Intangible Heritage Convention (IHC) Budget 2023/2024 @KASBCNEWS
The Portfolio Committee met on a virtual platform for the consideration and adoption of the 2023/24 budget vote report (Budget Vote 37) of the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture (DSAC), along with a briefing on the Intangible Heritage Convention (IHC).
A series of edits were made to the budget vote report, with the main concerns being around the Auditor-General’s (AG's) recommendations, timeframes to be allocated to recommendations, and a monitoring system for the recommendations implemented.
The briefing by the Department on the Intangible Heritage Convention had to do with the ratification of the ICH, and South Africa becoming a member of UNESCO in the context of the ICH. Members of the Committee asked for details of the budget plan, and the composition of the authentication panel. Who were the people serving on the panel? When had it been approved? Had the panel contributed to the submissions made to the Cabinet?
Meeting report
In her opening remarks, the Chairperson spoke about the achievements of national teams, particularly Athletics South Africa, whose national under-18 and under-20 teams had represented the country in the African Athletics Championship held in Zambia from 28 April to 3 May. These teams dominated the championships by winning 77 medals and finishing first place. She expressed confidence in these teams’ prospects of representing South Africa in the Olympics in the near future.
In 2003, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's (UNESCO's) General Conference adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage Treaty. The purpose of this Convention was:
- to safeguard intangible cultural heritage;
- to ensure respect for the intangible cultural heritage of communities; and
- to raise awareness at local, national and international levels, with regard to the importance of intangible cultural heritage.
These responsibilities were to be carried out by all member states of the United Nations (UN). The DSAC had therefore been invited to the meeting to present to the Committee its progress concerning their work on the Intangible Heritage Convention (IHC).
Ms Cynthia Khumalo, Acting Director-General (DG), Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC), presented the officials in attendance. They were Mr Vusithemba Ndima, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Heritage Promotion and Preservation; Ms Bongi Ramalepe, the Ministry’s Chief of Staff, Mr Sivuyile Watani, from the office of the Deputy Minister, and other supporting staff.
Both the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture and his Deputy, extended apologies for their absence, due to other commitments.
The Chairperson presented the current meeting’s agenda, and proposed its adoption.
Ms R Adams (ANC) moved to adopt the agenda, and was seconded by Ms D Sibiya (ANC).
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture on Budget Vote 37: Department of Sport, Arts and Culture
The Committee’s supporting staff presented the report on Budget Vote 37 of the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture.
The Chairperson explained that this document had already been shared with Committee Members, so there was no need for a presentation. Members were, however, encouraged to make comments, if any.
Mr D Joseph (DA) questioned the recommended date for the Minister’s report back to the Committee, asking whether the Committee had recommended it, or was just a suggestion.
The Chairperson responded that the recommended date did indeed need a revision, seeing as it was also the date that signalled the end of the financial year.
Mr Joseph suggested removing the suggested date from the document until revision.
Mr T Mhlongo (DA) had a different view. He saw the need for the specification of a date, to provide a timeframe that would urge the Minister’s response. He suggested September 2023.
The Chairperson supported Mr Mhlongo’s suggestion, stating that the adoption of a timeframe would also assist her office concerning the follow-ups on the recommendations of the Committee.
Mr Joseph asked for clarity on one of the points under the recommendations. He asked that at least three important recommendations made by the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) be listed in the document.
Ms Fiona Clayton, Committee Researcher, could not be verbally present in the meeting due to microphone/connectivity issues, so Ms Adams suggested that she communicate through the chatbox on the platform.
The Chairperson answered Mr Joseph, stating that all Committee Members were aware of the AGSA’s recommendations. However, they still had to be included in the document.
All other Committee members supported Mr Joseph's suggestion.
The Chairperson proposed the adoption of the draft report.
Mr A Zondi (ANC) said he was satisfied with the reports he had received, and that all his queries had been answered. However, he did realise that the allocated budget would not be enough for the planned programmes. He thus moved for the adoption of the draft report.
Ms Adams seconded the adoption of the draft report.
