of adequately
trained personnel. The economic drive for tourism at World Heritage Sites
has emerged as the most obvious threat. These fascinating sites are now seen
as primarily economic assets instead of repositories of information about the
human past.
Moreover, we observed increasing national zeal around the world to
inscribe archaeological sites on the WHL. This push is too often happening
before the capacity to manage and preserve those resources is in place. In
the light of this multi-faceted situation, the following actions are proposed:
Experts will work together to develop Best Practices for the Management
of Archaeological World Heritage Sites. These guidelines, which
began to be formulated in Menorca, Spain (913 April 2012), are to be
further discussed at the ICAHM Annual Conference in Cuzco, Peru 2730

November 2012.
Nomination of archaeological sites to the WHL should expressly address
these practices as follows:
Nomination dossiers must establish beyond doubt that best practices
will be followed immediately and in a sustainable way at the time of
inscription; alternately
Nomination dossiers will include a detailed plan that will describe the
means by which capacity to adhere to best practices will be developed.
The plan will include time frames and cost.
If the plan is approved, the inscription of the site will be provisional on
establishing capacity according to time frames.
The plan also will identify sources of funding required to establish
capacity according to time frames.
If the nominating States Party is unable to identify sources of funding,
the World Heritage Committee should do so.
Although relevant best practices have yet to be identified formally, a related initia-
tive was concluded by the World Heritage Committee for the fortieth anniversary of
the World Heritage Convention in 2012. This initiative was to identify specific man-
agement practices at World Heritage Sites that were deemed to be exemplary and was
called Recognition of Best Practice in World Heritage Management. Nominations
were solicited from World Heritage properties and have been posted on a UNESCO
website at http://whc.unesco.org/en/recognition-of-best-practices/. Nominations and
nomination summaries are available for download at this website. No evaluation of
practices described in the nominations is provided, nor is there a review of how well
these practices have been implemented, but many useful ideas are presented.
The Recognition of Best Practice in World Heritage Management initiative
was prompted by a document prepared for the thirty-fifth session of the World
Heritage Committee, held in Paris, France, 1929 June 2011. This document
(UNESCO 2011) emphasises capacity building over training, per se. It suggests
three audiences for capacity building: practitioners, institutions, and the commu-
nities and networks associated with World Heritage Sites.
Clearly, building capacity among these groups presents an enormous chal-
lenge. The upstream approach outlined in the Menorca Statement would address
this one site at a time, identifying in detail the capacities that would be required
for effective management of a site before it becomes formally recognised as a
World Heritage Site, and more importantly estimating the real cost in time and
money required to establish these capacities. Armed with such a plan, the country
in which the potential World Heritage Site is located (the nominating States Party)
would be able to seek the required funding and training from a number of develop-
ment agencies, conservation and preservation organisations, lending institutions,
and academic institutions around the world. Each individual success would make
it increasingly possible to develop a global model for this process.
44 D. C. Comer
References
Askew, M. (2010). The magic list of global status: UNESCO World heritage and the agenda
of states. In S. Labadi & C. Long (Eds.), Heritage and globalisation (pp. 1944). London:
Routledge.
Breen, C. (2007). Advocacy, international development and World heritage sites in sub-Saharan
Africa. World Archaeology, 39, 355370.
Comer, C. (Ed.). (2012). Tourism at Petra: Driver to development or destruction? New York:
Springer.
Consultants, Okello Abungu Heritage. (2009). World heritage tentative list for Africa: Situational
analysis. Midrand: South Africa.
Gayibor, N. L. (1997). Histoire des Togolais I. Lom: Presses de lUB.
Huber, H. (1963). The Krobo: Traditional social and religious life of a West African people
(Studia Instituti Anthropos 16). Bonn: Anthropos Institute.
Jokilehto, J., Cleere, H., Denyer, S., & Petzet, M. (2005). The WHL: Filling the gapsan action
plan for the future. ICOMOS: Monuments and Sites XII. Paris.
Kritzinger, A. (2008). Gold not grainpre-colonial harvest in the terraced hills of Zimbabwes
Eastern Highlands. Cookeia, 13, 144.
Kritzinger, A. (2010). Gradient and soil analysis identify the function of stone-built tunnels in the
archaeology of the Eastern Highlands, Zimbabwe. Nyame Akuma, 73, 1016.
Labadi, S. (2005). A review of the global strategy for a balanced, representative and credible
WHL 19942004. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 7, 89102.
Mabulla, A. Z. P. (1996). Tanzanias endangered heritage: A call for a protection program. The
African Archaeological Review, 13, 197214.
Randsborg, K., & Merkyte, I. (Eds.). (2009). Benin archaeology (Vols. 1 and 2). The ancient
kingdoms. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Soper, R. (2006). The terrace builders of Nyanga. Harare: Weaver Press.
UNESCO. (1994). Expert meeting on the Global strategy and thematic studies for a repre-
sentative WHL. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (1998). Report on the World heritage global strategy natural and cultural heritage
expert meeting. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNESCO. (2011). World heritage capacity building strategy document. Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre.
Widgren, M., & Sutton, J. E. G. (2004). Islands of intensive agriculture in Eastern Africa. Athens
OH: Ohio University Press.
Willems, W.J.H & Comer, D. (2011). Africa, archaeology and World heritage. Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites, 13(23), 160173.
Chapter 4
African States Parties, Support,
Constraints, Challenges and Opportunities
for Managing Cultural World Heritage Sites
in Africa
Simon Makuvaza and Henry Chiwaura
Introduction
It is common knowledge that some African countries have few World Heritage
Sites, while others have none at all. But this does not mean that there are no cul-
tural heritage sites that can qualify as World Heritage Sites in Africa. In fact,
Willems and Comer (2011) and Comer (Chap. 3, this volume) have argued and
shown that there are some cultural heritage sites that can undoubtedly qualify as
World Heritage Sites in Africa. In addition to having few sites on the WHL, there
is also the problem of poor management of those that are already inscribed. Many
of these problems are by and large blamed on the lack of initiatives by African
governments to support the nomination and management of cultural World
Heritage Sites (see for example, Breen 2007). This is notwithstanding the fact that
the conservation of cultural World Heritage Sites is important for nation building,
creation of jobs, education and safeguarding of cultural values as well as for the
general development of the continent.
Given the immense benefits that cultural World Heritage Sites can bring to
many African countries, the expectation is that African States Parties would sup-
port the nomination and management of these sites. They are also expected to ful-
fil Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention, which calls for each State Party to
ensure the protection of cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory. But
it appears on the contrary that many African governments generally fail to support
S. Makuvaza(*)
Faculty of the Built Environment, National University of Science and Technology,
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
e-mail: Makuvazas@yahoo.com
H. Chiwaura
Archaeology and Museum Studies Lecturer, Great Zimbabwe University, Off Great
Zimbabwe Road, 1235, Masvingo, Zimbabwe
e-mail: hchiwaura@yahoo.com

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_4, The Author(s) 2014
46 S. Makuvaza and H. Chiwaura
the nomination of cultural heritage sites to the WHL and the management of
those that are proclaimed as World Heritage Sites. In reality, as observed by many
researchers, the nomination and management of these sites in Africa is frequently
ranked very low when compared with other government development projects (see
Kusimba 1996; Schmidt 2006; Mahachi and Kamuhangire 2008; Chirikure 2013).
As a consequence, many African cultural World Heritage Sites have been and con-
tinue to be threatened by various forms of economic development such as mining,
construction of dams, highways and pipelines and the expansion of urban areas
(Kankpeyeng and DeCorse 2004; Arazi 2011) as well as by civil unrest and in
some cases, even fully fledged war (see UNESCO 2010). In the Sudan for exam-
ple, vast stretches of a valuable cultural landscape are under threat from the con-
struction of the Merowe Dam (Chirikure 2013), while the World Heritage cultural
landscape of Mapungubwe has been under threat from coal mining. Swaziland
withdrew the Ngwenya Middle Stone Age Ochre Mines from UNESCO World
Heritage Site nomination list in favour of reviving industrial iron ore mining
(Chirikure 2013; Pikirayi 2011).
Lack of Government Support and Interest
But why is it that many African States Parties seem not to care about the manage-
ment of cultural World Heritage Sites when it is so apparent that their manage-
ment can contribute enormously to the development of their countries in particular
and the continent in general? Perhaps, one of the most important reasons is that
the origins of the subject of archaeology and its sub-discipline of cultural heritage
management have been and continue to be viewed in Africa as colonial in nature.
The subject was only introduced in Africa from Europe as part of imperial and
colonial ideology. Ashley and Bouakaze-Khan (2011) have in fact argued that the
history of archaeological enquiry, namely its status as a recent and imported disci-
pline in Africa, with its roots in the colonial era, has had profound implications for
how cultural heritage sites are managed and conserved in the continent to this day.
Ashley and Bouakaze-Khan further contend that the origin of archaeology in
colonialism has also raised specific intellectual challenges and ethical questions.
As an imported subject from Europe, with few if any obvious indigenous progeni-
tors, it has largely remained a strange academic practice or pursuit to many peo-
ple in Africa. Archaeology and cultural heritage management have thus competed
for public image, and African governments tend therefore to support subjects that
seem to bring noticeable development to their economies, such as engineering,
medicine, agriculture, commerce and many others.
Given this view, the internal priorities of many African governments on health,
agriculture, education and defence continually receive support in terms of finan-
cial investments, leaving very little money for administrative departments that
are responsible for cultural heritage management (Schmidt 2006). It would seem
therefore that many African governments are more concerned with meeting the
4 African States Parties, Support, Constraints, Challenges and Opportunities 47
basic needs of their citizens and the management of cultural World Heritage Sites
is in fact a tangential issue (Willems and Comer 2011). In this connection, Noemie
Arazi (2009, p. 96) has mournfully remarked that Our discipline, and this is no
secret, still has a long way to go to improve its public image in Africa. The lack
of quick and visible economic benefits from the practice of archaeology and the
protection of cultural World Heritage Sites seems to be a plausible reason why
many African governments are not very much concerned with supporting their
nomination and management.
Lack of funding has also been frequently mentioned by many scholars as one
of the reasons why African governments are not able to support the nomination
of cultural heritage sites to the WHL and management of sites that are already
proclaimed as World Heritage Sites. Given that many African governments do not
have money, the research, nomination and management of cultural World Heritage
Sites have always been, in part, supported by foreign or donor research funds. In
Tanzania for example, the conservation of the Laeotoli footprints has been exter-
nally funded by the American Getty Conservation Institute (Mabulla 2000), while
Fasil Ghebi and Harar Jugol in Ethiopia have both received foreign aid for them to
be proclaimed as World Heritage Sites (Snchez 2012). In Zimbabwe, the manage-
ment of Great Zimbabwe and Khami has always been, in part, externally funded
by UNESCO and by several European countries (see Ndoro 2005) and recently,
the writing of the nomination manuscript for Ziwa cultural landscape has been
funded by the African World Heritage Fund (AWHF).
Throughout the African continent, donors and Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs) have been instrumental in driving the preservation and
management of cultural World Heritage Sites (see for example, Segobye 2006).
These donor and NGO communities consist of a wide range of groups with vary-
ing objectives, domestic and international ties (Batsell 2005). Some of the donors
and NGOs choose to work in cultural World Heritage Sites where they help in
the provision and delivery of social goods and services to the disadvantaged and
poor local communities. These donors and NGOs are usually viewed as playing
an important role in bringing substantial development to the traditional communi-
ties subsisting close to cultural World Heritage Sites. They also play an important
role in facilitating, building capacity and helping bridge divergent views between
local traditional communities and government administrative departments. Donors
and NGOs are also seen as having specialised agendas, and they generally engage
in societal areas, which are usually ignored by governments (Bornstein 2005).
However, their development agendas have been criticised as they may be decided
by their countries of origin and financiers and not by their target communities
(Aubrey 1997).
However, although foreign aid is most welcome to help nominate and man-
age cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa, there are three major problems that
are usually associated with foreign-funded projects in the continent. The first is
that the tradition of foreign research money, combined with internal economic fail-
ures in many African countries, tends to create a dependency syndrome for many
African governments (Schmidt 2006). In the absence of donor aid, many African
governments appear to then lack initiative to support the development and man-
agement of their cultural World Heritage Sites. An unhealthy reliance on external
funds created by donors and NGOs has usually resulted in the collapse of manage-
ment plans, especially when funds dry up or are withdrawn.
The second problem is that if international relations get strained, for exam-
ple as they are currently in Zimbabwe, heritage donors usually withdraw or can-
cel their funds (see Murimbika and Moyo 2008). In Zimbabwe, the spontaneous
land reform programme, which began from 1999, has resulted in the imposition
of sanctions, and this has led to the withdrawal of financial assistance for the man-
agement of cultural World Heritage Sites and other projects in the country. A case
in point is a French non-profit-making organisation called Chantiers Histoire et
Architecture Medievales (CHAM), which was partly sponsoring annual restoration
programmes at Khami World Heritage Site beginning from 1999 in Zimbabwe.
CHAM withdrew its support, citing lack of funds as a result of the 20082010
global economic recession.
The third issue is that the relationship between donors and NGOs, and many
African governments is a complex, potentially fluid and volatile one (Aubrey
1997). Not much is known about the origins of some of the donors and NGOs
operating on many African cultural World Heritage Sites. The activities of donors
and NGOs working on cultural World Heritage Sites have been in many cases
viewed with suspicion by African governments. The excessive dependence on
foreign financial assistance by donors and NGOs has been viewed as selling and
furthering foreign governments agendas and policies (Bartsell 2005). This is espe-
cially the case with donors and NGOs working on human rights and governance
issues in many African cultural World Heritage Sites.
In countries where there is conflict or where sanctions are imposed, the heritage
donors are usually replaced by those that are concerned with conflict resolution,
disease fighting and hunger alleviation than with those that are concerned with the
management of cultural World Heritage Sites. The major problem is that when this
happens, many African States Parties appear to then focus attention away from
protecting and managing their cultural World Heritage Sites as they battle to ward
off the negative impacts of sanctions or conflict.
In their chapter on the administrative arrangements for heritage resources
management in sub-Saharan Africa, Mahachi and Kamuhangire (2008) have
argued that part of the reason why administrative departments are not adequately
funded lies in their placement in different but often conflicting government min-
istries. Comparing Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, Mahachi and Kamuhangire
observed that in Europe, heritage organisations are the responsibility of municipal
and county authorities and the state plays a supervisory role in their administra-
tive affairs, while in sub-Saharan Africa, the responsibility is vested in centralised
national governments of ministries or in parastatals that are autonomous of minis-
tries. They further noted for example that in Uganda, the Department of Museums
and Monuments falls under the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry, while in
Kenya, the National Museums of Kenya under which the Directorate of the Sites
and Monuments also falls is a semi-parastatal body under the office of the Vice
President (who is also the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Heritage).
They also pointed out that in Sudan, archaeology and museums are under the
Ministry of Education, while in Botswana, administrative arrangements for herit-
age resources were previously under the Ministry of Home Affairs but they are
now under the Ministry of Culture.
Although Mahachi and Kamuhangire maintain that these and other similar
administrative arrangements have the advantage that staff members are assured of
their salaries and allowances from central governments, there is also the disadvan-
tage that funds that are generated by the administrative organisations are depos-
ited as part of government consolidated funds and they are rarely returned to the
departments for their recurrent and development needs (see also, Kankpeyeng and
DeCorse 2004; Mabulla 2000). Given this state of affairs, many African heritage
administrative organisations cannot rely on the revenue they generate to further
develop or preserve cultural World Heritage Sites in their care. Furthermore,
Mahachi and Kamuhangire (2008) argued that the placement of administrative
organisations for heritage resources in ministries in which there are other depart-
ments means that there is always competition for government support and fund-
ing. However, this usually weighs against the institutions that are responsible for
the management of cultural World Heritage Sites as they are usually, according to
Mabulla (2000), the weakest government departments in Africa.
An equally germane reason why many African countries fail to nominate and
manage their cultural World Heritage Sites is that heritage administrative depart-
ments are unable to retain trained and experienced staff (Myles 1989; Kusimba
1996; Mabulla 1996, 2000). Although several African countries now have univer-
sities which offer courses in archaeology and heritage management, trained staff
members seem to prefer to work for universities or other employers who offer bet-
ter salaries rather than working for heritage departments, which are perennially
underfunded. This has in part resulted in several cultural heritage sites remaining
on the Tentative List for long periods of time. For example, the Nyanga Terraces
in Zimbabwe have been on the Tentative List since 1997, while the fortresses of
Kambambe, Massanganu, Muxima, S. Francisco do Penedo, S. Pedro da Barra and
S. Miguel in Angola have all remained on the same List since 1996. In part, this is
due to the lack of funding and trained staff who can prepare documents that would
make it possible for these sites to be proclaimed as World Heritage Sites. Also, the
inability of heritage administrative organisations to retain trained staff means that
many cultural World Heritage Sites that are located in distant parts of the country
such as the Chongoni Rock Art area in Malawi and Kilwa Kisiwani in Tanzania
end up being managed by inexperienced staff members. Staff members who are
specialised in the management of World Heritage Sites appear to prefer to work in
administrative centres, which are usually located in capital or regional cities. This
situation is caused by lack of the resources needed to attract qualified staff to be
permanently based at World Heritage Sites.
Perhaps, the other reason why African States Parties seem not to be interested
with the nomination and management of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa is
that they fail to understand that the past is a commodity, which can be marketed
to the public (Collett 1991, p. 3). The treatment of cultural heritage as a com-
modity is most obvious in Europe and the United States of America, and in some
parts of the world such as in Asia, South America and Mesoamerica (Kankpeyeng
and DeCorse 2004). In these regions of the world, cultural tourism, which arises
out of human fascination with the past, has become a major revenue earner. In
Africa, the idea that the past can be sold is yet to be understood by many African
governments.
Government Support and Interest
Although many African governments have challenges and are constrained in nomi-
nating and managing their cultural World Heritage Sites, some of them are making
tremendous efforts to support the management of these sites in their own coun-
tries. The reasons why some African countries should support the nomination and
management of cultural World Heritage Sites in their countries are many. Below,
we examine some of the reasons why some African governments should support
the management of cultural World Heritage Sites in their countries.
It would appear that at the end of colonial rule, several African governments
embraced and supported the idea of World Heritage Sites by signing and ratifying
the 1972 World Heritage Convention so that they can have some of their cultural
heritage sites proclaimed as World Heritage Sites. The signing and ratifying of the
World Heritage Convention by many African countries was in part a way of ascer-
taining their sovereignty as newly independent countries. This is probably why
it is the most widely accepted Convention in the world. According to Pwiti and
Ndoro (1999), following decolonisation, the need to restore lost cultural values
and pride became part of the post-colonial agenda of many African nations. The
support to inscribe cultural sites on the WHL was in fact seen as part of identity
building for many African nations, which otherwise, according to Pwiti (1997),
was seriously eroded by years of colonialism.
In Zimbabwe, following the independence of the country in 1980, archaeolo-
gists and cultural heritage managers rewrote the previously misleading and racially
stimulated stories about Great Zimbabwe, which had cast the construction of the
site as the work of foreigners. The rewriting of the narratives and the subsequent
support by the Zimbabwean government to restore the collapsing walls of Great
Zimbabwe was viewed as part of rebuilding the nation and restoration of the cul-
tural pride that was lost during the colonial era (Sinamai 1997).
A similar situation to that in Zimbabwe also prevailed in South Africa following
a decade after independence in 1994 from the Apartheid Government. According
to Meskell (2012), the decade following South Africas liberation offers a unique
window into the discursive creation of a new nations heritage landscape. Apart
from rewriting the dominant racially motivated historical narratives of the country,
as was the case in Zimbabwe, government officials also targeted the past to correct
social injustices that were committed in the country during the Apartheid era.
While the support for nominating and managing cultural World Heritage Sites
has been focused on nation building and restoration of the pride lost during colo-
nialism in some African countries, the development of these sites has also been
meant to improve tourism in their countries. In Zimbabwe for example, the sup-
port and management of cultural heritage sites in the country was also largely
viewed in terms of their potential in education and to generate revenue through
tourism (Pwiti 1997). In South Africa, the heritage sector is rapidly growing
because it is being supported by both the government and the private sector, also
largely for tourism reasons. For instance, the Maropeng, a flagship museum situ-
ated at the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, was constructed through the
publicprivate partnership to the tune of 347million rand (about US$30million).
The Maropeng complex now has a Visitor Centre, with several restaurants, a hotel
and conference facilities (Meskell 2012).
Although some African countries are making efforts to support the nomination
and development of cultural World Heritage Sites on their own, others are sup-
porting the nomination and management of these sites through donating to the
AWHF. The AWHF supports the effective conservation and protection of both nat-
ural and cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa. When it was established in 2006,
the AWHF set up an endowment fund with an objective of raising US$25million
by the year 2015. The Republic of South Africa began by donating R20million.
This was followed by donations from Tanzania, Namibia, Kenya, Morocco, Egypt,
Zambia and Mauritius (African World Heritage Fund 2011). The African Union
and some European countries have also joined to support the nomination and man-
agement of World Heritage Sites in Africa by donating to the AWHF. The huge
contribution by South Africa to the endowment fund and to Mali so that it can
conserve the manuscripts of Timbuktu is perhaps, as argued by Meskell (2012),
an effort to strengthen its pre-colonial connections to the entire African conti-
nent. About 65% of the accumulated funds, however, is coming from the African
Union and from 10 African countries, which are donating amounts ranging from
US$5,000 to US$1,700,000 (African World Heritage Fund 2012).
The contribution by African governments to the AWHF is encouraging and
should be viewed as an indication of their eagerness to support the nomination and
management of World Heritage Sites in the continent. Whether African countries
will be able to meet the target of US$25million by 2015 remains to be seen, but
the commitment shown so far is worth commending. Other African countries are,
however, encouraged to also invest in the management and development of World
Heritage Sites in Africa through the AWHF.
Apart from donating to the AWHF, a number of African countries have now
introduced degree programmes in archaeology and heritage management in
an effort to train people that would manage cultural heritage sites. For exam-
ple, a Masters Degree in heritage management studies was lately introduced at
a University in Mauritius, while a similar programme was also recently intro-
duced at Witwatersrand University in South Africa. In Zimbabwe, similar
degree programmes are also offered at three universities, namely the University
of Zimbabwe, Midlands State University and Great Zimbabwe University.
Theintroduction of degrees at these and other universities is complement-

