Dr Albino Jopela, Head of Programmes, African World Heritage Fund (AWHF)
…the increased number of African sites on the List is not on its own a solution and not for the benefit of Africans. A More relevant focus would be, what would we want to gain as Africans from each site that is inscribed?
Africa’s representation on the World Heritage List
It is undisputed that the 1972 World Heritage Convention was born out of the concerns for development, mostly in Europe, and this shaped how heritage was to be defined and how it was to be protected. Nevertheless, the Convention provided an international instrument with global appeal. In 1978, the first three African inscriptions were made: the Island of Gorée of Senegal and the Rock-Hewn Churches and Simien National Park of Ethiopia. That said, decades of disproportionate representation have ensued.
Since 1994, when the World Heritage Committee adopted the Global Strategy for a better representation of sites across previously underrepresented regions, there have been several recommendations. Decades later, one might argue that the Global Strategy did not succeed. Today, Africa is represented by less than 12 percent of the List, with Sub-Saharan Africa currently making up eight percent: a position that has even decreased slightly since 1994. In practical terms, how would one begin to reverse this? Certainly, there are historic imbalances that are symptomatic of how the system has functioned, but what to address and how is far more complex. I think that increasing the numbers of African sites on the List is not on its own a solution and not for the benefit of Africans. A more relevant focus would be: what do we want to gain as Africans from each site that is inscribed?
If we ask the question ‘whose history and whose heritage is represented in the glorification of such spaces?’, there is much to be debated.
Several debates exist around the issue of representation within the World Heritage system. For example, the so-called Colonial Cities (the Island of Mozambique among others) are perceived as such by parts of the African population. While such sites have gained global significance and the international community agrees that they are important to safeguard, other groups might perceive different sites as more representative, as more African. The debate on what constitutes World Heritage also encompasses sites that are more related to traditional systems of interaction with the environment or the safeguarding of specific cultures. The power of narrative is important, particularly as to whose narrative is being projected. Few would disagree that slavery was one of the shaping events in Africa and the diasporas but how many sites of outstanding universal value in Africa are truly speaking to slavery? Often the narrative that is presented is shaped by the dynamics and processes of how such sites are evaluated and the messaging that has been projected by State Parties during nomination processes. Tensions arise at grassroots level where such communities are still grappling with the aftermath of colonialism and slavery.
50 years of the Convention: where are we?
As we celebrate 50 years of the World Heritage Convention with a theme of Resilience, Humanity and Innovation, I remember when we celebrated the 40th Anniversary of the same convention in 2012, under the theme of Sustainable Development and the Role of Local Communities. One of the key reflection points to emerge from the discussions was about how far we have come in terms of the engagement with the convention. I agree that there have been some considerable achievements when it comes to raising the profile of heritage at the political level. After all, it is the most popular convention and one that outnumbers any other. It has also been used as a platform to raise discussions about heritage at higher international levels. Yet pressing challenges remain. One of these is the role of communities, which for many State Parties has remained an issue of rhetoric. Local communities are in many cases not devolved with the power to be key decision makers about their own heritage and such tensions become more complex when a site becomes inscribed as World Heritage. I think that it is one of the areas where we have lagged far behind in terms of where we would like to be.
Prioritising climate and culture
There cannot be any meaningful discussion about heritage conservation when the primary concern is about whether this generation and the next will be able to survive the predicaments of climate. Certain global commitments such as the 2015 Paris Agreement will need to speak to culture and perhaps learn from the pitfalls of other pledges. For example, the Sustainable Development Goals are premised on economic, social, and environmental pillars, yet there is no pillar of culture. In terms of climate commitments, the issue is not only how climate affects heritage but how heritage and culture contribute to climate action and our attitudes towards it. There are currently several commendable initiatives such as the application of the Climate Vulnerability Index in which the African World Heritage Fund partner with ICOMOS and members of the Climate Heritage Network on pilot projects at the African World Heritage sites of Kilwa Kisiwani in Tanzania and Sukur in Nigeria. Yet, there is still much to be done, not only in terms of advocacy and how we position ourselves for the immediate future, but also in shifting the discourse on heritage conservation.
Climate is a culture issue and culture is a climate issue.
Dr Albino Jopela trained in history at the University Eduardo Mondlane in Maputo, Mozambique before moving to South Africa to train in archaeology and heritage. Between 2008 and 2018 he was Lecturer of Archaeology and Heritage Studies at the University Eduardo Mondlane. At the end of 2017 Albino joined the African World Heritage Fund as Head of Programmes where his primary role is to develop a set of programmes to assist African State Parties with the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. He is involved in several activities including capacity building, development of a nomination dossiers for World Heritage inscription as well as other instruments for the removal of sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, amongst others. In academia, Albino’s focus remains on the traditional custodianship of sites not only within the World Heritage system but also for lower status sites. Prior to joining the fund, Albino was an advisor to ICOMOS. He is also currently co-chair for the Climate Heritage Network for Africa and the Middle East and newly appointed Chair for the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA).