Sustainable development and cultural heritage management in Botswana: towards sustainable communities

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

* Correspondence to: Susan O. Keitumetse, University of Botswana, Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre Sexaxa Ward, P/Bag 285 Maun, Botswana. E-mail: [email protected]/[email protected] World Commission on Environment and Development.

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 19, 49–59 (2011)Published online 11 June 2009 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.419

Sustainable Development and Cultural Heritage Management in Botswana: Towards Sustainable Communities

Susan O. Keitumetse*University of Botswana, Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, Maun, Botswana

ABSTRACTStrategies for the management of cultural heritage resources within a sustainable develop-ment concept framework are examined. In line with the 1992 Rio Declaration principles of sustainable development, the paper suggests sustainability principles relating to commu-nity participation as more relevant for the fi eld of cultural heritage resource management in Botswana. The article illustrates this relevance by exploring and drawing out production and consumption indicators of cultural heritage resources in both their tangible and intan-gible composition. It concludes that participation principles of sustainable development are more applicable as a point of departure towards integration of sustainability into cultural heritage resource management as communities are carriers and immediate custodians of cultural resources in Africa. Conservation processes that set limits of acceptable change for resource use are suggested within a modifi ed framework that links community interac-tion with cultural resources at both social and resource management levels. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 19 June 2008; revised 25 March 2009; accepted 6 April 2009

Keywords: sustainable development; cultural heritage resources; environmental management; sustainable communities;

Botswana

Introduction: Linking Sustainable Development and the fi eld of Cultural Heritage Resource Management

THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS A BROAD POLICY FRAMEWORK (REDCLIFT, 1987; PATEL, UNPUBLISHED

Ph.D. thesis) that departs from a point of view that sustainability can be achieved only when production

and consumption factors and levels are monitored (WCED1, 1987; Robinson, 1993). The key aim

of the concept is ‘. . . meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their

aspirations for a better life’ (WCED, 1987, p. 45), using natural resources in particular. The United Nations 1992

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Quarrie, 1992) represents a global consensus, political com-

mitment and plan of action on development and environment cooperation, which is outlined within the 27 principles

contained in Annex 1 of the proceedings of the Rio conference (United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development, 1992A/Conf.151/26 Vol. I (Robinson, 1993)). Agenda 21 – an action plan for implementation of the

50 S. O. Keitumetse

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 19, 49–59 (2011)DOI: 10.1002/sd

sustainable development programme – emanated from the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Develop-

ment and currently serves as a guiding document for operational approaches to sustainable development at inter-

national, government and local authority levels. Here I argue that, although Agenda 21 principles were initially

formulated specifi cally for management of natural resources, they are also relevant for management of resources

of a cultural heritage nature (see Figure 1 above).

To link agenda 21 principles and cultural heritage resources, an integrated management approach that provides

for recognition of communities’ archaeological heritage and local cultural values (cf. Edroma, 2004; Kopp, 2005)

in environmental management is necessary. The link further creates opportunities for steps towards sustainable

communities – those that are in harmony with the biophysical environment at cultural, social, economic and

conservation levels.

Building on this framework, the objectives of this article are to (i) highlight a neglected link between sustainable

development programme and the fi eld of cultural heritage resource management, (ii) suggest management

approaches that link the two programmes and (iii) demonstrate and discuss characteristics of cultural resources

that render them compatible with the sustainable development programme.

Cultural Resources, Cultural Heritage and Cultural Heritage Management

Cultural resources are material (tangible) and non-material (intangible) remains of societies’ past activities on the

environment, which comprise archaeological remains; monuments and sites; cultural landscapes superimposed

on the natural environment; local indigenous knowledge systems; folk-life and folklore; and traditional practices

and rituals attached to the biophysical environment. Cultural resources are transformed to cultural heritage when

‘. . . the material culture of past societies is re-evaluated and re-used in the present’ (Skeates, 2000, pp. 9–10) by

current society. Therefore, cultural heritage resources are those cultural resources that are constantly appropriated,

re-constructed and re-used by living communities to suit present needs, e.g. use for tourism, national identity,

ritual, traditional, activities. The fi eld of cultural heritage resource management is responsible for conservation

and management of cultural heritage resources.