ing efforts by the AWHF and other international heritage training institutions to
teach Africans programmes that would help nominate and manage cultural World
Heritage Sites in Africa.
Conclusion
The reasons why African States Parties do or do not support the management of
cultural World Heritage Sites in their countries greatly vary from one country to
another, and they depend on the administrative history of the country. However,
these reasons are by and large similar and they are interrelated as shown by
examples from some African countries. The lack of interest and challenges met
by African governments to support the nomination and management of cultural
World Heritage Sites means that they are underutilised in the fight against poverty
and development, which remains the main concern for many African countries.
Although there are efforts by some African countries to address the management
issues affecting cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa, important challenges still
remain; they are seriously underfunded and are heavily dependent on external sup-
port, both financial and technical. While efforts are made to train more Africans
in archaeology and cultural heritage studies are noted, there is need to balance
this training with the creation of jobs and improvement of remuneration. The
long-term future of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa can only therefore be
assured if States Parties commit the appropriate resources to ensuring that they are
properly managed.
References
African World Heritage Fund. (2011). Annual report. Investing in heritage. South Africa: Midrand.
African World Heritage Fund. (2012). Annual report. Fiveyears of investment in African world
heritage. South Africa: Midrand.
Arazi, N. (2009). Cultural research management in Africa: Challenges, dangers and opportuni-
ties. AZANIA, 44(1), 95106.
Arazi, N. (2011). Safeguarding archaeological cultural resources in Africapolicies, methods
and issues on (non-) compliance. African Archaeological Review, 28, 2738.
Ashley, C., & Bouakaze-Khan, D. (2011). Conservation and management of archaeological sites in
sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 13(23), 95102.
Aubrey, L. (1997). The politics of development cooperation: NGOs, gender and partnership in
Kenya. London: Routledge.
Bartsell, J. (2005). Aids, politics and NGOs in Zimbabwe. In A. S. Patterson (Ed.), The African
state and the AIDS crisis (pp. 5978). England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Bornstein, E. (2005). The spirit of development: Protestant NGOs, morality and economics.
California: Stanford University Press.
Africa. World Archaeology, 39, 355370.
Chirikure, S. (2013). Heritage conservation in Africa: The good, the bad, and the challenges.
Southern African Journal of Science, 109(1/2), 13.
Collett, D. (1991). The archaeological heritage of Zimbabwe: A masterplan for resource and
conservation and development. Harare: National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.
Kankpeyeng, B. W., & DeCorse, C. R. (2004). Ghanas vanishing past: Development, antiquities
and the destruction of the archaeological record. African Archaeological Review, 21(2), 89128.
Kusimba, C. M. (1996). Archaeology in African museums. The African Archaeological Review,
13(3), 165170.
Mabulla, A. Z. P. (1996). Tanzanias endangered heritage: A call for a protection program.
African Archaeological Review, 13(3), 197214.
Mabulla, A. Z. P. (2000). Strategy for cultural heritage management (CHM) in Africa: A case-
study. African Archaeological Review, 17(4), 211233.
Mahachi, G., & Kamuhangire, E. (2008). Administrative arrangements for heritage resources
management in sub-Saharan Africa. In W. Ndoro, A. Mumma & G. Abungu (Eds.), Cultural
heritage and the law: Protecting immovable heritage in english-speaking countries of Sub-
Saharan Africa (pp. 4551). Rome, Italy: ICCROM Conservation Studies 8.
Meskell, L. (2012). The nature of heritage: The new South Africa. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Murimbika, M., & Moyo, B. (2008). Archaeology and donor aid in the developing world:
The case for local heritage in Zimbabwe. In F. P. McManamon, A. Stout, & J. A. Barnes
(Eds.), Managing archaeological resources: Global context, national programs, local actions
(pp.87106). California: Left Coast Press. (One World Archaeology 58).
Myles, K. (1989). Cultural resource management in sub-Saharan Africa: Nigeria, Togo and
Ghana. In H. F. Cleere (Ed.), Archaeological heritage management in the modern world
(pp.118127). London: Unwin Hyman. (One World Archaeology 9).
Ndoro, W. (2005). Your monument our shrine: The preservation of great Zimbabwe. Rome:
ICCROM. (ICCROM Conservation Studies 4).
Pikirayi, I. (2011). Tradition, archaeological heritage protection and communities in the
Limpopo province of South Africa. Adis Ababa, Ethiopia: OSSREA.
Pwiti, G. (1997). Taking African cultural heritage management into the twenty-first century:
Zimbabwes masterplan for cultural heritage management. African Archaeological Review,
14(2), 8183.
Pwiti, G., & Ndoro, W. (1999). The legacy of colonialism: Perceptions of the cultural heritage in
Southern Africa, with special reference to Zimbabwe. African Archaeological Review, 16(3),
143153.
Snchez, J. A. (2012). (Post) Colonialism, politics and a bit of archaeology: World Heritage
in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Best Practices in World
Heritage. Spain: Menorca.
Schmidt, P. R. (2006). Historical archaeology in Africa: Representation, social memory, and oral
traditions. Oxford: AltaMira Press.
Segobye, A. K. (2006). Divided commons: the political economy of southern Africas cul-
tural heritage landscapes observations of the central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana.
Archaeologies 52, 2(1), 5272.
Sinamai, A. (1997). Wood from the western entrance of the great enclosure, Great Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwea, 5, 2229.
UNESCO. (2010). World heritage in the Congo basin. Paris: World Heritage Centre.
Willems, W. J. H., & Comer, D. (2011). Africa, archaeology and World heritage. Conservation
and Management of Archaeological Sites, 13(23), 160173.
Chapter 5
The Management of Cultural World
Heritage Sites in Africa and Their
Contribution to the Development of the
Continent
Ashton Sinamai
Introduction
Africa is a continent where civilisations rose and fell leaving exceptional

archaeological sites and cultural landscapes that have for centuries attracted treas-
ure hunters, archaeologists and tourists from Africa and the rest of the world. Its
beauty represented by natural landscapes, and diversity of fauna and flora has also
been a point of attraction for tourists from continents where wildlife has become
non-existent.
Nominating sites to the World Heritage List (WHL) has become very popu-
lar with African governments who see development opportunities in tourism. For
many African countries, tourism is seen as a cash cow that can bring in money
quickly. For example, in South Africa, tourism contributes about 10% to the Gross
Domestic Product, and World Heritage Sites are the focus of that tourism (Wiess
2007, p. 417), and South Africas nominations have been linked to a national tour-
ism plan. Thus, African prime National Parks such as Matobo Hills, Mana Pools
(Zimbabwe), Cape Floral Region, Kilimanjaro, Ngorongoro, Serengeti (Tanzania),
Virunga (DRC) and Mt Kenya (Kenya), to name but just a few, have been listed
on the WHL. For most countries in Africa, the WHL has become an Olympian
competition to see who has the most and who attracts the most visitors.
For Zimbabwe, tourism was the second largest contributor to the national budget
after tobacco with over $200million, and though it was mainly focused on wildlife,
it was by 1998, slowly refocusing towards cultural tourism. In the late 1990s, tour-
ism was growing by 20% annually (Doran 2009, p. 18) before crashing in the lost
decade (19992009) when foreign tourists shunned Zimbabwe as a destination
A. Sinamai(*)
Cultural Heritage Centre for Asia and the Pacific, Deakin University,
221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia
e-mail: asinamai@yahoo.co.uk; asinamai@deakin.edu.au

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_5, The Author(s) 2014
56 A. Sinamai
due to political and security issues. World Heritage Sites such as Great Zimbabwe,
Khami and the Matobo Hills Cultural Landscape, which were supposed to play a
major part in the refocusing process (Manwa 2007), faced even worse problems
as they received very little revenue for conservation from tourism. Many African
countries, on the other hand, use nomination to the WHL as a way of establish-
ing themselves on the world stage where tourism presents an attractive platform for
internationalising national narratives for economic and cultural links. The increase
in tourism doesnt always happen as some sites have always failed to attract more
tourists. Khami World Heritage Site in Zimbabwe, for instance, has seen a huge
reduction in visitors from the time that it was nominated onto the WHL. However,
on the contrary, the numbers of tourists visiting Victoria Falls didnt significantly
change after its inscription on the WHL. In Kenya and Tanzania, nomination of
the popular national parks is viewed as a strategy for increasing visitor numbers
to safari tourism. Tanzania has Ngorongoro, Kilimanjaro, Serengeti and Selous
National Parks on the WHL. Kenya, on the other hand, has three National Parks on
the list (Kenya Lake System in the Rift Valley, Lake Turkana National Park, Mount
Kenya National Park and Natural Forest), with another seventeen (from 19 proper-
ties) related to national parks on the Tentative List. West Africa has also promoted
slave routes and slavery related to heritage places to tap into the North and South
American (especially African American) tourism market. Most of the sites men-
tioned here attract a significant number of tourists from Europe and North America
and recently, from China and Japan.
Is it possible to make these World Heritage Sites the hubs of development for
African countries? Can tourism be a dependable source of income for a continent
that is volatile and dependent on other continents for tourists? Can these sites be
centres for peace on a continent that has often been at war with itself? Should we
make these sites hubs of development when we have failed to fund their conserva-
tion? This chapter assesses the role that World Heritage Sites can play in the devel-
opment of Africa. In the face of destruction of holy sites in the World Heritage city
of Timbuktu, it is clear that there is a need to use the concept of World Heritage
Sites to create opportunities and a peaceful environment for communities in
Africa. This means that heritage has to become a crucial part for social engineer-
ing that looks at heritage not only as a tool for commodification but as a social
object that can be used to create an environment where societies are central in the
development process.
There are often dichotomies between heritage and development. In Africa,
heritage is not often seen as a resource but something that cannot be extricated
from the day-to-day lives of people linked to it. Because development has been
driven through western paradigms, it is often viewed with suspicion, especially
when it is associated with heritage places. As a result, there is the perception that
development brings people from outside who have little respect for the culture
represented by the heritage and whose main aim is to enjoy their holiday. Ndoro
(2005) summarises this dichotomy very well with the title of his 2005 book Your
Monument Our Shrine: what you (outsiders) often see as a holiday resort, a sym-
bol of nationhood, an educational centre and playground for the rich, is our (local
5 The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa 57
communitys) cathedral. Development thus means change in how the heritage

place is celebrated and commemorated and is often viewed with fear by those
directly linked to the heritage site or landscape. Development has also meant indi-
vidual gain from a place that communities think is communally owned. On another
level, most World Heritage Sites in Africa are managed by quasi-government
organisations whose main mandate is to conserve the Outstanding Universal
Values and create ecological balance and enhance identity and social cohe-
sion (ICOMOS 2011). On the other hand, development agencies have terms that
are often uncomfortable for heritage managers: infrastructural development, pov-
erty alleviation (which means sharing of the meagre resources from the heritage
with a community and also entails democratisation of the management systems),
job creation and economic growth all terms that are difficult to understand and
are yet associated with heritage management (UNESCO 2012).
How then do we discuss heritage and development in Africa? First, for Africa
to be able to incorporate development into heritage management, there is a need to
democratise heritage management. Much of Africa has archaic cultural heritage leg-
islation created during an autocratic colonial period. In much of these legislations,
communities have no say in how heritage is managed once it has been inscripted on
a national list. It is even worse for those heritage places that become World Heritage
Sites as this status often becomes a tool for justification of undemocratic decisions
made by the organisations managing the sites (Fontein 2006, p. 194).
What is Development?
Development is a dirty word for most archaeologists who work with fragile
heritage that is not renewable. It often represents events that destroy evidence
of the past and disrespect the needs of communities whose identities may be
intrinsically linked to that past. It is therefore difficult to associate the word
development with the management of cultural World Heritage Sites in a posi-
tive light. Developers generally view archaeology and the protection of cul-
tural heritage during development as a costly diversion of their plans. But what
is development and do we as cultural heritage managers continue to mistrust
development and developers? Is development always linked to the destruc-
tion of heritage? Can culture play a part in development in a way that respects
localcommunities and their heritage places? The Oxford English Dictionary
(http://oxforddictoionaries.com), defines development as an event constituting
a new stage in a changing situation. This definition of course does not show the
pains that societies often go through in the name of development. Development
is also associated with social and economic improvement of peoples lives with
the utmost respect for their natural and cultural environment. It is an improve-
ment of a complex system that requires to be balanced for that development to
be accepted by the various stakeholders. This recent definition of development
has also been referred to as sustainable development.
58 A. Sinamai
Sustainable development has a plethora of definitions, but at the core of this