Mr Mhlongo questioned the tracking of the recommendations -- how was it to be done, considering that there had been a prior trend where the Department would not implement the recommendations? If there had been any progress on implementing previous recommendations, he asked for a report on these, because some of the recommendations displayed in the current report were repetitions of the recommendations the Department had failed to implement.
The Chairperson reminded Mr Mhlongo that the Committee was now focused on adopting the draft report, and the points he had made were subject to discussion, which he could have brought up in the past during the draft of the report.
Mr Mhlongo raised a point of order, stating that the drafting of the report was being done only now. This report had never been previously discussed, so it was the right time for him to voice his concerns. There was no need for a special date to discuss the contents of the report, when it could just be done in this meeting.
The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Mhlongo’s point of order, asking if he wanted his concerns to be included in the report.
Ms V Malomane (ANC) could not be reached due to connectivity problems.
Mr Joseph supported Mr Mhlongo on the idea of having timeframes attached to recommendations. It was not conducive to making recommendations and not having plans to monitor them.
Ms Clayton supported Mr Mhlongo’s suggestions and stated that the report would be approved only upon adoption by the Committee. Any edits, additions or concerns raised by Committee Members had to be tabled to be considered in the final report.
Mr Mhlongo asked for feedback from the Department regarding the completed recommendations before he could adopt the report.
The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Mhlongo’s opposition to the adoption of the report.
Ms Adams was not in agreement with Mr Mhlongo. She suggested a separate meeting to address his concerns.
Ms Malomane also opposed Mr Mhlongo's stance, stating that this was a draft report, not the final edition, and that all Members who had issues had voiced them. She added that Ms Clayton had already addressed Mr Mhlongo’s concerns.
Mr Zondi said a procedural monitoring and evaluation tool was necessary for recommendations.
Mr Mhlongo asked that his deliberations be respected, as they were valid.
Mr Joseph said that the DA reserved its comment on the report.
The Chairperson thanked thr Committee for their deliberations, and recognised the DA’s choice to reserve its comment on the report. The report was adopted.
Proposed ratification of 2003 Convention on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage
Mr Vusithemba Ndima, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Heritage Promotion and Preservation, DSAC, said the purpose of this briefing was to present to the Portfolio Committee a proposal shared with Parliament for the ratification of the 2003 UNESCO Convention on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH).
The purpose of the Convention was to provide safeguarding, preservation and to promote ICH.
ICH refers to practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills, instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated with communities, groups and individuals and recognised as part of their cultural heritage.
Transmitted from generation to generation, ICH is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and it provides them with a sense of identity and continuity. Another reason for safeguarding ICH is the realisation that a significant aspect of it is under threat of deterioration, disappearance and possibly, extinction.
Among other measures, the Convention obliges state parties to identify, define and devise appropriate measures for its preservation. It also encourages countries to adopt legal, technical, administrative and financial measures to safeguard and promote ICH. The Convention, apart from the safeguarding of ICH, promotes regional, continental and international cooperation
Key features of the Convention arere that state parties must keep an updated representative list of ICH of humanity, and where applicable, a list of the intangible cultural heritage in need of urgent safeguarding.
Strategic and effective management of South Africa’s living heritage had the potential to promote social cohesion and nation building, thereby contributing to Outcome 14.
The Bill of Rights provides rights to cultural, religious and linguistic communities to enjoy their cultural practices. It also affirms that government is committed to the cultural, social and economic upliftment and well-being of all people without discrimination. Chapter 15 of the National Development Plan indicates that arts and cultural activities could play a major role in healing and restoring pride among South African communities.
The White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage (2018) emphasises the importance of heritage in redressing historical inequalities, poverty eradication, employment growth and sustainable development.
Intangible cultural heritage has the potential to contribute to social cohesion and nation building on the social front and stimulate tourism development, creating job opportunities, and enhancing an investment climate on the economic front.
Some aspects of ICH, whether one talks of performances, rituals and rites of passage, to name but a few, take place in a communal context. A lot of collaboration and cooperation is essential. In most instances, bonds and networks are forged. Later, these bonds and networks contribute to social capital and become an important reference point for individuals and groups.