In most parts of the developing world, such as Botswana, resident communities are invaluable custodians of

cultural heritage and cultural landscapes (Keitumetse, unpublished Ph.D. thesis; Keitumetse et al., 2007; Table 1)

Figure 1. The neglected link between cultural heritage management and the sustainable development concept in developing countries (Keitumetse, 2005, unpublished Ph.D. thesis)

Sustainable development

Rio Declaration on Environment & Development, 1992 Sustainable Development principles; Agenda 21

Cultural heritage management

C U L T U R A LNatural

Community participation Principles 1,8,10 & 22

Tangible/physical heritage as per UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention

Intangible cultures as per UNESCO 2003 Convention on Intangible Heritage

Communities in cultural landscapes (Tourism practice)

Sustainable Development and Cultural Heritage Management 51


– a stark contrast from the developed world, where monuments and sites are rarely inhabited and constantly used

by resident communities. This characteristic of the developing world therefore renders sustainable development

principles that address community/citizen participation (Table 1 above) as more applicable for the fi eld of cultural

heritage resource management, as these principles create opportunities for recognition of communities’ local

cultural values in environmental management, by so doing contributing to the development of sustainable com-

munities – those that interact with the biophysical environment in a meaningful manner.

At resource management level, systematic implementation strategies of Agenda 21 principles relating to cultural

heritage resources are lacking (Keitumetse, 2005, unpublished Ph.D. thesis) when compared with the natural

resource management fi eld (cf. Pearce, 1993; Mukherjee, 1993; Green, 1995; Sengupta, 2001). Table 1 above sum-

marizes those Rio Declaration principles that address community participation during environmental resource

management. An operational approach to sustainable practices in cultural heritage resource management encom-

passes socio-cultural elements during implementation of environmental management programmes for protected

areas. The link between sustainability and the fi eld of cultural heritage resource management is therefore sum-

marized as follows (Keitumetse, unpublished Ph.D. thesis).

(i) Sustainable growth as conservation and/or preservation of the physical/tangible heritage resource to prevent

them from extinction.

(ii) Sustainable growth as conservation of intangible cultural heritage values and meanings (imbued within

communities) that enhance conservation of physical/tangible heritage resources.

In addition to communities being active ‘storages’ of intangible heritage, hence relevant for conservation of the

physical/biophysical/tangible heritage, they are recognized within the 1992 Rio Declaration as follows:

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental

management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise

and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement

of sustainable development (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 22; Robinson, 1993,

pp. 8–13).

Identifying Production and Consumption Indicators for Cultural Heritage Resources

Identifi cation of indicators of ‘production’ and ‘consumption’ relating to cultural resources as well as establishment

of appropriate limits needed to achieve sustainability are outstanding challenges in the management of cultural

Agenda 21 Principle No. Description

1 Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

4 In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

8 To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, states should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

10 Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities . . . and the opportunity to participate in decision making process.

22 Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Table 1. Sustainability principles relating to community participation (excerpts from Annex I of the Rio Declaration on Environ-ment and Development, 1992, United Nations)

52 S. O. Keitumetse


heritage resources. Production processes of cultural heritage resources are visible through placement of values and

meanings (cf. Darvill, 1995) on the biophysical/tangible resources and environments – for instance, traditional

practices, ritual activities and indigenous intellectual knowledge of landscapes. Constant changes in these values

add another example of a production (Lipe, 1984) indicator. Additional indicators of production include identifi ca-

tion of research and research relevance, a process that is viewed by some as basic to the construction, recognition

and valorization of heritage, since it is through research (survey, excavation, literature review, discovery of new

monuments and sites, etc) that archaeological heritage in particular is produced (Carver, 1996). Furthermore, com-

munities of conservationists, Druids, New Age followers, astro-archaeologists, ley hunters, political parties and

others are cited as examples of cultural groups that constantly reinvent (or produce) the past in ways that are very

different from those of academia/research, by so doing replacing and renewing ancient sites and objects (Holtorf,