fairly new development paradigm, however, is how to resolve conflicts that often
accompany the exploitation of resources both natural and cultural. It is also on how
resources can be used equitably by the present generation with the knowledge that
there are future generations that will need access to those resources. Initially, sus-
tainable development was focused on environmentalism, but it is now recognised
that culture, knowledge systems and heritage all play a significant part in how
development can be accepted by communities (Nurse 2006, p. 34). It entails the
maintenance of community values and value systems, equity in the distribution of
resources and minimising the use of exhaustible resources by the current generation.
The ingredients of development have therefore been extended from just being social,
economic and environmental to include culture as the fourth pillar (Bellu 2011). For
development to benefit communities, it has to respect community values and tradi-
tions. Developing cultural World Heritage Sites for economic gain is therefore a very
sensitive issue that African heritage managers have often overlooked in their bid to
promote tourism at these sites. African World Heritage Sites are often managed by
government linked authorities that are as democratic as the governments that support
them. This means that in most cases, cultural World Heritage Sites are managed and
developed by state bodies that rarely consult communities who subsist close to these
sites. The state bodies are often controlled by central governments and local authori-
ties bear the brunt of the consequences of development at World Heritage Sites.
Development, especially when it concerns cultural World Heritage Sites, should thus
be accompanied by good governance, an issue that is very sensitive in Africa.
World Heritage and Development in Africa
World Heritage status is often associated with the opening up of opportunities in

tourism. Indeed, many countries in the world often see nomination and inscription
as a way to increase tourism at cultural and natural World Heritage Sites. Some
have cynically commented that the WHL has moved from being a representative
of human achievements to a vehicle for tourism, a Michelin star for tourist des-
tinations (see for example, Musitelli 2002; Rakic 2007; Brattli 2009). But on their
own, World Heritage Sites cannot boost tourism. It is when they are incorporated
into development programmes that they become magnets for foreign travellers.
Many World Heritage Sites that are inscribed never become viable tourist places
for various reasons. Due to their conservation status, development, interpreta-
tion as well as sheer lack of interest by national tourism organisations, some sites
remain unknown and uncelebrated at international level. For example, although
the cultural heritage site of Khami was inscribed on the WHL in 1986, tourist
numbers have been decreasing since its proclamation as a World Heritage Site.
From about 12,000 visitors per year, Khami currently receives less than 3,000 visi-
tors per year and the numbers are still going down even though visitor numbers are
now increasing at sites such as Great Zimbabwe and the Matobo Hills.
In many parts of the world, World Heritage Sites are catalysts for development.
In Africa, as in other parts of the world, heritage tourism is the fastest creator of
jobs. These World Heritage Sites, however, are often islands in which big busi-
ness and international interests invest in infrastructure geared towards the needs
of the foreign visitors mainly from Europe and North America. These compa-
nies usually have little interaction with local communities living near the herit-
age place. There is, therefore, parallel development between the environs of the
World Heritage Site and the areas bordering it. On one hand many visitors to
Africa do not buy from local shops while on the other local communities hardly
use the infrastructure developed for the tourists. As in many developing countries,
African nations not only need to reconstruct the past but they also need to restruc-
ture their economies so that they create new privatepublic partnerships that do
away with contradictory regulations, competing authorities and authoritarian
ownership of heritage (Nuryanti 1999, p. v).
Investment in tourism can also trigger the development of entrepreneurial
skills among the locals such as the creation and marketing of goods (such as sou-
venirs) to tourists and to the tourist organisations. These skills can face stunted
growth if they are not recognised by the mainstream economy. Successful World
Heritage destinations in Africa have also brought revenues to central government
through taxation, but in almost all cases, this tax never trickles down to develop
infrastructure for communities that traditionally own these World Heritage Sites.
Though there are some benefits from tourism development, including more reve-
nue through salaries, payment for supplies and services, this has exposed the local
communities to the ups and downs of tourism, which can be worsened by such
things as political or economic collapse and conflicts as well as destination trends.
The social and cultural costs of tourism, however, can be huge if they are not
mitigated and this requires planning. Though tourism can be a powerful driver of
development, it requires great planning and sensitivity for it to become socially
viable. Social viability is not only about local communities having jobs but it is
also about being sensitive to peoples economic, social, health and cultural needs.
In Africa, the management of cultural World Heritage Sites is not usually included
in regional economic development plans and they usually find themselves stuck
with development projects that affect their authenticity, or worse still their preser-
vation. Development activities that harm World Heritage Sites or have a negative
social impact on the local communities could end up destroying the cultural World
Heritage Sites that bring tourism to the area.
A good example is that of Great Zimbabwe (Fig.5.1) which, until recently,
did not even have a management plan. This World Heritage Site has managed
to attract huge numbers of tourists, especially after its nomination on the WHL.
Tourist arrivals peaked at over one hundred thousand visitors per year before 2000.
Development linked to this site has included eight hotels and lodges, which have
provided employment for local people. Many have joined these hotels as lower-
rung workers (waiters, builders, maintenance workers) while others have tapped
into the souvenir market and sell art and crafts to the visitors. The huge num-
ber of tourists has also meant the development of a sophisticated conservation
60 A. Sinamai
Fig.5.1Great Zimbabwe World Heritage Site. Photo by Author
programme that has embraced the traditional skills of the local communities. A
major road from the nearest city of Masvingo was constructed in 1990 to cater
for the increased traffic to the site and this improved the transport systems for
communities living near this cultural World Heritage Site. As a result of all these
developments, a small township called Nemamwa located about 2km away has
been developed near the site. Nemamwa houses most of the workers from hotels
and lodges around the site and from the National Museums and Monuments of
Zimbabwe (NMMZ), an organisation that is responsible for conservation and
development of Great Zimbabwe.
The Masvingo Rural District Council, which is the local council area in
which Great Zimbabwe is located, gains very little from all these developments.
Negotiations to develop hotels are often done at the ministry level, and the taxes
from these hotels go directly to the central government. The council tries to gain
from tourism through its own lodges in the township, but not many tourists venture
this far away from Great Zimbabwe. In fact, though the council has a very lucra-
tive tourism product, it has been declared bankrupt twice within the last 20years.
This has meant that local infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, clinics and
roads have remained underfunded, undeveloped or unrepaired. The hotels have
very little interaction with local communities and buy all their supplies from else-
where. A large population of the local communities are farmers rearing cattle and
growing crops, but a market economy has not developed through the development
of these hotels and lodges. The hotels and lodges such as the Great Zimbabwe
hotel and the Ancient City Lodge (Fig.5.2) could have for instance encouraged
market gardening to supply them with the vegetables they require. This would not
only mean more money for local communities but also change the way they think
about agriculture and development. Many of these communities have problems
Fig.5.2The Ancient City Lodge owned by an international tourism company located near the
site of Great Zimbabwe. Photo by Yananiso Maposa, Great Zimbabwe
with water, and the development of these hotels and lodges should have taken into
account the needs of the villagers.
Currently, the pipelines taking water to the hotels and lodges pass through
villages that do not have potable water sources themselves. Because of tourism,
prices of goods in the area around Great Zimbabwe are high, and yet the com-
munities are not being empowered in any way by developments around a site
they believe is their most sacred place. Such elitist development should not be the
kind of development associated with cultural World Heritage Sites such as Great
Zimbabwe, which is surrounded by poor communities that hardly receive attention
from central government.
In the mid-1990s, Nemamwa had the highest HIV/AIDS rates in Zimbabwe and
this can hardly be separated from the fact that the area received huge numbers of
outsiders who infected members of the local community (Kim et al. 2001). These
include tourists and the local prostitutes they attract. This has seen members of the
community around the site dying, and the result has been a huge number of orphans
in the district. None of the tourism-related organisations tried to help these commu-
nities through awareness campaigns nor did they accept responsibility over how this
epidemic was spread around the site. No clinics were built and no treatment regimes
were introduced to the local communities. The figures only went down through a
high mortality rate. This fly-infly-out kind of development is quite common in
62 A. Sinamai
Africa where foreign companies are only concerned with the maximisation of
profits, and they have little care about how their development affects communities
who have nowhere else to fly-out to when they are confronted with problems such
as these. In Zimbabwe, tourism collapsed due to the economic and political prob-
lems faced in the lost decade between 1999 and 2009, and Great Zimbabwe,
which received 120,000 visitors in 1996, could only receive 15,000 in 2009 (Africa
World Heritage Fund 2010). Hotels have retrenched or sent their workers on unpaid
leave because hotel occupancy cannot justify high staff numbers. Locals usually
have the lowest qualifications and most of them were laid off first, and this has
affected the local economy. If the economic players had developed the local econ-
omy by purchasing their requirements from the local markets and by developing
schools for local children, the local economy may not have collapsed in the way it
did when Zimbabwes economy collapsed. The lack of democracy in the heritage
sector has left such communities without a voice on how cultural World Heritage
Sites can be managed. When communities have a voice, organisations get an insight
into what people require in their lives. At Great Zimbabwe, the NMMZ has recently
created a Management Committee that includes representatives from local commu-
nities (Mugabe, Nemamwa and Charumbira dynasties) and the organisation has dis-
covered that what it often thinks the communities require is not crucial to their
well-being. Previously, the NMMZ thought that giving people employment creates
better relationships with communities, but communities want this organisation to
play its part by creating opportunities, which solve problems in the area around the
site. One of the demands by these communities was for the NMMZ to sponsor HIV/
AIDS orphans for their primary education (G. Mahachi1 pers. comm., April 2012),
an apt insight into what communities feel about how tourism at Great Zimbabwe
has helped in the spread of AIDS in these communities. The NMMZ has often
found itself in a position where it is not in control of the developments that are car-
ried out around the site as they are controlled by more powerful government
entities.
A new university, which is called the Great Zimbabwe University, was allo-
cated land that is in full view when one is at the Hill Complex, which is the high-
est point of Great Zimbabwe cultural World Heritage Site. The project, which is
the presidents pet project, could cause conflicts with local communities, who
see an encroachment of modernity on a sacred place, and the World Heritage
Committee, which may also view it as an encroachment on the buffer zone of this
World Heritage Site.
On the contrary, a better example of sustainable development on cultural World
Heritage Sites is that of Kenyas Sacred Kaya Forests (Fig5.3). The Sacred Kaya
forests consist of forty separate forests, which are the remains of the once exten-
sive Zanzibar-Inhambane lowland forests. At one point, these forests contained for-
tified hidden villages and were a protection for people from wars and slave raids,
1Dr.Godfrey Mahachi is the Executive Director of National Museums and Monuments of

Zimbabwe.
Fig.5.3Kaya elders carrying out a ceremony in Kaya Kinondo Forest in Kenya. Photo by
Herman Kiriama
but today they are now regarded as abodes of ancestors. There are burial grounds
within these forests too. The forests are believed to be important for the well-being
of Mijikenda communities that worship in and exploit them. Though the forests
have a single management plan, they are managed separately by communities, and
the management is guided by a set of rules and taboos, which are enshrined in their
traditions. The management of these sites is also under various national legislations
including the National Museums and Heritage Act, Cap 216 (2009), which gazetted
the makaya (plural of Kaya) as national monuments. Eleven of the makaya were
declared World Heritage cultural landscapes in 2008. Their declaration as World
Heritage Sites has improved the chances of their survival than was possible before
their proclamation. Prior to the proclamation, many of them were being corruptly
parcelled out to developers in the tourism sector.
These cultural World Heritage Sites are not only sacred but they also contain
various tree and animal species that are not found in other parts of East Africa.
These forests have started to attract eco-tourists, and varieties of projects have
been initiated and are now benefiting the local communities around the makaya.
Some of the Mjikenda Makaya forests have become tourism destinations, which
are controlled entirely by the local communities themselves. The revenue from any
activity within the Makaya goes directly to the community that owns the Kaya.
Tourism and development within or near the makaya are controlled so that it does
64 A. Sinamai
not negatively affect the forest and the sacred places in the cultural landscape. No
tourist can enter these cultural World Heritage landscapes without a guide from the
community.
One of the Kaya with very successful projects is Kaya Kinondo, which is
managed by a community organisation called the Kaya Kinondo Conservation
and Development Group. The income, which comes from various activities that
include cultural tours, selling of souvenirs as well as bee-keeping, is utilised in
developing education infrastructure, and supports womens groups to start pro-
jects that generate income as well as buy shares in a Village Bank that was estab-
lished by the community. The Kaya Kinondo Village Bank was established after
the realisation that when banked with commercial banks, the income generated
through ecotourism was not always accessible to the community. The villagers
were always asked for collateral security if they would want to borrow money
for projects from the commercial banks, which often included assets that they did
not have. With the creation of the Village Bank, members of the community can
borrow and start income generation projects without being asked for collateral
security. The establishment of the Village Bank has also helped villagers to save
their earnings, and they can now also invest their money elsewhere in the wider
economy.
As a result of benefitting from collecting revenue from tourism, the commu-
nities have also created other projects that increase their revenue. Besides get-
ting employment in the tourism industry as eco-tourist guides, marketing agents
and receptionists, the communities are also developing industries which are
benefiting them. Bee-keeping for example has become a very lucrative industry
and supplies honey to the numerous coastal hotels that are close to the makaya.
Given that there are various plant species in these forests, and with the help of
non-governmental organisations, locals have also developed herbal beauty prod-
ucts that are sold in tourist shops. These projects, though not major, have created
an environment in which local communities can develop at their own pace and
make them feel that they are part of the development process. Locals have real-
ised that revenue is directly benefitting them through renovation of clinics, schools
and other infrastructure, which had been ignored by their central government for
a very long time. Most of these projects will continue even if tourism collapses
in coastal Kenya. These projects not only preserve the environment but they also
sustain local culture and cultural heritage and benefit the communities that revere
that heritage. This model of development can be employed at many cultural World
Heritage Sites that are owned by communities such as Sukur cultural landscape
World Heritage Site in Nigeria, Twyfelfontein in Namibia and Tsodilo Hills in
Botswana. These are sites which governments hardly reach in terms of develop-
ment even though state organisations benefit from their management.
This model of development stresses the importance of responsible business so
that development does not just benefit big businesses and foreign tourists. Culture
is always an important aspect of every tourism destination, but it is also the most
fragile and usually suffers first. Once culture has been negatively affected by
development, the need to preserve the cultural World Heritage Sites may disappear
within the local communities and sustaining the development of these sites may
become less important for them. There is, therefore, a need to be extremely sensi-
tive about the role of culture in the development process as this can have serious
ramifications on the management of cultural (and natural) World Heritage Sites.
When tourism collapsed in Zimbabwe, locals living near Great Zimbabwe found
themselves with no source of income, and when some of them were asked about
the role of the site in their lives, they referred to it as just a heap of stones show-
ing that they had lost the interest in how the site was managed and how it contrib-
uted socially and financially to their lives.
Conclusion
Conferring World Heritage status to cultural heritage sites in Africa does not
always mean development follows. In Africa, many communities have been disap-
pointed when they realised that tourism did not assist them in any way after their
cultural heritage places were proclaimed as World Heritage Sites. Good examples
include Khami with numbers only ranging between 3,000 and 8,000 per year,
Kilwa Kisiwani with only 6001,500 visitors per annum (Africa World Heritage
Fund 2009, p. 9). The general trend, however, is that World Heritage Sites are a
catalyst for development. Infrastructure is often revamped when sites are listed
on the WHL as tourism is expected to increase. The presence of Kilwa World
Heritage Site in the Kilwa District, for instance, has seen a Southern Circuit
of tourism envisaged, and this has attracted investment from both the private and
government sectors (Africa World Heritage Fund 2009, p. 1). Victoria Falls, on the
other hand, receives over a million visitors every year and it sustains two towns
Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe and Livingstone in Zambiabut this has always been
the case, even before listing. South Africa also views its World Heritage Sites
as assets that can be used to drive development and it plans its tourism strategy
around them. However, tourism on its own is not development. If it is not focused
on developing communities and preserving the cultural assets, it can be the fast-
est destroyer of livelihoods when it collapses or if it is not controlled by proper
management policies. Local economies should not be too reliant on tourism whose
ups and downs are rapid and catastrophic, especially in Africa where countries are
often unstable. Development should not only focus on the World Heritage Site but
also focus on communities whose culture is represented by the World Heritage
places. Most heritage managers of World Heritage sites in Africa operate with
management plans, but these plans are often not linked to regional and local eco-
nomic plans, and if they are, the plans are rarely implemented. The result has been
that regional development plans are not factored into management plans and new
developments that negatively affect the cultural World Heritage Sites. Mining pro-
jects supported by regional and national government on the South African potion
of the cultural World Heritage landscape of Mapungubwe has recently caused a
huge controversy as they may negatively affect the landscape (Carruthers 2006).
66 A. Sinamai
Communities should thus be central in the creation of management plans that