The 2003 UNESCO Convention was explicit that its implementation should take place in the context of participation by communities, groups and non-governmental organisations.
Some of the advantages that would accrue to South Africa on ratification to the Convention was that the country would be party to sharing international expertise and best practice. It would also intensify regional cooperation and integration on cultural matters.
As it is, South Africa shares borders with six countries -- Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho and Eswatini. It also shares a lot of culture and heritage with these countries, whether one talks about languages, music, dance or other cultural forms.
The Convention allows countries to develop joint lists, such as representative lists of ICH of humanity, lists of ICH in need of urgent safeguarding, and bilateral cooperation between countries. The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture would use this Convention to intensify regional and continental integration of arts, culture and heritage.
Generally, globalisation presents unique challenges to ICH, increasing its marginalisation in most instances. As a result, some cultural forms such as storytelling, some skills, techniques and performances were on the verge of extinction. The Convention prescribes certain measures for their safeguarding, such as the requirements for national governments to identify and define ICH within their territory. It also requires state parties to develop national inventories and national policies.
Implementation plan
Implementation of the Convention would require close collaboration with other national departments that do work pertaining to ICH -- for example, the Department of Science and Technology, which had developed a national policy on Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS); the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, which had developed a national policy framework on Traditional Governance; and the Department of Health, which had developed a national framework policy on traditional medicines. The provincial and local spheres of government have also implemented regulations and by-laws to deal with aspects of ICH. There was a need for dialogue and alignment of these initiatives.
Financial implications
Costs extending over a three-year period were presented, with year one costs amounting to R5 990 000, R15 863 400 in year two, and R51 718 364 in year three. These costs were informed by a costing exercise of the financial implications for the implementation mechanisms recommended by the policy. This costing report would be used as a guide for implementing the policy recommendations.
The Department would use its existing financial resources from National Treasury, the current staff component, and the work included in the mandates and APPs of its relevant public entities.
Key cost drivers included research; an audit of intangible cultural heritage, including ICH in danger of disappearing; an inventory of ICH and IKS; projects to document, publish and disseminate ICH; and ICH such as the publication and promotion of books on the work of Living Human Treasures and the work of the national ICH authentication panel.
As required by the policy, the Minister had appointed a national ICH authentication panel of experts to advise, inform and guide the implementation of a coordinated approach to the audit, the inventory and ICH and IKS documentation, and promotion projects to be implemented by the National Heritage Council and the South African Heritage Resources Agency
To reduce costs and duplication, the panel was also guiding partnerships with key partners such as the Departments of Traditional Affairs, Science and Innovation, Basic and Higher Education, Tourism, and Trade and Industry, as well as research institutions, Business Arts South Africa, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), etc.
Risk mitigation
Exploitation of indigenous knowledge systems of communities by companies for profit remains a large risk. An example of this was the case of Mr Solomon Linda, composer of the ‘Mbube’ song, which generated large amounts of money, and yet he died a pauper.
The Protection, Promotion, Development and Management of Indigenous Knowledge Act, 2019 (Act No. 6 of 2019) was established to mitigate this risk.
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) had also raised that there had been inadequate participation of indigenous communities in policy discussions pertaining to the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous communities as custodians of indigenous knowledge systems. To mitigate against this, the DEFF included representatives of indigenous communities on the National Bioprospecting Forum.
Implications for vulnerable groups
South Africa’s ICH thrived in the rural areas, largely practised by previously marginalised groups. The ratification of the Convention presented an opportunity for government to redress the colonial and apartheid legacy of neglect. Implementing measures in the Convention would constructively contribute to the deepening of cultural diversity, social cohesion and nation building in the country.
Departments and parties consulted: comments and responses
Consultations were held with a range of stakeholders, including civil society, statutory institutions, other government departments and practitioners in the field of ICH.
At the first national consultative workshop, over 200 representatives of the sector were unanimous that the Department should proceed to accede to the Convention. The workshop encouraged the government to move faster in safeguarding, preserving and promoting ICH, as most of it was under threat of disappearance and marginalisation.