2001), a process often interpreted as indicative of the renewable nature of cultural/archaeological heritage resources

(cf. Holtorf, 2001). However, since renewability is achieved only where outputs of consumption and production

processes assume the same meaning and value whenever and wherever they are conducted (Keitumetse, unpub-

lished Ph.D. thesis), culture and its associated products (cultural heritage) are non-renewable. The dynamic and

diverse nature of culture further makes it impossible to relate to culture and associated products as renewable.

Other examples of production include application of international conventions and concepts to cultural resources,

e.g. the ‘world heritage’ (UNESCO, 1972) concept that promotes certain ‘heritages’ as more valuable than others.

In contrast, consumption indicators relating to cultural heritage resources are mainly associated with activities

surrounding the uses of heritage such as support of national ideologies (cf. Kristiansen, 1992; Meskell,

1998) and/or reinforcement of local/individual identities through religious, ritual and traditional activities (cf.

Keitumetse, 2006). Identity aspirations attached to monuments, sites and cultural landscapes, as well as use in

tourism, also constitute forms of consumption by communities in the vicinity of landscapes of cultural value

(Keitumetse et al., 2007). To achieve sustainability in resource use, limits have to be identifi ed and placed on the

aforementioned production and consumption indicators. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) process (Stankey

et al., 1985) is identifi ed and suggested as a way forward in this endeavour.

The Sustainable Development Programme

In retrospect, four conferences mark the pattern and direction in which the concept of SD evolved at the interna-

tional level. The initial formulation of the principles, rights and responsibilities emanated from proceedings of a

United Nations conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972 and was re-visited

at a second conference, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1982. A more focused approach on a sustainable development

programme was adopted in 1987 when the Brundtland2 report, titled Our Common Future (WCED, 1987), was

produced as a manual of the sustainable development programme (also see Table 5 below). The 1992 Rio Summit

(Earth Summit ’92), culminated in proclamation of 27 Agenda 21 principles (Robinson, 1993, p. 8), which currently

provide guidelines to implementation of sustainable development programme. The 2002 World Summit on Sus-tainable Development (WSSD), in Johannesburg, South Africa, aimed to ‘overcome the obstacles to achieving sus-

tainable development’. A direct link between the sustainable development programme and the fi eld of cultural

heritage resource management was not established and is still lacking.

Background: Conservation of Cultural Heritage Resources: National and International Contexts

Sustainable development programmes relating to community participation have been explored and refi ned in the

context of natural resources (wilderness and wildlife) as a search for sustainable approaches to resource manage-

ment in Botswana (cf. Republic of Botswana Tourism Policy, 1990; Republic of Botswana Wildlife Conservation

and National Parks Act, 1992; Republic of Botswana Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy,

2007) and elsewhere (Roe et al., 2001; Binns and Nel, 2002). However, the same cannot be said about the fi eld

of cultural heritage resource management as illustrated in Figure 1 above. Research on approaches to community

participation in cultural/archaeological heritage resource management in southern Africa (cf. Ndoro, 2001;

Lee Long, unpublished Ph.D. thesis) has failed to link cultural heritage resource management practices with the



sustainable development programme (Keitumetse, unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Conversely, in countries such as

the UK, sustainability principles are to some signifi cant degree linked to the fi eld of cultural heritage resource

management. For instance, the precautionary principle (Fisher et al., 2006) of sustainable development, which

emphasizes proactive management strategies, is incorporated and implemented through the ‘polluter pays prin-

ciple’, where a developer pays for archaeological impact assessment (cf. Smith, 1993) prior to commencement

of development activities (cf. English Heritage, 1997, 1991; Department of the Environment, England, 1990;

European Commission, 2003) as well as paying for associated conservation costs where signifi cant archaeo-

logical deposits are identifi ed in the process. The practice was legally adopted in Botswana’s Monuments and Relics Act of 2001, and is yet to be accorded systematic implementation.