are based on cultural heritage places. This is the only way we can sustainably pre-
serve and develop heritage sites and force business to be socially responsible to
communities whose heritage they use to generate profits. Making communities
central does not only create an environment of trust but it also develop a variety
of tools for sustainable management and development of heritage places. Best
practices in the management of World Heritage properties in Africa should factor
in social responsibility which can then force improvements in how communities
are treated by government, developers and companies. The best practices should
protect the well-being of communities and sustain cultural practices important for
their survival and identity.
References
African World Heritage Fund and Development Bank of South Africa. (2009). Situational analy-
sis: Kilwa World Heritage Site. Midrand: South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2010). World Heritage and sustainable development. Situational
analysis: Great Zimbabwe World Heritage Site, Report 1. Midrand: South Africa.
Brattli, T. (2009). Managing archaeological world cultural heritage: Consensus or rhetoric?
Norwegian Archaeological Review, 42(1), 2439.
Bellu, L. G. (2011). Development and development paradigms: A (reasoned) review of pre-
vailing visions. FAO. Rome. Available at http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/882/
defining_development_paradigms_102EN.pdf
Carruthers, J. (2006). Mapungubwe: An historical and contemporary analysis of a World
Heritage cultural landscape. Koedoe, African Protected Area Conservation and Science,
49(1), 113.
Doran, S. (2009). Zimbabwes Economy Report Card, Mid 2009. Johannesburg: Brenthurst
Foundation.
Fontein, J. (2006). The silence of Great Zimbabwe: Contested landscapes and the power of herit-
age. Harare: Weaver Press.
Government of the Republic of Kenya. (2009). National Museums and Heritage Act, Cap. 216.
Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting, Kenya.
ICOMOS. (2011). The Paris declaration on heritage as a driver of development adopted by the
17th General Assembly of International Council of Monuments and Sites. Paris: ICOMOS.
Kim, Y. M., Kols, A., Nyakauru, R., Marangwanda, C., & Chibatamoto, P. (2001). Promoting
sexual responsibility among young people in Zimbabwe. International Family Planning
Perspectives, 27(1).
Manwa, H. A. (2007). Is Zimbabwe ready to venture into the cultural tourism market?
Development Southern Africa, 24(3), 465474.
Musitelli, J. (2002). Opinion: World Heritage, between universalism and globalisation.
International Journal of Cultural Property, 11(2), 323336.
Ndoro, W. (2005). Your monument our shrine: The preservation of Great Zimbabwe (ICCROM
Conservation Studies 4). Rome: ICCROM.
Nurse, K. (2006). Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. Small States Economic
Review and Basic Statistics, 11, 2840.
Nuryanti, W. (1999). Introduction: Sustaining heritage through cultural industries. In W. Nuryanti
(Ed.), Heritage, tourism and local communities. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Rakic, T. (2007). World Heritage: Issues and debates. Preliminary Communication, 55(2),
209219.
UNESCO. (2012). Background document for the international conference living with World
Heritage in Africa (2629 September 2012) South Africa. Available at http://whc.unesco.org/
uploads/events/documents/event-839-2.pdf. Accessed on 22 November 2012.
Wiess, L. (2007). Heritage making and political identity. Journal of Social Archaeology, 7(3),
413431.
Chapter 6
The Management of Cultural World
Heritage Sites in Africa and Their
Contribution to Sustainable Development
in the Continent
Ibrahima Thiaw
The African human experience constantly appears in the discourse of our times as
an experience that can only be understood through a negative interpretation. Africa
is never seen as possessing things and attributes properly part of human. Or, when
it is, its things and attributes are generally of lesser value, little importance, and poor
quality. It is this elementariness and primitiveness that makes Africa the world par
excellence of all that is incomplete, mutilated, and unfinished, its history reduced to
series of setbacks of nature in its quest for humankind (Mbembe 2001, p. 1).
Introduction
Although limited, the inscription of African cultural heritage sites on the WHL
was a major definitive shift from former perceptions of the continent, its people
and cultures as valueless and unsophisticated. This blew negative perceptions
on Africa that have been observed above by Mbembe (2001). Yet, until recently,
Eurocentric assumptions, which emphasized criteria of monumentality and
aesthetics, had presided over the inscription of sites on the WHL (Cleere 2000).
African States Parties whose properties are listed on the WHL face considera-
ble pressure because the safeguarding of their Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)
requires adequate management and preservation strategies and policies that pro-
mote the well-being of the communities that live close to and beyond the sites. Yet,
in many instances, the contribution of cultural World Heritage Sites to economic
growth, social well-being, peace and security of the populations living close to the
sites has remained weak. In addition, the economies of most African countries are
unable to fulfil basic life needs satisfactorily for their citizens.
I. Thiaw(*)
Laboratoire dArchologie, IFAN-UCAD, BP 206, Dakar, Senegal
e-mail: thiawi@yahoo.com

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_6, The Author(s) 2014
70 I. Thiaw
Media coverage on Africa is usually awash with themes on poverty, conflicts,

diseases, environmental disasters and poor access to resources including clean
water and food (Hassan and Priscoli 1997; Martnez-Cortina 2010). This is exac-
erbated by prevalent unemployment, rapid and unplanned urban growth, exploi-
tation of mineral and natural resources, which put cultural heritage resources at
risk (Lane 2011). Many African countries are suffocating under the burden of
foreign debts as they largely rely on external assistance, which often lacks stra-
tegic plans for capacity building. The management of cultural World Heritage
Sites has, therefore, remained marginalized in most African countries. Their man-
agement is almost exclusively externally funded. Rather than considered a prior-
ity, generally, the management and protection of World Heritage Sites in Africa
is seen as a luxury and important only for the rich people who can afford to
visit them.
About a decade ago, however, during a World Summit on Sustainable Development
that was held in Johannesburg in South Africa, it was reported that sustainable devel-
opment remains elusive in many parts of the continent (United Nations 2002). While
it was generally recognized that in Africa, natural and cultural resources are capable of
uplifting communities, their exploitation is usually controlled by state and large inter-
national organizations that are not always sensitive to the needs of the communities
living close to World Heritage Sites. It was also noted during the same summit that
the exploitation of resources by external and powerful multinational companies rarely
benefits the local communities from which resources are extracted (Montague 2002;
Bayard 1993). Historically, many cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa have been
mined by European collectors, antiquarians and wealthy western museums (Schmidt
and McIntosh 1996). However, mineral and energy resource mining and other so-
called development activities have continued to deprive many African countries of the
benefits that are linked with the development of their cultural World Heritage Sites.
While the development of cultural World Heritage Sites has the potential to improve
the social and economic life of many impoverished populations, this potential has
largely remained untapped. Part of the problem is that there seems to be a lack of clar-
ity and realization on the linkage that exists between the management of cultural herit-
age sites and development (Yousfi 2007, p. 5; Arazi 2011, p. 29). The other problem is
also that both terms are elusive. But whatever their meanings are, their interconnection
cannot be separated.
All human experiences and activities are essentially, to some extent, struc-
tured by culture, which is a package of beliefs, traditions, behaviours, symbols,
habits, social organizations and worldviews of a society. The members of a
society are bound to one another and to other groups by these cultural norms.
Viewed this way, culture is the foundation of all human activities. Development
can be considered as the general improvement of the standards of human com-
munities. However, although development can never be perfect, each com-
munity aspires that its area be developed in order to improve its standards of
living (Marliac 1997). The major problem that we face when managing and
developing cultural World Heritage Sites as observed by Ndoro (2001, p. 1) is
our failure to understand the cultural significance of the sites and their value to
local communities. During the pre-colonial period in Africa, many African soci-
eties valued their cultural heritage sites, but this changed during the colonial
period due to land appropriations, displacement of populations and the impo-
sition of new laws, which divorced many communities from managing their
cultural heritage (Pwiti and Ndoro 1999). However, from the 1970s onwards,
international heritage agencies such as UNESCO helped dismantle colonial
assumptions, which undermined the management of cultural World Heritage
Sites in Africa. But during the 1990s, international financial institutions such
as the World Bank began to also recognize the connection between the manage-
ment of cultural World Heritage Sites and sustainable development (Serageldin
and Taboroff 1994).
This chapter discusses the management of cultural World Heritage Sites in
Africa and how it can contribute to sustainable development in the continent.
The first section of the chapter critically examines the potential of cultural World
Heritage Sites for contributing to the economic and sociopolitical empowerment
of the local communities. Looking at different parts of the continent, the second
section evaluates the contribution of various cultural World Heritage Sites in
Africa to sustainable development. The third section reflects on future possibili-
ties and opportunities and explores ways through which African cultural World
Heritage Sites can foster economic, social and environmental development.
The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites

in Africa and Sustainable Development
The term development is elusive as it can be understood differently from one cul-
ture to the other. According to Marliac (2004), development can be defined as
the economic, social, environmental and political well-being of a society, which
requires policies, management strategies and specific habits to reach that goal.
Culture can be defined as the complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual
and emotional features that characterize a society (World Commission on Culture
and Development 1995; Iglesias 1999, p. 21). Therefore, development is culturally
grounded and depends on the needs and tastes of a people.
Historical forces may impact on the course of development in many signifi-
cant ways. In the long history of humankind, intercultural interactions have set in
motion developments of variable magnitude and kinds in specific cultural settings.
The institutions that were established by communities to look after a particular set
of cultural values, tastes and worldviews have been passed down from one gen-
eration to another. Broadly speaking, these institutions have played a key role in
the production, reproduction and consumption of cultural heritage. These institu-
tions thus constitute the foundation of all development activities, which ultimately
seek to improve the quality of life for communities according to their own set of
72 I. Thiaw
standards and pace. The management of cultural World Heritage Sites, therefore,
can significantly contribute to the economic development of the communities liv-
ing close to them (Iglesias 1999, p. 22; Mazrui 1999, pp. 1617).
As early as the 1960s and before the establishment of the 1972 World Heritage
Convention, the management of cultural heritage sites was central to the building
of newly independent African nations. At that time, the management of cultural
heritage sites and development were viewed with pride and self-accomplishments.
The optimism of the early 1960s, however, soon faded away in the 1970s. This
was because many African countries began to depend on European countries for
economic growth. Models for managing cultural heritage sites began to be estab-
lished marked by greater economic dependence and considerable social pressure
at home and abroad within the context of the cold war. It is in this context that
the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Worlds Natural and Cultural
Heritage (UNESCO 1972) was proposed and later consolidated by the establish-
ment of the WHL in 1978.
Despite the establishment of the WHL in 1978, the gap between culture and
economic development continued to widen in the 1980s. At that time, interna-
tional financial institutions introduced economic policies such as the Economic
Structural Adjustments programmes, which marginalized the management of
cultural heritage sites and considered it to be of irrelevance to the economic
development of the African countries. Ironically, it is at the same time that the
global community began to value the management of cultural World Heritage
Sites in Africa. The valuing of these sites was aided by intensive media cover-
age, which led to the first listing of sites such as Gore Island in Senegal, Fort
James in the Gambia and the Forts and Castles of Ghana. As a result of this
listing, the African American Diaspora began to view these sites as places of
memory and commemoration. Consequently, these sites rapidly grew as prime
tourism destinations. This was enhanced by the visit to the Island of Gore by
political activists, politicians and famous artists such as Jessie Jackson, Stevie
Wonder and Franois Mitterrand amid massive media coverage, fanfare and
pomp! This continued well into the 1990s with high profile visits on the Island
by Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton and more recently Barack
Obama (Thiaw 2008a) (Fig.6.1).
However, throughout the 1990s, the contribution of African cultural World
Heritage Sites to economic, social and environmental development varied from
one site to the other and from one African country to another. Although poli-
cies on cultural heritage management and their implementation remain weak
in most of the countries, it is important to note that by the 1990s, the manage-
ment of cultural World Heritage Sites began to be financially supported by the
World Bank and other international financial institutions (see Serageldin and
Taboroff 1994). For example, in 2009, the Ethiopian government received a loan
of US$5,000,000.00, which was to be used for learning and innovation from
the World Bank. Part of the money was to be used to integrate conservation and
management of cultural heritage sites into local and national economic develop-
ment with the major aim of reducing poverty through increased income in the
Fig.6.1President Barack Obama standing on the door of no return at Gore Island at the slave
house in Senegal with Eloi Coly, conservator of the Maison des Esclaves, Thursday, June 27, 2013
cultural heritage sector (World Bank 2009). This project was approved following
the end of the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia in 2002, and it specifically
targeted communities living close to the cultural World Heritage Sites of Axum
and Gondar. These communities included school children, craftsmen, traditional
builders, urban and regional planners and other stakeholders such as the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church, members of the Islamic Council, cultural organizations and
those in the tourism sector.
Other African countries such as Madagascar, Mauritania and Tunisia received
similar loans for the preservation of their cultural World Heritage Sites, which
would help in the creation of new jobs in the cultural sector (World Bank 2005,
2011). In Madagascar, the objectives of this initiative were to promote social
cohesion and identity to stimulate cultural heritage site management activities,
which would generate revenue for the country (World Bank 1999). The Royal
Hill, Ambohinmanga and the three royal huts (Basakana) were targeted for devel-
opment as part of this project. This also played a significant role in the mak-
ing and maintenance of the identity of the people of Madagascar. Over the past
twenty years, the World Bank has also supported projects on sustainable envi-
ronment and urban planning (B and Mann 2006; Christie and Crompton 2001;
World Bank 2010). However, the success of many of these projects has been
tightly linked to the management and protection of both cultural and natural
World Heritage Sites.
74 I. Thiaw
Management Problems at Some Cultural World Heritage