Legal opinions of consistency with domestic and international law and obligations were obtained from the State Law Advisors of the Departments of Justice and Constitutional Development, Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation.
Current Status
Cabinet has approved the ratification of the Convention. It has been submitted to the two Houses of Parliament, and is now being shared with the Portfolio Committee. It would then be discussed and hopefully approved by Parliament, after which it would be deposited with UNESCO.
Recommendation
The DSAC requested the Portfolio Committee to support the submission of this Convention to UNESCO for ratification. Mr Ndima concluded the presentation
Discussion
Mr Zondi expressed support for the DSAC’s recommendation. He asked for recommendations from the ICH regarding the repatriation of human remains of migrants, seeing as migration was quite major in developing countries, and displacement would somehow hinder ICH.
Ms Adams had two inputs. She said it was good for the Convention to encourage a range of stakeholders, including civil society, statutory institutions, other government departments and practitioners, to move faster in the safeguarding, preserving and promoting ICH. However, there should be guidelines in place to assist these stakeholders in their practice of preservation, and systems in place to monitor progress. Secondly, what measures were being taken to develop new ICH sites to mitigate the risk of disappearing or extinction?
Mr Joseph asked whether the briefing presented was Cabinet’s official report. He also questioned the ICH authentication panel that was said to be introduced by the Minister -- when was it introduced?
Ms V Van Dyk (DA) questioned the amounts specified under financial implications, asking for a cost breakdown. She also asked for the report presented to Cabinet, for better insight. She also questioned the conducting of research and documentation -- had no groundwork been done beforehand? She also voiced concern over the use of current staff, as departments were already understaffed, and perhaps it was time to employ more people. She asked for clarity regarding the statement that “the ratification to the convention presented an opportunity for government to redress the colonial and apartheid legacy of neglect.” Did this mean the Department had done nothing regarding the apartheid legacy in all 29 years of South Africa's democracy?
Ms Sibiya asked about the key strategies that were to be put in place for the Committee. She could not complete her comments due to connectivity issues.
Mr Mhlongo asked for more information regarding the financial implications.
The Chairperson questioned the financial shortages experienced by the Department in this regard. Would this not affect job creation? On the issue of community participation, were heritage sites available and accessible to the public they were meant to serve, especially the marginalised?
DSAC's response
Mr Ndima said globalisation had increased the marginalisation of ICH, due to the mix of cultures. This was not inherently bad, but could lead to assimilation if communities did not protect their individual heritages which were to be passed down to future generations.
On the issue of the repatriation of bodies, there was a plan in place that had been approved even by the Cabinet, wherein processes to recover the bodies of political veterans who had died in foreign countries whilst fighting against apartheid were underway.
There were international guidelines in place, outside of the national policy, to aid stakeholders in their quest to preserve ICH. These guidelines did not override the ones in the national policy, but were simply contextualised in a manner in which they served South African communities.
Mr Ndima also mentioned that only ICH that was observant of the Bill of Rights would be upheld. This meant heritage practices/sites had to adhere to values such as mutual respect for cultures.
In terms of assistance, one of the future benefits that could be expected upon joining the Convention was the benefit of coming up with projects either as South African alone, or jointly with neighbouring countries, and presenting them to UNESCO to receive funding for the facilitation of these projects. There was, of course, a criterion for awarding funding, but to even qualify, the country would have to be a member of the Convention.
Concerning the implementation of measures to prevent the extinction of ICH, there would be a need for research to monitor which types of heritage were at risk, and this could be done through measures such as symposiums, where discussions regarding solutions could take place. There was also a need for documentation.
Mr Ndima made an example regarding a case study he had previously read up on. He said it was important to identify which aspects of heritage needed preservation the most and act fast.
This presentation had been made to Cabinet, to request that South Africa be a member of the Convention, and Cabinet had approved. The Convention had also been previously provided to Members of Parliament to browse through, so that they could familiarise themselves with the provisions made available by convention membership.
Mr Ndima stated that the Minister had appointed the authentication panel in December 2021, and it was implemented in 2022. The panel consisted of experts who were educated in various areas of culture and indigenous knowledge systems, and were of great help to the Department. The National Heritage Council had already been requested to assist in developing national inventories.