At international level, the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) conven-

tions guide cultural heritage management approaches, and several of these address topics relating to sustainabil-

ity, as indicated in Table 2.

International conventions shape socio-political action and their ubiquity suggests that they can be used in under-

standing social phenomena (Miller, 2001) such as approaches to resource management approaches. The sustain-

able development programme can be viewed as a type of convention that is embraced by various governments and

global institutions.

In Botswana, as in most African countries, policies on cultural heritage resource management are limited,

mainly because the fi eld is relatively new in the region. It was not until 2001 that a Botswana National Policy on Culture, 2001 was adopted. Table 3 summarizes Botswana policies that relate to management of cultural heritage

resources.

Analysis: Community Participation as a Sustainability Indicator in Cultural Resource Management

Community participation approaches are commonly associated with a western ideology of democracy attributed

to earlier sociological philosophies by, for instance, Weber and Marx (Lehmann, 1979; Midgley, 1986; Smith,

Convention (international) Year Description

UNESCO convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage

1972 recognizes the duty of ensuring the identifi cation, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage

World Decade for Cultural Development (1988–1997) 1988 recognizes public participation in cultural heritage issues

1989 International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries

1989 reinforces the relevance of the community participation

World Commission on Culture and Development (WCCD)

1992 focuses on community culture issues

International Cultural Tourism Charter: Managing Tourism places of heritage signifi cance

1999 focuses on ‘the dynamic interaction between tourism and cultural heritage’

Universal declaration on cultural diversity, 2001 2001 Encourages cultural diversity resulting in sustainable cultures (Hall, 1992) and sustainable communities (Warburton, 1998)

UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

2003 defi nes intangible heritage as ‘. . . practices, representations and expressions, and knowledge and skills, which . . . provide communities and groups with a sense of identity and continuity’

Table 2. International conventions that relate to cultural heritage resource management

54 S. O. Keitumetse


2001). The underlying framework of the community participation principle is that ‘. . . the poor and oppressed

should be mobilized by agents external from governments . . . and encouraged to participate in decision-making for

social development at the local level’ (Midgley, 1986, p. 13). At its infancy therefore the idea of community

participation was guided by anarchism and populism ideas that considered states or governments as barriers to

community participation in development (Midgley, 1986; Rahnema, 1992). In most African contexts communities

claim affi liation and ownership of cultural heritage resources by virtue of their residence around them as well as

historical and continuous use (Keitumetse et al., 2007), while in European contexts community participation can

be advocated on different levels, among them an assertion that ‘the public’ are taxpayers and are therefore entitled

to participate in the man agement of ‘their’ heritage (Schaafsma, 1989; Faulkner, 2000; Skeates, 2000; Merriman,

2003). The tax-paying mechanism as an indicator of entitlement to participation is not applicable in African con-

texts such as Botswana where communities resident within and around historic sites are outside the tax paying

categories. In these contexts, community participation in resources management could be advocated based on the

following (Keitumetse, 2005, unpublished Ph.D. thesis):

(a) to ensure continued existence of the physical/tangible resources such as archaeological heritage, monuments,

sites, wilderness, national parks and game reserves;

(b) to ensure intellectual, emotional and economic benefi t from cultural resources by communities following

sustainable consumption patterns.

Combining a and b creates a scenario that enables communities to sustain indigenous ecological knowledge of

their heritage rendering community cultures sustainable as well as conserve resources for future generations.

Conceptual Analysis

Factors such as disciplinary ideologies and research approaches perpetuate lack of application of sustainability

principles within the fi eld of cultural heritage resource management. The fi eld of cultural heritage management

is guided by the discipline of archaeology, where it developed with a strong bias on tangible elements of heritage

such as ‘masterpieces’, monuments and objects (cf. UNESCO, 1972 Convention; Cleere, 1989; Kristiansen, 1989;

European Commission, 2003) that were devoid of social context. The content of archaeology is distant in time,

hence does not accommodate communities’ memories, while the concept of sustainable development deals with

current use and conservation of resources. These characteristics may explain a dislocated relationship between the

fi eld and the sustainable development programme as discussed earlier.