Sites in Africa
The challenges facing the management and protection of cultural World Heritage
Sites in Africa are multifaceted and include physical degradation due to natural
processes, pollution, illegal predation activities on sites causing deliberate destruc-
tion, poor infrastructure and difficult access to certain areas (World Heritage
Committee 2011, p. 7).
In 1995, the World Commission for Culture and Development argued in a doc-
ument entitled Our Creative Diversity that culture and sustainable development
are inherently interconnected (World Commission on Culture and Development
1995). But one of the major problems as recently pointed out by Arazi (2011,
pp. 2930) is that the legislation of most countries remains weak for effec-
tive management and protection of cultural heritage sites including those on the
WHL. In the Saloum Delta World Heritage Site in Senegal for instance, archaeo-
logical shell mounds continue to be mined to construct tourism infrastructure such
as hotels, lodges and roads. The major problem is that no environmental impact
assessments have been carried out prior to these developments (Thiaw 2008b).
A recent report by the African World Heritage Fund on the management prob-
lems facing Forts and Castles of Ghana showed that the buildings are poorly ori-
ented and their interpretations by tour guides are poor (African World Heritage
Fund 2009a). At the Forts and Castles of Ghana and at the Island of Gore, some
buildings are now illegally being used as residential places. Both sites are also suf-
fering from the presence of numerous self-proclaimed tour guides. Consequently,
visitors cannot identify officially trained tour guides at these sites. There is also
the problem of beggars, peddlers and ambulant sellers who often harass visitors.
Souvenirs for sales are generally unrelated to these cultural World Heritage Sites
or the communities who live close to these sites. Bargaining by tourists to buy tour
guiding services and souvenirs sometimes becomes very tiresome as prices are
not regulated. Furthermore, there is also the problem of different ministries and
government departments and in particular those in charge of tourism and culture
operating separately with very little or no coordination (African World Heritage
Fund 2009a). In Ghana, these include the Tourist Board and the Museums and
Monuments Board of Ghana and in Senegal, the Ministre de la Culture and the
Ministre du Tourisme. In Senegal, these problems are exacerbated by tensions
between the municipalities of Dakar and Gore to control tourism at the Island of
Gore, and this has sometimes resulted in the over taxation of tourists to the site.
Also, both at the Island of Gore and at the Forts and Castles of Ghana, the notion
of local community is blurred because of the recent and continuous arrival of new-
comers to profit from new economic opportunities that have been created at these
cultural World Heritage Sites.
Elsewhere in Africa, some cultural World Heritage Sites cannot be easily
accessed as the roads leading to the sites are not properly maintained. The Kilwa
Kisiwani in Tanzania, Chongoni Rock Art in Malawi and Sine Ngayne and Wanar
in Senegal are not easily accessible due to transport problems, especially during
the wet seasons (African World Heritage Fund and Development Bank of South
Africa 2009; African World Heritage Fund 2009b, 2010). As a result of these and
other management problems, there is very little to talk about on sustainable devel-
opment at these and other sites, which suffer from similar management problems.
Although the involvement of local communities has the potential to enhance the
sustenance of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa, their involvement can also
be a source of conflicts among themselves and stakeholders who have different
interests, relations and historical attachments to cultural World Heritage Sites. A
case in point is the cultural World Heritage Site of Kasubi Tombs in Uganda where
different stakeholders including the Department of Museums and Monuments of
Uganda, Buganda chiefdom, Christian and Muslims battle over the management
and protection of the site (see Chirikure and Pwiti 2008; Chirikure et al. 2010).
This emanates from the fact that Kasubi Tombs is a cultural World Heritage Site,
which is still relevant to living traditions, worldviews and belief systems of mod-
ern peoples in Uganda. This is shown by ceremonies such as the new moon festi-
val, funeral rights, cleansing of royal objects, and introduction of new members of
the royal family, special political announcements and consultations, which are reg-
ularly held at the site. Some of these ritual activities contradict the beliefs of many
Christians and Muslims. As Kigongo and Reid (2007) noted, it is appropriate that
the interests of the local community be respected, but this could be a problem if
their practices have negative effects on the sustainable development of the site as a
tourist attraction in Uganda.
As further reported by the African World Heritage Fund, there is also the prob-
lem of dysfunctional management strategies, which when combined with wars
result in degradation or even total destruction of cultural World Heritage Sites in
Africa (African World Heritage Fund 2009a). Other than war, there are also nat-
ural and environmental forces that are negatively impacting on cultural World
Heritage Sites in the continent. In Mali, Timbuktu has been inscribed on the List
of World Heritage Sites in Danger in 2008 as a result of poor urban planning that
threatened the property (World Heritage Committee 2008b). Today, both the site
of Timbuktu and the Tomb of Askia continue to be threatened by ethnic, religious
and political problems that the country is currently facing.
In the event of conflicts in Africa, the state hardly intervenes to protect cul-
tural World Heritage Sites from being destroyed (African World Heritage Fund
2009c). For example, cultural World Heritage Sites have been hardly protected in
recent political problems in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Niger and Mauritania.
Consequently, due to political and economic problems, the number of visitors to
cultural World Heritage Sites usually declines. In Zimbabwe for example, visitors
at Great Zimbabwe dropped from over 120,000 in 1996 to 15,442 in 2008, which
is a decline of nearly 90% as a result of the political and economic problems that
the country faced during this period (African World Heritage Fund 2009d).
There is also a growing concern with mineral resource exploration and extrac-
tion, which are threatening many cultural World Heritage Sites across the African
continent. For instance, the Mapungubwe cultural World Heritage landscape,
76 I. Thiaw
which covers the northern part of South Africa, the eastern part of Botswana
and the southern part of Zimbabwe, is at present, facing threats from coal min-
ing (Meskell 2011). A recent study by the Transboundary Consulting Africa
(2012) concluded that there are 21 World Heritage Sites in Africa that are poten-
tially being affected by mineral extraction activities. In Southern Africa, the most
affected of these sites are natural properties even though some culturalWorld
Heritage Sites are also affected.
Static conservation models that ignore current economic, political and social
realities are also a major concern for the management of many cultural World
Heritage Sites in Africa. The conservation framework of Djenn in Mali, for
example, is largely carried out by UNESCO, international research groups and the
Malian government through the Mission Culturelle. All of these groups mainly
focus on archaeology and architecture but without regard to the social dynamics
and power relations that exist among local communities and the economic impera-
tives of the town (Joy 2012). Thus, to many ordinary inhabitants of Djenn, rather
than being a source of pride and economic growth, the management of this cul-
tural World Heritage Site is instead associated with oppression as the profits from
the site essentially go to modern professionals, while the majority remains desper-
ately poor (Balzar 1997). In Egypt, while visitors enjoy touring Ancient Egypt,
they show little interest in the everyday life of modern populations, and their
desire for an uncontaminated living museum detached from the preoccupations of
todays local communities has not been sustainable (Meskell 2000, p. 147).
While it has been shown that there are various problems associated with the
management of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa and their contribution to
sustainable development, these problems should not, however, mask the poten-
tial of these sites to bring development to the continent. They still remain poten-
tial attraction centres for global tourism and also important for teaching various
aspects of the past to young African generations and beyond (Shackley 2006,
p. 85). Robben Island in South Africa, Gore Island, Fort James in Gambia and the
Forts and Castles of Ghana are all associated with a traumatic history, and they all
stand today as symbols of the triumph of freedom, liberty, racial equity, social and
economic justice, which is being taught to younger generations (Crooke 2005).
At the global level, cultural World Heritage Sites are places of encounter, dis-
covery and learning between distinct and various identities. Because of the ser-
vices they provide to tourism and which may include food and accommodation,
site tour guides, gift shops, excursions and discoveries, cultural World Heritage
Sites are now places of economic, social and environmental transactions.
Inscription on the WHL is accompanied by worldwide and nationwide publicity,
which generally opens up immense opportunities for tourism (Frey and Steiner
2011, p. 558). This may also result in the increase in resources for local authorities
via taxes. However, this can bring problems such as increased degradation, theft of
cultural property, trash disposal and the general preservation of the property. High
numbers of tourists create another set of problems that can be thwarted through
a management strategy, which is unfortunately lacking at most African cultural
World Heritage Sites.
African Cultural World Heritage Sites and

the Sustainable Future
First of all, World Heritage Site nominations should be mindful of local communities
whose history and present are connected to the sites (Meskell 2000). While there is
a past to preserve, valorize and consume, this should be done in agreement with the
present environmental, sociocultural and political settings of the site, and its complex
linkages with modern communities.
Sustainable tourism is one that accommodates both the needs of the tourists as
well as that of the host populations and the environment such that the resource
base and the cultural World Heritage Site in question is protected and enhanced
for future generations. Resources must be managed in such a way that economic,
social and aesthetic needs are fulfiled, while cultural integrity, essential ecological
processes, biological diversity and life support systems are maintained (Pederson
2002, p. 24). Conservation with a strong research support base with sustainable
community involvement can produce new jobs, growth in the tourism industry,
educational opportunities, landscape enhancement and environment awareness.
As Breen (2007, pp. 365366) pointed out, investment in conservation strategies
enhances and stimulates the traditional skill base and regenerates communities.
Archaeological resources are very informative about historical landscapes,
environmental and social transformations that can be usable pasts for engineering
new development projects in many African countries. To achieve that goal more
emphasis must be put on research development alongside adequate administra-
tive and curatorial work. Research should be interdisciplinary, reflexive and inclu-
sive involving archaeologists, conservators, historians, tourism professionals, land
planners, architects, engineers, decisions-makers, artisans, artists and the commu-
nity as a whole. Such endeavours should be motivated by the desire for a better
life as envisioned in site management plans. These become usable pasts which can
inspire the conservation of these sites for future generations.
This utopian view on cultural World Heritage Sites posits those past and pre-
sent power relations as well as social, political and economic contradictions,
which are embedded in these sites. Thus, their management, interpretation and
consumption are largely structured by those relations. The role of archaeologists,
anthropologists, historians, urban planners or environmentalists is to decode and
expose those contradictions so that all segments of society and particularly those
who are historically and presently disfranchised and marginalized can fully benefit
from them in the same way as others.
In face of the multifaceted problems such as race, class, gender and economic
inequalities, many of which are a legacy of the past, and which cause problems of
access to these sites, utopian ideologies of development may continue to thrive in
the future. Utopian ideology grapples with politics and policy-making and is pri-
marily concerned with future improvements of quotidian life and future life through
education to hope. Such an endeavour must be pursued with ethic and professional-
ism and therefore requires self-reflectiveness (Wylie 2002). Levitas (2005, p. 20)
78 I. Thiaw
argued that utopia is a space for the education of desire, which suggests that it
envisions the future differently than the present and the past while capitalizing on
their foundations. But the needs and wants of the future are unpredictable, and
radical transformations predicated by utopian imaginations are too often prone to
failure. To avoid this, models of utopian futures must be multiple, provisional and
reflexive, which may require conversations among all the concerned stakehold-
ers (Levitas 2005, p. 21). This utopian stance is implicitly pregnant in the mission
statement of the World Heritage Committee, which sees World Heritage Sites, as
universal properties without regard to economic disparities, races, nationality, class,
gender and other forms of identities (see UNESCO 1972).
Conclusion
Cultural heritage is a medium through which economic activities, social relations,

power and identity are constantly produced, negotiated and reproduced (Munjeri
2003). It is imagined and re-imagined by each generation, passing it down to the
next one, which generally consumes it, sometimes with an illusion of authenticity.
Like tradition, it is resistant to change and in some ways is in tension with modernity
and the future in that it has the potential to shape the public perception of heritage in
profound and complex ways (Hall and Bombardella 2005, p. 6). It includes material
things, places, landscapes, buildings, traditions, memories, archives, knowledge and
know-how, both tangible and intangible (UNESCO 2003).
However, it is one thing to have larger numbers of sites on the WHL and
another to have those sites contribute in meaningful ways to social, economic
and sustainable development. More strikingly, and in view of the reports of the
World Heritage Committee, the biggest concern with African World Heritage Sites
today is first with preservation and restoration and second with the economic,
social and environmental benefits which can be brought to the local communities.
Until recently, issues of site integrity and maintenance, lack of management plans,
uncontrolled urban development, weathering and climate change impact, conflicts
and site demolition were the most common concerns (African World Heritage
Fund 2010). These concerns are found even at some of the first African properties
to be inscribed on the WHL such as Thebes and its Necropolis in Egypt (World
Heritage Committee 2008a) and the Rock Hewn Churches at Lalibela in Ethiopia
(World Heritage Committee 2007). At Gore Island, illegal constructions expose
everyday archaeological resources that are poorly protected by the State Party
whose legislation has not been revised since the early 1970s (Thiaw 2003).
African cultural heritage resources and cultural World Heritage Sites in par-
ticular are defined and negotiated within and beyond the borders of the African
continent. Until recently, these were framed within a context of power relations
dominated by western hegemony (Olaniyan 2003). However, professionalism must
remain attentive of local cultural specificities to avoid alienating people from the
cultural heritage resources and practices. Therefore, it is crucial for UNESCO to
engage with the ethnographic reality of the World Heritage Sites it brings under its
jurisdiction (Joy 2012).
The Eurocentric roots of the World Heritage Convention were unveiled in recent
years, which opens the road for greater inclusion and involvement of traditionally
marginalized regions and communities in the process (Cleere 2000; Labadi 2007;
Rico 2008). The rapid development of global tourism following the establish-
ment of the WHL has brought into contact different cultural groups with different
appreciation and worldviews of what Universal Value is. As a result, tensions
have emerged not only over interpretation but also over management and develop-
ment issues. As Rico (2008, p. 346) pointed out, the management of cultural World
Heritage Sites is rarely positive for all people at all times, and ultimately, there is no
such thing as positive cultural heritage around which everyone speaks with one
voice that unifies and celebrates peace through diversity. The differences of opinion
cannot only be seen as setbacks to peace, unity and community cohesion. Instead of
silencing or erasing them, they should be used as channels for conversation to nego-
tiate sustainable alternative futures, which allows dialogue while respecting differ-
ences in the management of cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa.
References
African World Heritage Fund and Development Bank of South Africa. (2009). Situational analy-
sis: Kilwa Kisiwani. Dar Es Salam: African World Heritage Fund. Midrand: South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009a). Forts and castles of Ghana. Situational analysis, report
4. Accra: The Ghana Museums and Monuments Board.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009b). Rapport sur le Projet de Mise en Valeur des Cercles
Mgalithiques de Sine Ngayne et Wanar. Report of the Direction du Patrimoine Culturel du
Sngal. Midrand: South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009c). Seminar on World Heritage Sites in conflict and post con-
flict Regions of Africa (23 September 2009). Nairobi: National Museums of Kenya.
African World Heritage Fund. (2009d). World Heritage Sites and sustainable tourism:
Situational analysis, Great Zimbabwe World Heritage Site, Report 1. Midrand: South Africa.
African World Heritage Fund. (2010). Development of education and awareness programme:
Chongoni rock art World Heritage Site. Draft technical report prepared by The Malawi
Department of Antiquities. South Africa: Midrand.
Arazi, N. (2011). Safeguarding archaeological cultural resources in Africa-policies, methods and
issues on (non) compliance. African Archaeological Review, 28(27), 2738.
B, & Mann. (2006). Tourism: an opportunity to unleash shared growth in Africa. Private Sector
Development, Note Number 16.
Balzar, J. (1997). Mali fights to preserve fragments of West African Heritage. The Urban Age:
The Culture Heritage of Cities, 4(4), 19.
Bayard, J. F. (1993). The State in Africa: The politics of the Belly. London: Longman.
Breen, C. (2007). Advocacy, international development and World Heritage Sites in sub-Saharan
Africa. World Archaeology, 39(3), 355370.
Chirikure, S., & Pwiti, G. (2008). Community involvement in archaeology and heritage man-
agement: An assessment from case studies in Southern Africa and elsewhere. Current
Anthropology, 49(3), 467485.
Chirikure, S., Manyanga, M., Ndoro, W., & Pwiti, G. (2010). Unfulfilled promises? Heritage
management and community engagement at some of Africas cultural heritage sites.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(12), 3044.
80 I. Thiaw
Christie, I., & Crompton, D. E. (2001). Tourism in Africa. Africa Region Working paper Series.
Number 12. Washington DC: The World Bank Group.
Cleere, H. (2000). The World Heritage convention in the third World. In F. P. McManamon &
A.Hatton (Eds.), Cultural resource management in contemporary society: Perspectives on manag
ing and presenting the past (pp. 99106). London: Routledge. (One World Archaeology 33).
Crooke, E. (2005). Dealing with the past: Museum and heritage in Northern Ireland and Cape
Town, South Africa. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(2), 131142.
Frey, B., & Steiner, L. (2011). World Heritage list: Does it make sense? International Journal of
Cultural Policy, 17(5), 555573.
Hall, M., & Bombardella, P. (2005). Las Vegas in Africa. Journal of Social Archaeology, 5(1), 524.
Hassan, F. A., & Priscoli, J. D. (1997). Water and civilization (UNESCO, international hydro-
logical programme). Paris: Division of Water Science.
Iglesias, E. (1999). Cultural Heritage: Economic challenges and opportunities. In I. Serageldin &
J. Martin-Brown (Eds.), Culture in sustainable development: Investing in cultural and nat-
ural endowments (pp. 2123). Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
Joy, C. (2012). The politics of Heritage Management in Mali: From UNESCO to Djenne. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press Inc. (Critical Cultural Heritage).
Kigongo, R., & Reid, A. (2007). Local communities, politics and the management of the Kasubi
Tombs, Uganda. World Archaeology, 39(3), 371384.
Labadi, S. (2007). Representations of the nation and cultural diversity in discourses on World
Heritage. Journal of Social Archaeology, 7(2), 147170.
Lane, P. (2011). Future urban growth and archaeological heritage management: Some implica-
tions for research activity in Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites,
13(23), 134159.
Levitas, R. (2005). The imaginary reconstruction of society or why sociologists and others should
take utopia more seriously. Inaugural Lecture (24 Oct 2005). Bristol: University of Bristol.
Marliac, A. (1997). Archaeology and development: A difficult dialogue. International Journal of
Historical Archaeology, 1(4), 323337.
Marliac, A. (2004). Is archaeology developmental? International Journal of Historical
Archaeology, 8(1), 6780.
Martnez-Cortina, L., et al. (2010). Re-thinking water and food security. Fourth Botn foundation
water. Workshop Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Mazrui, A. (1999). The social dimensions of culture and contemporary expressions. In
I.Serageldin & J. Martin-Brown (Eds.), Culture in sustainable development: Investing in cul-
tural and natural endowments. Washington: The World Bank.
Mbembe, A. (2001). On the post colony. Studies on the history of society and culture. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Meskell, L. (2000). The practice and politics of archaeology in Egypt. Annals of New York
Academy of Sciences, 925, 146169.
Meskell, L. (2011). From Paris to Pontdrift: UNESCO meetings, Mapungubwe and mining.
South African Archaeological Bulletin, 66(194), 18.
Montague, D. (2002). Stolen goods: Coltan and conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
SAIS Review, XXII(1), 103118.
Munjeri, D. (2003). Anchoring African cultural andNatural Heritage: Thesignificanceof local
communityawareness in thecontextofcapacity-building (pp. 7681). Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre. (World Heritage Papers 13).
Ndoro, W. (2001). Your monument our shrine: The preservation of Great Zimbabwe. Department
of Archaeology and Ancient History. Uppsala: Uppsala University (Studies in African
Archaeology 19).
Olaniyan, T. (2003). What is cultural patrimony? In N. Afolabi (Ed.), Marvels of the African
World: African cultural patrimony, new world connections and identities (pp. 2335).
Trenton and Eritrea: Africa World Press.
Pedersen, A. (2002). Managing tourism at world heritage sites: A practical manual for world
heritage site managers. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Center.
Pwiti, G., & Ndoro, W. (1999). The legacy of colonialism: perceptions of the cultural heritage in
Southern Africa, with special reference to Zimbabwe. African Archaeological Review, 16(3),
143153.
Rico, T. (2008). Negative Heritage: The place of conflict in World Heritage. Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites, 10(4), 344352.
Schmidt, P. R., & McIntosh, R. J. (Eds.). (1996). Plundering Africas past. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Serageldin, I., & Taboroff, J. (1994). Culture and development in Africa. Proceedings of an inter-
national conference held at the World Bank, Washington D.C.. Washington: The World Bank.
Shackley, M. (2006). Visitor management: Case studies from World Heritage Sites. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Thiaw, I. (2003). Archaeology and the public in Senegal: Reflections on doing fieldwork at home.
Journal of African Archaeology, 1(2), 2735.
Thiaw, I. (2008a). Every house has a story: The archaeology of Gore Island, Sngal. In
L.Sansone, et al. (Eds.), Africa, Brazil and the construction of trans-atlantic black identities
(pp. 4562). Trenton: Africa World Press.
Thiaw, I. (2008b). Dveloppement touristique et mal gestion des ressources culturelles
archologiques dans le Delta du Saloum (Sngal). In B. O. M. Naffe, et al. (Eds.).
LArchologie prventive en Afrique de lOuest, enjeux et perspectives. Actes du Colloque de
Nouakchott 1-3 fvrier, 2007 (pp. 8696). Saint-Maur-des-Fosss: Editions Spia.
Transboundary Consulting Africa. (2012). Situational analysis: World Heritage and impacts of
development in Africa. Available at http://www.awhf.net/. Accessed 7 December 2012.
UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the World cultural and natural herit-
age. Adopted by the general conference at its seventeenth session Paris (16 November 1972).
Available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext. Accessed 17 December 2012.
UNESCO. (2003, October 17). Convention for Safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage,
Paris. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf. Accessed 17
December 2012.
United Nations. (2002). Report of the World summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg,
South Africa (August 26September 4). New York: United Nations.
World Bank. (2005). Islamic Republic of Mauritania, Cultural Heritage Project. Report 33821.
Washington DC: The World Bank Group.
World Bank. (2009). Ethiopia Cultural Heritage Project (IDA-36320 IDA-3632A). Fragile states,
conflicts and social development. Africa Region: Eastern Africa 3. Washington DC: The
World Bank Group.
World Bank. (1999). Madagascar-culture heritage. Report N PID 8126. Washington DC: The
World Bank Group.
World Bank. (2010). Kenyas tourism: Polishing the Jewel, Final Report. Africa Region: Finance
and Private Sector Development. Washington DC: The World Bank Group.
World Bank. (2011). Tunisia Cultural Heritage Project. Report N 65946 v 1. IBRD Loan 7059-
TUN. Washington DC: The World Bank Group.
World Commission on Culture and Development. (1995). Our creative diversity. Paris: EGOPRIM.
World Heritage Committee. (2007). Mission Report: Rock Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)
(C18). 31st Session (March 712, 2007). Paris: World Heritage Centre.
World Heritage Committee. (2008a). Report of the joint UNESCO (WHC)/ICOMOS reactive
monitoring mission to the World heritage site of Thebes and its Necropolis (April 1824,
2008). Paris: World Heritage Centre.
World Heritage Committee. (2008b). Joint ICOMOS/UNESCO (WHC) Expert Mission Report:
Timbuktu (Mali) (119 rev). (June 1017, 2008). Paris: World Heritage Centre.
World Heritage Committee. (2011). World Heritage in Africa Region: Main results, second cycle
periodic reporting. Paris: World Heritage Centre.
82 I. Thiaw
Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things. Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Yousfi, H. (2007). Culture and development: A review of literature, the continuing tension
between modern standards and local contexts. Working Paper No. 50. Paris: Agence
Franaise de Dvelopement.
Chapter 7
World Heritage Sites, Culture
and Sustainable Communities in Africa
Colin Breen
Introduction
There is an acceptance that cultural heritage plays an intrinsic role both in the
formation and practice of cultural traditions in communities and societies across
the African continent (UNESCO 2002). The type and variety of this heritage
vary greatly from objects to sites to landscapes. It is a diverse and multifaceted
set of heritages that have been constructed or formulated in the past but continue
to convey multiple meanings in the present. Much of this is tangible heritage that
plays an overtly visible role in the landscape, but it can also be more subtle and
less visible where both natural places and objects can also be imbued with mean-
ing and are intrinsically linked to both past and present societies (Deacon 2004;
De Jong and Rowlands 2008). These heritages are embedded within the social
psyche of the peoples who live around these places and are central to their con-
structs of identity and the formation of their cultural traditions. They serve to
define and delimit their sense of place and space and are embedded in their life-
ways. These are not necessarily static places or things but have been altered and
have evolved with societal and geographical changes. As society changes so do
cultural values, but the physical continuum and survival of cultural sites are the
strong reflector of their centrality and importance. Cultural World Heritage Sites
across Africa have been identified as places of especial importance and continue
to play a pivotal role in society. They are, however, subject to a variety of cul-
tural pressures that can lessen their continued role in the development of sustain-
able futures for their member communities (Breen 2007). This chapter examines
the opportunities World Heritage Sites across Africa play in the construction and
C. Breen(*)
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, Northern
Ireland
e-mail: cp.breen@ulster.ac.uk