The presented budget was just a calculated estimate, not the actual costs. The Department would continue to use the funds available to them, despite the desire for higher budget allocations, to be able to afford to include communities in a series of activities such as cultural festivals, workshops, and so forth around South Africa. This would attract community participation and possibly pique tourist interest.
There had been progress with the implementation of certain objectives.
The ICH did indeed address the legacy of apartheid, as it revived the cultures of the natives, which were, for the longest time, rubbished by colonialism and the apartheid regime. 30 years was insufficient to undo about three centuries of colonialism and cultural erasure.
The key strategies to be followed were;more research working with people first-hand to avoid stereotypes and distortions due to incorrect assumptions.
The Department would continue to use what was available to them in terms of funding, even though it was not enough to transform the heritage landscape. Progress, no matter how little, was progress nonetheless.
In terms of availability of, and access to, sites by communities, Mr Ndima indicated that there were variations. There were sites whose geographical locations made them easily accessible, and there were sites that required communities to have the means to access them.
Mr Ndima concluded his responses, stating that his colleagues were available to cover anything he may have left out.
Further discussion
Ms Khumalo asked about the detailed budget plan, and asked if Mr Ndima had addressed it, or if the Department would provide it afterwards.
Mr Ndima asked Mr Kgomotso Mokgethi, Director: Heritage Policy, Research and Development, DSAC, to assist him in responding to the question regarding the budget.
Mr Mokgethi said that the requested budget breakdown would be submitted, with the cost implications of the living heritage policy explained. He added that Mr Phakamani Mthembu, Director: Living Heritage, would address the plans developed in the next meeting, as requested by Mr Ndima.
The Chairperson expressed dissatisfaction at Mr Mokgethi’s response, and asked Ms Khumalo to clarify.
Ms Khumalo said that in the submissions made to Cabinet, a detailed analysis was included, and this would then be forwarded to the Members of the Committee.
Mr Joseph repeated his questions regarding the authentication panel. Who were the people serving on the panel? When had it been approved? Did the panel contribute to the submissions made to the Cabinet? He also asked if South Africa was not already part of UNESCO in other aspects/institutions.
His last question was regarding the consultation prior to the submissions to Cabinet, Parliament and UNESCO -- was the public consulted?
Mr Mhlongo stated that he did not support this item, especially because of the finances displayed being estimates, and yet being sent to Cabinet, as though the report was an official one.
Mr Mhlongo also questioned UNESCO’s current support to South Africa, seeing that the country was already a member. In his opinion, the consultation process was ineffective, as the Committee, a stakeholder in the ICH, had not been consulted before sending the report to Cabinet.
Ms Adams agreed with the former speakers regarding their financial concerns. She proposed that the Department return with a full report before the Committee approved the briefing.
Mr Ndima repeated his response regarding the authentication panel, and added that the panel had been appointed after the approval of the Living Heritage Policy.
Mr Ndima confirmed that South Africa was part of UNESCO, but the purpose of this briefing was regarding the ratification of a specific Convention.
When it came to consultation processes, various communities in different provinces had been consulted, so the issue of consultation was merely a matter of just how far the Department could go.
Regarding the financial concerns, Mr Ndima clarified that the Department had not come to the meeting to address finances, hence the cost estimates. The Department only required the Committee to approve their request to become a part of the UNESCO in the context of ICH. A detailed financial report would be provided nonetheless.
The Chairperson said that Mr Ndima had not initially clarified during his presentation that the main concern was ratification, but he had now, which answered the questions of many.
Ms Sibiya supported the recommendation as it was.
Mr Zondi still maintained his support of the proposal.
Ms Adams was also in support, upon clarity by Mr Ndima.
Mr Mhlongo maintained his objection, due to no official financial report being provided.
The Chairperson took note of the DA’s objection.
She thanked the Department for their engagement, and allowed the delegation to exit the meeting.
Adoption of minutes
Three sets of minutes from prior meetings were presented to Members for adoption.
All were adopted.
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