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_7, The Author(s) 2014
84 C. Breen
preservation of culture and contextualises this against the pressures these sites face
from a variety of anthropogenic and natural processes of change. It also examines
management practice at these sites and argues for a more integrated and inclusive
approach that will allow for a fuller integration of cultural heritage into the agen-
das for future sustainable development across the continent.
World Heritage and Africa
Until comparatively recently, understandings of heritage and value were firmly

rooted in Western traditions. Sites that received World Heritage designation were
mostly places of expansive monumentality, places of high architectural expression
that appealed to Western notions of power and prestige and conspicuous expres-
sions of wealth and dominance. These were mostly areas of centralised political or
religious power identified with individuals or groups that governed or controlled.
Many of these sites also appealed to the notion of a globalised world, one where
heritage is universal and interconnected. These were places that demonstrated the
importance of trade and of power and were often expressions of colonial ambi-
tion and expansion. Yet much of Africas heritage was and remains local, associ-
ated with local kin groups and local places. Many sites that were central to these
peoples did not necessarily have the highly visible architecture of sites across the
global North but may instead have been places of gathering or natural places car-
rying special meaning in the landscape. It would be a mistake to take an overly
uniformist approach to the vast heritages that exist across the whole of this con-
tinent, but we do need to recognise that the values and interpretations associated
with these sites and places will often not conform to the Eurocentric constructs of
heritage and the past. Of course, many historical sites were culturally connected
to a wider regional and globalised world, but other equally important sites and
places were instead connected to a local world within a limited geographical con-
text. While connections will always remain an important theme in developing our
understandings of the past, it is also important to understand disconnections and
the need to be able to contextualise certain past peoples within their local place
and environment. The concept of World Heritage Sites is then problematic from
a number of perspectives. It could be argued that it is an overly exclusive tag that
carries little relevance outside of the confines of high architectural expression and
Western designations of importance. In a continent with such diverse heritages, is
it possible to create a singular exclusive list of the most important sites? Is the very
process of their selection arbitrary, artificial and guided more by international pres-
sures than a genuine national need? These are important questions and do need to
feature in the general discussion of World Heritage. However, it is a system that is
in place, and while we recognise, there are problems with it; there are also plentiful
opportunities and benefits through engagement with its structures and process.
Of the 962 global World Heritage Sites, 126 are in Africa with 86 sites located in
sub-Saharan Africa. This figure remains disproportionately small when compared
7 World Heritage Sites, Culture and Sustainable Communities in Africa 85
with other global regions, while Africa also has a high number of sites on the
List of World Heritage in Danger. Eighteen African countries have sites that fea-
ture on this list, but further 12 countries have no World Heritage Sites at all. The
first designations across Africa conformed primarily to Western understandings of
exemplar heritage. Many of the well-documented Egyptian sites, such as Thebes
and the classical period towns of Carthage in modern-day Tunisia and Roman-
era Leptis Magna in Libya, were amongst the first sites to be inscribed in 1979.
In West Africa, the forts and castles of coastal Ghana were also inscribed in the
same year, while the Island of Gore in Senegal was listed in 1978 owing to its
monumentality and associations with the Atlantic slave trade. It is perhaps no
coincidence that there was a strongly perceived external element to these sites,
reflecting the influence of both Greece and Rome across north Africa and then the
colonial European presence along the West African coast from the fifteenth century
onwards. The overt monumentality of these sites closely matched the contemporary
understandings of outstanding heritage in the 1970s and 1980s. In East Africa,
early designations focussed on sites associated with early hominids and Christian
heritage. Ethiopia became a focus during this early period with the designation of
the Christian rock-hewn churches at Lalibela in 1978 followed by the fortress city
of Fasil Ghebbi in 1979. The monumentality of early medieval Aksum and Tiya
and the palaeontological sites of Awash and Omo followed in 1980. Again, there is
probably a direct connection here between Western-led research and the geographi-
cal focus of designation. Further sites were included over the following decade, but
the primary emphasis in designation remained on architectural importance and vis-
ibility, with the inscription of sites like Kilwa Kisiwani (1981), Great Zimbabwe
(1986) and Timbuktu (1988). In 1994, the World Heritage Committee launched
its Global Strategy in an attempt to develop a more representative and balanced
approach to the inscription of sites recognising both the diversity of heritages and
the under-represented nature of many global regions including Africa. This strategy
has been partially successful across the continent and has led to a more nuanced
Africanist approach to designation, leading to the inscription of sites of high ances-
tral importance (e.g. Tombs of the Buganda Kings in Uganda) and places of sacred
or spiritual importance including the Matobo Hills in Zimbabwe and the Osun-
Osogbo sacred grove in Nigeria.
Threats and Pressures
Africa is undergoing a period of profound and rapid change. Individual economies

are witnessing unprecedented expansion, and population is rising rapidly. This
rate of growth has the potential to severely impact on built heritage (Lane 2011).
The major urban areas across the continent are seeing record population influxes,
which is placing severe strain on the natural and cultural resources associated with
these towns and cities. The large-scale movement of peoples from rural areas into
these urban environments, and an associated and often unregulated expansion of
86 C. Breen
industrial activity have led to large tracts of landscape being consumed by new
settlements and commercial centres. Illegal land-grabbing and unsympathetic
planning are resulting in the destruction and the loss of many sites. For example,
building speculation is placing pressures on the historical urban fabric of the Old
Towns of Djenn, Mali, inscribed in 1988, with the town walls being at particular
risk. Looting and the uncontrolled removal of material culture from sites are also a
serious concern. Similarly, more intensive and expansive agricultural schemes are
placing stresses on the landscape in the wider Nile basin and in other places across
North Africa. The impacts of climate change can also be clearly documented.
Specifically, changes in temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns are leading to
structural problems for buildings constructed in the traditional manner. Along the
coast, sites such as Songo Mnara, Tanzania are threatened by sea-level rise and
increased rates of erosion while more frequent and intense storms have the poten-
tial to further exacerbate these problems. Finally, many of the political regimes
across Africa have failed to take due cognisance of the importance of their national
heritages. Decades of neglect, under-resourcing and a paucity of professional
capacity have placed further pressures on the culture resource. These regimes are
subject to new demands for change as more engaged governance takes a more cen-
tral role in the continent. Ultimately, these combined anthropogenic and natural
processes are impacting on heritage sites across the regions of Africa in many dif-
ferent ways, and in many cases, urgent action is required to protect sites and intro-
duce more informed management.
The relationship between many Africans and World Heritage Sites has often
been problematic. There is a sense that these sites are often viewed as a place
apart, almost exclusive spaces that are fenced off and managed for an external
audience. The heritage profession and political processes have often facilitated this
disconnect and remain largely remote from the communities who live and work
around these places. We can trace much of this back to Africas colonial period,
when archaeology was almost exclusively the realm of colonial officers who
investigated and catalogued sites with little regard for local knowledge and priori-
ties (Ndoro and Pwiti 2001). Archaeology came to be seen as a Westernist leisure
activity that had little relevance for the everyday lives of the people of the con-
tinent other than supplying labour in the large-scale excavations in north Africa.
During the 1960s across many newly independent African nations in the 1960s,
this sense of disengagement and the absence of local heritages brought about
further threats. The importance of kinship and local allegiance was broken down
to accommodate and often justify the notion of a unified nation state (Finneran
2013). In Tanzania, over 120 ethnic groups have been identified, but Julius
Nyerere worked solidly towards the development of a single cultural Tanzanian
identity (Martin 2007; Miguel 2004). Similarly, Palaeolithic archaeology was
very deliberately promoted in Kenya to propagate the notion of a single, unified
national origin (Schmidt 1995). Continuing perceived colonial connections with
archaeological practice is also an issue. Not only are the majority of archaeologi-
cal projects across Africa run by international research missions, which has the
potential to undermine local capacity, the extent to which these projects engage
with the local populace is highly variable. They can also prove to be both divi-
sive and contentious. At Lalibela, a French-led project came under strong suspi-
cion that its research was a concerted attempt to deny the Ethiopian origins of the
site (Finneran 2013, p. 55). Although this view was misguided, it gained rapid
and widespread adoption across social media platforms. The use of such media
is an interesting and increasingly common phenomenon, as few local people have
access to published academic material from journals or Western published books
owing to prohibitive pricing and a highly regulated local market.
With the general regional economic malaise that enveloped much of the con-
tinent during the 1970s and 1980s, many communities became further disenfran-
chised from major and well-known archaeological sites. Heritage protection and
management became a low priority for marginalized people, and this generalised
neglect was effectively encouraged by a number of governments that had little
actual interest in their countries pasts, aside from tokenistic and often jingoistic
nationalist sentiment. These processes were further perpetuated by the gentrifica-
tion and touristification of sites (Bianchi and Boniface 2002, p. 79). Across many
parts of Africa, archaeological sites were cleared of vegetation, fenced or walled
off, and entrance fees were introduced to attract tourist income. This process is
common place across the world and can be an important source of finance, but it
can also have negative consequences (Hampton 2005). A common perception of
the early development of these sites is that they were enhanced to cater solely to
an external tourist market with little to offer the local populace who often came
to regard the site with indifference. The new forms of management that were
introduced were often divisive and ill-conceived. In parts of southern Africa in
particular, heritage management was also perceived as being Westernist and
exclusionary (Ndoro and Pwiti 2001). This general field of Heritage or Cultural
Resource Management (H/CRM) had largely emerged in a European and North
America context, and the models developed in these regions were not necessar-
ily applicable to an African context. For example, many built-heritage sites across
Africa often have far more fluid and dynamic lifecycles than the static medieval
monuments of Europe. In many cases, the African sites are living monuments
that continue to carry contemporary value and purpose. For centuries, tradi-
tional forms of management and conservation ensured the survival of these sites
and their continued use by their associated communities. For centuries, the com-
munities of Mali had maintained the fabric and function of the mud mosques of
Timbuktu while the Kasubi tombs of the Buganda kings had been similarly main-
tained in Uganda (Kigongo and Reid 2007). With the introduction of Westernist
forms of management, the initial tendency was to regard these sites as needing
immediate protection using informed Western practices. The primary objective
was the preservation of the site and its structural physical fabric rather than con-
sidering community needs and traditional conservation inputs into the sites. This
disconnect often resulted in alienation and an undermining of the sites contem-
porary role. For example, Timbuktu was initially inscribed on the World Heritage
List in 1988. Following a number of years of initial negotiation, there was a grow-
ing awareness of the need to integrate traditional preservation systems into the
88 C. Breen
management of the complex of mosques (Ould Sidi 2012). However, the recent
conflict in the region is dramatically undermining these efforts. Conflicting reli-
gious interpretations of these sites have resulted in the deliberate targeting of
tombs and associated structures by elements from both within the region itself and
from the Middle East more widely. Elsewhere in North Africa, rock art and other
sites have also been deliberately targeted both for political reasons as well as by
random acts of vandalism.
Heritage practice has changed considerably, and there is now a high degree
of interest in integrating community into site management. This is a developing
field, and one which requires significant work across Africa, where heritage prac-
tice remains embedded within state hierarchies and bureaucratic structures and
is rarely inclusive. At the Mapungubwe complex in South Africa, for instance,
complex social processes have left many of the descendant communities histori-
cally associated with this landscape disenfranchised from their ancestral herit-
ages (Chirikure et al. 2010). This is an area where forced migration has resulted
in competing groups developing vested interests in the site, including the Shona
people of Zimbabwe. People who currently live in the surrounding area have been
involved in work at the site but only on a low-skilled and temporary basis. At
Khami in Zimbabwe, there are real difficulties in defining which communities are
actually associated with this site. This is an area that had been under the control of
colonial farmers for many generations. One of the consequences of this was the
widespread forced displacement of many of the original descendant peoples of this
area and the loss of contact between them and their cultural sites and landscapes.
Their sense of a collective connection to their past has invariably dissipated as the
original populations separated and migrated to surrounding urban areas with a
subsequent loss of knowledge and understandings.
Community, Culture and Opportunity
Cultural heritage has an important part to play in society. It can instil a sense of
pride and belonging for communities as well as enhancing the physical environ-
ment of a place. Cultural heritage can help shape a peoples identity and develop
understandings of their past and present values. The cultural resource can provide
a physical anchoring for a community to a place and provide solid ties to a land-
scape that lasts for many generations. It provides the tangible manifestation of a
peoples set of ideas and aspirations and serves as a reminder of who they were
and who they are. While it is recognised that these connections are under pressure
across Africa, there is also a clear set of cultural and spiritual practices evident at
many other sites and places of intrinsic importance to local people. This can be
evidenced in a number of ways. Traditional religious practice continue at sacred
sites, traditional buildings of value continue to be maintained and these places
have locally developed protective mechanisms in place delivered through informal
but communally accepted conservation efforts. However, one of the key emerging
issues at many of these places is the question of defining who actually constitutes
the community. Many ancestral communities have been displaced through colonial
practices, conflict or economic change and have been replaced by new settlers and
people who have developed their own sense of connection with the landscape. So,
for example, while the original White colonial settlers in South Africa may have
enforced change on pre-existing groups, they also brought their own set of her-
itages with them and established new cultural connections on these lands. These
new heritages have their own intrinsic value and need to be contextualised within
the broader and ever-changing mosaic of heritage across the continent. Heritage
ultimately is not static but is dynamic and ever-changing. Many connections can
be lost or re-imagined in such an environment. This will always be the case with
physical sites constructed in an often distant past where meanings change or are
altered to reflect new circumstances.
The heritage profession itself can also be responsible for introducing change.
Some archaeologists may view their investigations from a highly subjective per-
spective that pays scant regard to local understandings. These archaeologists may
view the community as being little more than passiveand often silentpartners
and can alienate the community through their attitudes and approach (Chirikure
and Pwiti 2008). Some communities have also taken issue with what archaeolo-
gists are doing and feel that while their opinions and interpretations have been
marginalized, they are more valid than those of the archaeologists. Somewhere
in this quagmire, there is a better way of doing things through genuine engage-
ment, partnership and through the development of knowledge co-production pro-
jects. While we recognise that a large number of World Heritage Sites are under
threat, we must also recognise that many of these sites have survived for centuries
through active community intervention. These are places of extraordinarily high
cultural value to the people who live in the surrounding landscapes, and we must
recognise that local knowledge and traditions have an intrinsic role to play in man-
agement and future protection of these sites.
The heritage profession has accepted this paradigm shift, and organisations
such as UNESCO are developing new and innovative programmes within this
sphere. However, much of what we hear and read about these sites remains at a
theoretical level. Much has been written about how things could be done in better
ways but there are few actual cases of sustained good practice. There is a strong
need to move beyond the rhetoric towards the development of programmes cen-
tred on the integration of community, participatory management with sustainable
development at their core. A number of encouraging initiatives have taken place.
At Ilha de Mozambique, inscribed in 1991, there was initially little sense of a con-
nection between the people who lived in the town and the historical built envi-
ronment (Mathisen 2012, p. 334). Subsequent conservation- and heritage-focussed
projects concentrated on the promotion of intangible cultural heritage including
stories, songs and dance. These initiatives invoked a greater sense of belonging
and understanding, and actions arising out of this process were used to enhance
the physical protection and conservation of the built remains. Providing access to
a number of sites including the towns central fortress was also key in creating a
90 C. Breen
sense of awareness about the sites importance and developed a notion of an inclu-
sive rather than exclusive space. Sustainable development lay at the core of these
programmes, and the generation of employment through conservation works and
educational programmes was one of the projects central objectives. There is a
pressing need to develop conservation capacity at African World Heritage Sites,
and the development of such a skill pool can be a key strategy in local poverty-
alleviation schemes. Other projects have attempted to develop similar integrative
schemes. At Mapungubwe in South Africa, a number of descendant communi-
ties have been involved with the reburial of skeletal collections held at various
state institutions (Chirikure et al. 2010). While this type of culturally sympathetic
scheme is to be encouraged, there could also be further opportunities. More gener-
ally, active participatory re-engagement with this place could be constructed in a
manner that brings its various connected and disconnected communities together
and could be developed in a way that helps heal some of the divisions that con-
tinue to emerge in post-Apartheid South Africa.
World Heritage Sites represent the trophy set of Africas archaeological mon-
uments and cultural landscapes. They are but one part of an enormous and diverse
resource that provides key information about Africas many peoples and societies
and their hugely varied identities and cultural values. A centering of this resource
within the multiple processes of political and socio-economic change across the
continent will be hugely rewarding in developing sustainable, equitable and inclu-
sive futures for this rapidly changing continent. The active and real re-engage-
ment of community into heritage management practice associated with these sites
should become a strategic goal of all parties who have a stake in the future promo-
tion of these places.
References
Bianchi, R., & Boniface, P. (2002). Editorial: The politics of World heritage. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 8(2), 7980.
Africa. World Archaeology, 39(3), 355370.
Chirikure, S., & Pwiti, G. (2008). Community involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage
management. Current Anthropology, 49(3), 467485.
Chirikure, S., Manyanga, M., Ndoro, W., & Pwiti, G. (2010). Unfulfilled promises? Heritage
management and community engagement at some of Africas cultural heritage sites.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1&2), 3044.
De Jong, F., & Rowlands, M. (Eds.). (2008). Reclaiming heritage: Alternative imaginaries of
memory in West Africa. California: Left Coast Press.
Deacon, H. (2004). Intangible heritage in conservation management planning: The case of
Robben Island 1. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(3), 309319.
Finneran, N. (2013). Lucy to Lalibela: Heritage and identity in Ethiopia in the twenty-first cen-
tury. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(1), 4161.
Hampton, M. P. (2005). Heritage, local communities and economic development. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(3), 735759.
Kigongo, R., & Reid, A. (2007). Local communities, politics and the management of the Kasubi
tombs Uganda. World Archaeology, 39(3), 371384.
Lane, P. J. (2011). Future urban growth and archaeological heritage management: Some implica-
tions for research activity in Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites,
13(23), 134159.
Martin, D. (2007). Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere 19221999. South African Development
Community Today, 10(3), 1.
Mathisen, B. (2012). East Africa World heritage network and stakeholder priorities. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(3), 332338.
Miguel, E. (2004). Tribe or nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania.
World Politics, 56, 328362.
Ndoro, W., & Pwiti, G. (2001). Heritage management in Southern Africa: Local, national and
international discourse. Public Archaeology, 2(1), 2134.
Ould Sidi, A. (2012). Maintaining Timbuktus unique tangible and intangible heritage.
Schmidt, P. R. (1995). Using archaeology to remake history in Africa. In P. R. Schmidt &
T.C.Patterson (Eds.), Making alternative histories, the practice of archaeology and history in
non-Western settings (pp. 119148). Santa Fe: School of American Research and Advanced
Seminar Series.
UNESCO. (2002). Johannesburg declaration on World heritage in Africa and sustainable devel-
opment. Paris: UNESCO.
Chapter 8
The Administration of Cultural World
Heritage Sites and Their Contribution
to the Economic Empowerment of Local
Communities in Africa
Charles M. Musiba
Introduction
The move to involve local communities in the management of cultural World

Heritage Sites in Africa in recent years has heralded a departure from a colonial
style of management to a co-management style which now involves local commu-
nities, and this has transformed many of these sites into economic assets in much
of the African continent (Ashley and Bouakaze-Khan 2011; Deacon 2004; Poria et
al. 2003; Schackley 2001; Davison 1995). Many African countries now recognize
that apart from constructing national and sociocultural identities, cultural World
Heritage Sites have the potential to also propel the economic growth for their
countries. If properly managed, these sites have the capacity of not only becoming
beacons of peace but they can also become centers of tourism (Ho and McKercher
2004; Mabulla 2000).
The fact that some local communities are spiritually associated with some of
the cultural World Heritage Sites means that some of the sites are also important
as holy grounds on which individual beliefs are fostered for the spiritual better-
ment of human beings (Bwasiri 2011; Kamamba 2005; Masele 2012). In South
Africa, for example, a visitors complex was established at Maropeng (the Cradle
of Humankind) for the fossil hominid sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, and
Kromdraai, which were inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1999. The devel-
opment of the visitors center at Maropeng is one of the best examples of how
cultural World Heritage Sites can be developed as tourist attractions and economi-
cally benefits local communities in Africa.
These cultural World Heritage Sites, which are located in the Gauteng Province
of South Africa, are now established as geospatial tourism destinations close to
C. M. Musiba(*)
Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Denver, 1201 5th Street Suite 270,
Denver, CO 80217-3364, USA
e-mail: Charles.Musiba@ucdenver.edu

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2_8, The Author(s) 2014
94 C. M. Musiba
the metropolitan areas of Johannesburg, Tshwane, and Ekurhuleni and are now
promoting economic growth and empowerment of historically disadvantaged
local communities living near them (Fleming 2006). At Maropeng for example,
the local communities are engaged in the production of crafts, cultural interpreta-
tion guides, and performances. It has been estimated that the total gross domestic
product contribution of Maropeng as part of the Cradle of Humankind in South
Africa in 2010 was just about 0.59% (UNESCO 2012). Although it can be argued
that South Africa is one of the economic powerhouses in Africa and can afford
to develop its cultural World Heritage Sites, the development of the interpretive
center at Maropeng is one of the best examples of how cultural World Heritage
Sites can be utilized to stimulate economic growth to the local communities sur-
rounding such sites. Currently, at Maropeng, there are over 7,000 permanent
employees at the site, while about 2,000 part-time jobs are also created from time
to time (Fleming 2006). When the Maropeng project was introduced in 1999, it
required the commitment of politicians and the local community for it to move
forward. However, such commitments by many governments in Africa may not
necessarily be guaranteed due to lack of funding. Yet, it is important to learn from
the Maropeng project that for sound and economically viable tourism at cultural
World Heritage Sites in Africa, there must be political will and a commitment of
funds for such projects to be successful. What can be learned from the Maropeng
project is that (1) proper planning is key to success, (2) winning the hearts and
minds of all stakeholders ensures future survival of the site, (3) investing in local
experts and utilizing their knowledge wisely will lead to a better management and
conservation programs, (4) building strong relationships with key stakeholders and
nurturing them is essential (5) ensuring balanced conservation and social and eco-
nomic benefits is the way forward to safeguarding World Heritage Sites in Africa,
and (6) outcome-based projects usually receive political and capital support, thus
ensuring their future growth.
Having recognized the potential for cultural World Heritage Sites to stimulate
the economy of the country and for the local communities, Tanzania is also cur-
rently developing a project, which is similar to Maropeng, for the paleoanthropo-
logical sites of Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge, which are located in the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area (NCA) (Fig.8.1).
The Development and Management of Cultural World

Heritage Sites in Africa
One of the major problems that are faced by many African states to develop and
properly manage their cultural World Heritage Sites is lack of funds and planning
(Pwiti 1997; Mabulla 2000; Kamamba 2005; Chirikure et al. 2010). This is true,
given that in much of Africa, many cultural World Heritage Sites are often located
in rural or in remote areas, which are inaccessible, and for this reason, they are not
considered attractive for any meaningful investment and development. However,
8 The Administration of Cultural World Heritage Sites 95
Fig.8.1Aerial map showing the location of Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge paleoanthropological
sites within the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (left) and a photograph of the new entrance gate
at Loduar Gate (below right)
if considerations are to be made to develop these sites into tourist attraction ven-
ues with potential economic benefits to the local communities who are living near
them, then shared management of the sites is required and must ensure that:
1. The concerns of the local communities are fully considered.
2. Physical attributes or morphological characteristics of the cultural heritage
assets are taken into account and fully integrated in heritage management, mar-
keting, and preservation.
3. Accessibility and functionality of such assets must ensure that their integrity is
not compromised.
4. Careful integration with other tourism activities and supporting elements are
also taken into account.
Therefore, cultural heritage assets as tourism products must always include the
following components: preservation, planning, packaging, promotion, and partner-
ship. The visitors to cultural heritage sites should include all stakeholders: from
the local government in the village where these assets are located to a visitor from
a nearby town, city, or any foreigner interested in learning more about that par-
ticular site. In Botswana for example, the growth of international tourism paved
the way for the development of a cultural heritage management plan, which has
been implemented as a vehicle to engage local communities in a diversified tour-
ism industry. A community-based tourism facility has recently been established at
Moremi Gorge in the Tswapong Hills to promote cultural tourism at the sacred
pools in Moremi Gorge (Segobye 2007).
96 C. M. Musiba
Toward the Development of Laetoli and Olduvai

Gorge Palaeoanthropological Sites in the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area
The NCA, which is located in the northern part of Tanzania and is within the
Serengeti Plains, has been proclaimed as a cultural and natural biosphere area in
1959. It was dedicated to the promotion of natural resource conservation and human
development. In the mid-1960s, the area was given a new status by the Ministry
of Land, Natural Resource, and Tourism of Tanzania, and it became known as the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA). In 1980, the NCA was pro-
claimed as a World Heritage Site and was further designated as a man and biosphere
(MAB) area in recognition of its marvelous natural and cultural heritage.
The NCA is a complex highland ecosystem, which is bordered to the east by
the East African Great Rift Valley, and runs from southern Tanzania to the north,
through Lake Manyara and Lake Natron (Fig.8.2). It covers an area of about
8,288km2 and lies between 1,350 and 3,000m high. To the west, it is bordered
by the vast Serengeti Plains, where one of the worlds most spectacular animal
migrations can be viewed from March throughout May every year. The NCA is
characterized by a series of highlands, plateau, and a collapsed caldera, which was
formed after a volcanic eruption some 8 million years ago. The caldera is about
700m deep and 2015km wide, and it covers an area of more than 300km2. The
crater is perhaps the largest known intact crater in the world and is home to thou-
sands of wild animals and millions of birds (Fig.8.3). The craters magic stems
from its physical beauty coupled with the abundance of unusually docile game
animals such as the zebras, wildebeests, giraffe, lions, buffaloes, antelopes, and
other wildlife that attracts many visitors.
The variety and richness of the fossil remains, including those of early hom-
inins, has made this one of the major areas in the world for research on human
evolution, and like the fossil hominin sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai,
and related sites in South Africa, it can thus also qualify to be described as the
Cradle of Humankind. The two world-famed sites of Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge
are the most unusual Plio-Pleistocene sites yet discovered in Africa. Laetoli
paleoanthropological site covers an area of about 100km2 and may be viewed
as contiguous with Olduvai Side Gorge. Besides the hominin and animal foot-
print trails, the site also contains fossiliferous strata of volcanic sediments span-
ning from 4.320.06 to 0.210.02 mya bearing hominin remains including
Australopithecus afarensis and anatomically developed Homo sapiens (Leakey and
Hay 1979). The discovery by Mary Leakey in 1978 of the spectacular fossil homi-
nin footprint trail, which is dated to about 3.6 million years old and embedded in
the cemented volcanic ash at Laetoli Site G, is certainly one of the most significant
finds in the world (Leakey and Hay 1979; Leakey 1981). Apart from the spectacu-
lar hominin footprints, Laetoli also has preserved numerous trace fossils consisting
of animal trackways of over hundred species of East African mammalian commu-
nities, some of which are long extinct, such as the three-toed horse scientifically
known as the Chalicothere (Leakey and Harris 1987; Musiba et al. 2007).
Fig.8.2The geophysical features that make Ngorongoro Conservation Area as a natural World
Heritage Site and will soon help promote it as a first geopark in East Africa
Fig.8.3Photographs showing the Ngorongoro Crater floor (a) and some wildlife photographs
of animals that can easily be seen in the vicinity of Olduvai Gorge and Laetoli paleoanthropo-
logical sites (b, c)
Olduvai Gorge is about 50km long and approximately 90m deep, cutting
through ancient lakebeds. The gorge, which resembles a small canyon, branches
into two gorges: the main and the side gorge. The side gorge is steep-sided and
98 C. M. Musiba
cuts into the Pleistocene sediments. It drains from Lemagrut Mountain and further
downstream to join the main gorge about 8km at the faulted trough-like depres-
sion, the Olbalbal depression. The side gorge follows the shoreline of the prehis-
toric lake and is rich in fossil fauna and sites that were used by Early Pleistocene
hominins.
Until recently, the two sites of Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge were managed by the
Antiquities Division in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, but they
were transferred to the NCAA on July first in 2013. This transfer has marked a
new chapter on how cultural heritage sites have to be managed in Tanzania. This
move was regarded as a best strategy, which would enable the NCAA to develop
the two sites as tourist attractions in the NCA area. In Tanzania, the development
and management of cultural World Heritage Sites as tourism centers is deeply
rooted in the countrys 2025 vision, which calls for a concerted awakening, coor-
dination, and direction of peoples efforts, minds, and mobilization of national
resources toward identified core sectors such as tourism, which will enable the
country to attain its economic development. The designing and implementation of
the site management plan of Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge was in fact based on the
countrys vision. The vision predicts that Tanzania will have achieved the follow-
ing by 2025:
High-quality livelihood: A nations development should be people-centered,
based on sustainable and shared growth and be free from abject poverty (this is
critical in managing heritage assets);
A strong and competitive economy: This emphasizes the need to have an econ-
omy (diversified industries such as the extractive mineral, wildlife, and cultural
heritage sectors), which can effectively cope with the challenges of develop-
ment and which can easily benefit from global economy;
Good governance: This entails strengthening a culture of accountability, reward-
ing good performance, and effectively curbing corruption and vices in the soci-
ety (shared management of heritage resources in Tanzania and elsewhere in
Africa will heavily rely on good governance);
A well-educated and learned population: This envisages a nation whose people
are ingrained with a developmental mind-set and competitive spirit. And that
this is driven by education and knowledge (which museums like the ones pro-
posed at Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge will offer); and
Peace, stability, and unity: Peace, political stability and national unity and
social cohesion are important pillars for realization of vision. Therefore,
they should continue to be cultivated, nurtured, and sustained. Cultural her-
itage sites like Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge provide a national identity and
are a platform for heritage dialogues that promote political stability in the
country.
Accordingly, the NCAA began to work with the Division of Antiquities, the
Ngorongoro Maasai Pastoralist Council, Institutions of Higher Learning in
Tanzania, local governments of Arusha and Manyara, and the villages of Endulen,
Esere, Kakesio, and Olduvai Gorge to develop the Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge
sites. All these organizations have got vested interests in the management of the
NCA cultural World Heritage Sites. Based on 35years of concerted heritage man-
agement efforts in Tanzania, which primarily focused only on the protection of
Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge, the NCAA began an ambitious project of developing a
cultural heritage center for Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge. This project would not
only enhance tourism in the NCA but it will also economically help the local com-
munities living around the cultural World Heritage Sites by involving them in the
construction of the cultural centers. The NCAA envisages a shared management of
the sites with representation from the communities surrounding them, ensuring
that any concerns of the local communities in regard to the World Heritage Sites
are fully considered and integrated into their management plans (Mwankunda1 and
Kawasange,2 personal communication). This will also ensure that physical attrib-
utes or morphological characteristics of the cultural heritage assets are taken into
account and fully integrated in heritage management, marketing, and preservation
(including tangible and intangible heritage assets existing within the communities
surrounding the two sites).
The NCAA will also ensure that there is careful integration of cultural herit-
age attractions with other tourism activities, where other supporting elements are
also taken into account. This will include injecting funds into community-based
cultural tourism such as artisan workshops, curios, and life experiences recording
facilities that will produce cultural narratives that will be valorized. Furthermore,
the NCAA plans to provide funds obtained from tourism proceeds as an incuba-
tor for the planned community-based centers at Olduvai Gorge and Laetoli, which
will provide visitors with cultural heritage products. One of the supportive meas-
ures will include initial financial supports to purchase raw materials and equip-
ment required for artisans, curio shops, studios, restaurants, and bars. Secondly,
the NCAA will provide guidance and technical assistance such as grant-writ-
ing, development of small-business plans, budgeting, marketing, and procure-
ment expertise. These workshops will be provided regularly to the communities.
Working with various cultural heritage stakeholders such as the University of Dar
es Salaams Business School and the Department of Archaeology, the NCAA will
develop community-based curricula to provide on-site training to the communities
in business entrepreneurship, cultural heritage management, and cultural tourism.
Although the NCAA will initially develop the community-based tourism
centers at the two sites, these centers will be fully run and managed by the com-
munities surrounding the sites with the NCAA only providing guidance and
expertise in tourism promotion, marketing, and product packaging. In order to
empower the communities surrounding the two sites, the NCAA will help them
1 Joshua Mwankunda (Civil Engineer and Project Manager, NCAA Laetoli Hominin Footprints
on-site museum), June 18, 2012 discussion on the conservation status of the Laetoli paleoanthro-
pological site.
2 Bruno Kawasange (Acting Chief Conservator, NCAA), June 12, 2012 discussion on funding
strategies for the construction of the Laetoli hominin footprints on-site museum.
100 C. M. Musiba
to create business-based oversight committees to ensure sustainability of the cent-

ers. Through the Department of Community Development, the NCAA will also
develop a mechanism to ensure that the funds are appropriately used for the
specific projects and profits obtained from the incubation phase of the commu-
nity-based tourism centers are injected into new community enterprises such as
museographic systems. This will promote research and sustainable community-
oriented cultural tourism in Tanzania. Furthermore, the NCAA will engage the
communities to make management decisions and to also help them identify pro-
jects that will help their economy.
Development of a Museum And Research Center as Tourist

Attractions at Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge
The NCAA has proposed constructing a site museum at the Laetoli hominin foot-
print site, while it has also tabled a plan to construct an international field research
station at the former Mary Leakeys camp in the Olduvai Gorge. While these two
projects will be important as research centers on archaeology, cultural heritage
management, and communities, they will also serve as tourism attractions on this
World Heritage Site.
By constructing a site museum at Laetoli, the hominin footprints will be pre-
served and protected. This will promote research and cultural tourism as the foot-
prints will be accessible to all Tanzanians and the international community. By
establishing a research center at Olduvai Gorge, this will also promote the next
generation of Tanzanian scientists and cultural heritage managers who would carry
out innovative research and conservation work at both Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge.
The proposed on-site museum complex will be known as the Laetoli Footprints
Museum Complex. Its climate will be controlled to ensure proper conservation
for the partially exposed prints, similar to the Maropeng complex in South Africa.
The proposed museum complex will have controlled settings for temperature and
moisture to preserve the partially exposed hominin footprints at Site G.
An exhibition hall will also be constructed to show case the Laetoli hominins,
which include Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus aethiopicus, and the
anatomically developed early Homo sapiens. The dioramas will also include the
rich and diverse faunal remains, such as the famous Chalicothere that existed at
Laetoli during the Pliocene. The Pliocene is the geological epoch that shaped the
Laetoli paleolandscape, which includes the Laetoli and the Olduvai Gorge. An
education and research center for the natural sciences will also be constructed. It
is envisaged that once completed, there will be research collaboration between the
local and international researchers. Lastly, a community visitor center will also be
constructed from which the economy of local communities will benefit through
employment.
To develop the museum and the research center, the NCAA will use the
currently available scientific knowledge and conservation knowledge from
archaeology, paleontology, geology, cultural heritage management, and architec-

ture. This will be done through consultation and a competition for designing the
structures and their supervision during construction. At Laetoli, the project will
also be based on information obtained from extensive review of the current site
management plan and of the cultural heritage impact assessment report, which was
carried out in February 2011. The proposed museum will be designed and con-
structed with a method which will reduce and/or prevent any irreparable damage
that could occur on the exhibited objects. A long-term site management plan is
also going to be prepared, and it will be regularly reviewed. There will be regu-
lar monitoring of the footprints, and appropriate conservation action will be taken
whenever changes in their quality and preservation are observed.
At Olduvai Gorge, the NCAA is also planning to convert Mary Leakeys camp
into a museum that will showcase her life and her contribution to the development
of the Olduvai Gorge. The museum will also focus on the local community and
will show the relationships between science, scientists, and local communities,
with expected outcomes that will help to develop an ongoing dialogue about cul-
tural heritage and education in Tanzania. The museum will also have a digital sto-
rytelling facility, and the local communities will have an opportunity to tell their
life stories and how they relate themselves with the gorge.
Conclusion
As part of the solutions to cultural heritage management in Tanzania, a Public

Private Partnership arrangement between the NCAA and the Antiquities
Department, incorporating the inclusion of local communities to effectively man-
age cultural heritage sites of Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge, is probably the best
solution available in solving management problems that these sites have. The
development of Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge will certainly generate income not
only for the administrative organizations but also for the local communities living
close to the sites. NCAA is developing an integrated cultural heritage program that
will link all cultural heritage activities at Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge under a new
department of Cultural Heritage. This will allow for the integration of the two her-
itage sites with an infrastructure network such as community-based tourist cent-
ers, educational and research facilities, a connecting road between the two sites,
and the establishment of walking trails, compatible museum displays, and themes,
which will tell a continuous story of human origins from the prehistoric past to
the present. The project will also offer an opportunity for local Maasai pastoral-
ists to provide enriching lifetime experiences and an authentic cultural adventure
for the visitors, including establishment of a walk-about cultural tourism program
that includes the renovation of the Leakeys scientific camp and the creation of the
interpretative trails at Olduvai Gorge and Laetoli.
The NCAA will emulate its successful management model for natural
resources to manage the cultural heritage assets at Laetoli and Olduvai Gorge and
102 C. M. Musiba
will ensure that management, preservation, planning, and marketing of cultural

heritage assets as tourism products will always include the following components:
conservation, preservation, planning, packaging, promotion, and partnerships with
all stakeholders. Part of the strategy for the sustainable management of Laetoli and
Olduvai Gorge sites is to create opportunities for the local communities to be fully
involved in tourism activities so as to economically empower them and improve
their lives while at the same time ensuring that these assets are properly preserved
for future generations.
References
Ashley, C., & Boukaze-Khan, D. (2011). Conservation and management of archaeological sites in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 13(23), 95102.
Bwasiri, E. J. (2011). The implications of the management of indigenous living heritage: The
case study of the Mongomi wa kolo rock paintings World Heritage Site, Central Tanzania.
South African Archaeological Bulletin, 66(193), 6066.
Chirikure, S., Manyanga, M., Ndoro, W., & Pwiti, G. (2010). Unfulfilled promises? herit-
age management and community participation at some of Africas cultural heritage sites.
Davison, P. (1995). The heritage of African settlement in South Africa. In D. Munjeri, et al.
(Eds.), African Cultural Heritage and the World Heritage Convention (pp. 9095). Paris:
UNESCO.
Deacon, H. (2004). Intangible heritage in conservation management planning: the case of
Robben Island. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(3), 309319.
Fleming, D. E. (2006). The Cradle of Humankind. Johannesburg: South Publishers.
Ho, P. S. Y., & McKercher, B. (2004). Managing heritage resources as tourism products. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9(3), 255266.
Kamamba, D. M. K. (2005). Cultural heritage legislation in Tanzania Africa 2009 Conservation
of Immovable Cultural Heritage in Sub-Saharan Africa Proceedings. In W. Ndoro &
G.Pwiti(Eds.), Legal frameworks for the protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage in
Africa ICCROM conservation studies 5, (pp. 1317). ICCROM Publication, Rome, Italy
Leakey, M. D., & Harris, J. M. (1987). Laetoli. A Pliocene Site in Northern Tanzania. Oxford:
Oxford Clarendon Press. 561.
Leakey, M. D., & Hay, R. L. (1979). Pliocene footprints in the Laetoli beds at Laetoli, northern
Tanzania. Nature, 278, 317323.
Leakey, M. D. (1981). Tracks and Tools. London B 292: Philosophical Transactions Royal
Society, 292, 95102.
Mabulla, A. Z. P. (2000). Strategy for cultural heritage management (CHM) in Africa: A case
study. African Archaeological Review, 17(14), 211233.
Masele, F. (2012). Private business investments in heritage sites in Tanzania: Recent develop-
ments and challenges for heritage management. African Archaeological Review, 29(1), 5165.
Musiba, C., Mabulla, A. (2003). Politics, cattle and conservation: Ngorongoro crater at a cross-
roads. In C.M. Kusimba, S.M. Kusimba (Eds.), East African Archaeology: Foragers, Potters,
Smiths and Traders (pp. 133148). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology Press.
Musiba, C., Williams, B., Magori, C., Wright, J., Dechesne, M. (2007). Conservation efforts
of the Laetoli hominin footprints at Site G: What next? In J.Y. Kim, K.S. Kim (Eds.),
Proceedings of 2007 International Symposium on the Conservation and Application of
Hominid Footprints (Dec. 79th). Jeju Island: Korea. Korean National Education University
and Seogwipo City and Footprint Site Press. Seogwipo, South Korea.
Poria, Y., Buttler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(1), 238254.
Pwiti, G. (1997). Taking African heritage management into the twenty-first century. Zimbabwes
masterplan for cultural heritage management. African Archaeological Review, 14(2), 8183.
Segobye, A. K. (2007). The Gods are resting there: challenges to the protection of heritage
sites through legislation and local knowledge. In I. Mazonde, P. Thomas (Eds.), Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and Intellectual Property in the Twenty-First Century: Perspectives from
Southern Africa (pp. 7894). University of Botswana: Council for the Development of Social
Sciences Research in Africa.
Shackley, M. (2001). Potential futures for Robben Island: shrine, museum or theme park?
UNESCO 2012 Sharing best practices in World Heritage management. South Africa
Fossil Hominid Sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai, and Environs. Available at
http://whc.unesco.org/en/recognition-of-best-practices/. Accessed 16 Oct 2013.
Index
A I
Africa, 6972, 7476, 8388, 90, 93, 94, 96, ICAHM, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42
98
African governments, 4548, 5052
African States Parties, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52 L
African World Heritage Fund, 19 Laetoli, 94, 96101
African World Heritage Sites, 3 Local community, 74, 75
Archaeological Sites as World Heritage, 33, 38
A representative balanced and credible WHL,
4, 17 M
Management, 57, 59, 6266, 6979, 84,
8690
C Management of cultural heritage, 15
Communities, 5666
Community-archaeology, 86
Conserve, 19, 25, 29 N
Culture, 5658, 64, 65 Non Governmental Organisations, 47
Cultural heritage, 3, 4, 1315, 83, 84, 88, 89
Cultural heritage management, 95, 99101
Cultural heritage sites, 4547, 4951 O
Cultural World Heritage Sites, 45, 47, 4852, Outstanding universal value, 34
6979
S
D States Parties, 33, 39, 41, 42
Development, 55 Sustainability, 1820, 2325, 58, 62, 90
Dossier, 2, 17, 21, 28, 29 Sustainable development, 70, 71, 74, 76, 78
H T
Heritage, 1721, 2330 Tanzania, 94, 96, 98, 100, 101
Hominin footprints, 96, 100 Tentative Lists, 34

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0482-2, The Author(s) 2014
106 Index
Tourism, 55, 56, 5865 W

World Heritage, 3335, 3743, 5559,
6166
U World Heritage Tentative List in Africa, 4, 13
UNESCO, 34, 43
UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 14,
8, 15

Found 189714344 3292354

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Found 189714344 3292354

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN ARCHAEOLOGY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

Archaeological Heritage Management

For further volumes:

The Management of Cultural

ISSN 2192-5313 ISSN 2192-5321 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014933567

The Author(s) 2014

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Brisbane, Australia Ian Lilley

This book is one of the International Committee on Archaeological Heritage

communities were pushed to marginal areas by the colonial administrators when

Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, September 2013 Simon Makuvaza

1 An Overview of the History of the Nomination of Cultural

2 The Role of the African World Heritage Fund in the Conservation

3 The Contribution of ICAHM to the Nomination of African

4 African States Parties, Support, Constraints, Challenges and

5 The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa

6 The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites in Africa

7 World Heritage Sites, Culture and Sustainable Communities

8 The Administration of Cultural World Heritage Sites

Development in Africa (CHDA). He is currently the Team Leader of Projects at the

workshops, including the 6th Technical Course on Impact Assessment as a Tool

S. Makuvaza (ed.), The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites 1

Table1.1Number of World Heritage properties by region (UNESCO 2013)

African States Parties

Following formal acceptance of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention on

Table1.2Status of African states parties with no cultural World Heritage sites

Definition of Criteria from the World Heritage Committee

Criterion (i) represents a masterpiece of human creative genius;

Criterion (iii) bears a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tra-

independent review. Specialists, preferably members of ICOMOS from the same

Extended 2010 (iv), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x)

Morocco (1975) Ksar of Ait-Ben-Haddou 1987 (iv), (v)

Properties on African States Parties Tentative Lists suggest a slightly different

The World Heritage Convention was designed to promote the conservation of

S. Makuvaza (ed.), The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites 17

the Danger List with 16 of them (36 %) being African sites.

inadequate regional and international cooperation (Munjeri et al. 1995; World

effective conservation and protection of natural and cultural heritage of OUV in

As part of its capacity-building strategy, the AWHF organises courses on nomina-

Fig.2.2Fort Jesus, Mombasa, Kenya. Photo by Steve Okoko

Inscription on the WHL

Heritage and Sustainable Tourism

World Heritage and Sustainable Development

Management of Natural World Heritage Sites

Research is important in understanding how local communities perceive World

4 This is a trans-boundary site that is in both Senegal and the Gambia.

encourage postgraduate students to work on World Heritage topics and particularly

One of the requirements of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines is that

the AWHF commissioned a Gap Analysis (also referred to as a Situational

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ accessed on 22 December 2010. There are 192 Member

S. Makuvaza (ed.), The Management of Cultural World Heritage Sites 33

Under-Representation of Sub-Saharan Africa Sites

ICAHM initiated the Africa Initiative at the joint Pan-African Association

Archaeological research in Africa has revealed the existence of pre-colonial sites

Excellent fieldwork and context-based analysis of findings by a number of archae-

by historical documents. A prime example of this is that archaeological work now

Krobo, located to the northeast of Accra, is sometimes known as the African

effective and sustainable program of nomination and inscription of archaeological

The Relation of the World Heritage Convention to the WHL

Economic Benefit? and to Whom?