However, a promising trend is developing within the discipline of archaeology, where questions of whether to

divide ‘. . . between the thinking subject (people) and the passive object (artefacts and monuments) and replace it with

a more engaged and equal relationship’ (Rowlands, 1994, p. 129) are addressed, in the process enabling recogni-

tion of communities that are associated with ‘the passive object’ of archaeology (cf. Darvill, 1995; McManamon,

2005). The process of identifying operational approaches to these initiatives is yet to be explored.

Year Legislation Brief description

1967 Anthropological Research Act to monitor social-science research on indigenous communities1967 National Museum and Art Gallery Act to guide museum establishment1970 Tribal Land Act to address issues related to tribal land allocation and use – cultural

landscape1970 Monuments and Relics Act Chapter 59:03 for protection of archaeological features2001 Monuments and Relics Act re-enacted version of the 1970 Act that enforces archaeological impact

assessment (AIA)

Table 3. Summary of post-independence legislation that has implications for current approaches to cultural heritage management in Botswana (Keitumetse, unpublished Ph.D. thesis)



In addition, a profound lack of recognition of cultural elements and communities’ local cultural values in wilder-

ness and wildlife management can be attributed to a biased focus on tangible and visible heritage by the discipline

of archaeology where the fi eld of cultural heritage management originates (cf. UNESCO, 1972; Lowenthal,

1985; Cleere, 1989; Kristiansen, 1989; Ndoro, 2001) at the expense of the intangible heritage (UNESCO, 2003;

Keitumetse, 2006). The risks posed by alienated communities living around monuments, parks and game reserves

translate to unsustainable patterns of resource consumption illustrated by activities such as material culture dis-

placement and/or destruction, and poaching, to mention but a few.

Furthermore, the disciplinary backgrounds from which the concept of sustainable development is instituted – i.e.

the natural and environmental sciences – contribute to the missing link between the concept and other resource

management fi elds that do not fall under the conventional ‘environment’ defi nition. While in theory the Brundt-

land Commission report places signifi cant emphasis on ‘. . . eliminating the tendency to deal with one industry or

sector in isolation . . .’ (WCED, 1987, p. 63) and encourages inter-sectoral linkages, in practice the opposite is true.

Of the 27 principles listed in Agenda 21, only one principle (22) (see Table 1) makes explicit reference to cultural

heritage in the form of identity, and it is still specifi c only to indigenous communities, an approach that follows

an assumed association of indigenous communities with natural environment as perhaps informed by environ-

mental determinism theories (cf. Milton, 1996). This framework continues to perpetuate a profound neglect of

sustainable development programmes in the management of resources other than those perceived as ‘environ-

mental’ in nature. Due to its focus on natural environment as a point of departure, the sustainable development

programme has to some extent also alienated disciplines such as archaeology and its related fi eld of cultural

heritage resource management.

Way Forward: Linking Sustainability and Cultural Heritage Management

Tourism is one main medium through which a sense of place and elements of human–environment interactions

are expressed in Botswana. Eco-tourism in particular advocates responsible tourism and thus provides a sustain-

able platform for expression of cultural heritage elements. In general, tourism depends on authentic cultural

elements to communicate the ‘power of place’ (English Heritage, 2000; Carman and Keitumetse, 2005). Monitor-

ing of these activities is important in order to achieve sustainable cultural tourism.

In conservation science, current trends of resource monitoring are gradually shifting towards a process that

establishes limits of acceptable change (Stankey et al., 1985; Table 4 below) associated with the use of a particular

resource by inventorying key values and characteristics of a recreational resource or place and establishing the

maximum extent to which they may change before the core of their importance is degraded to an unacceptable

level (Stankey et al., 1985). The process constitutes nine key steps (Stankey et al., 1985) that can be applied in the

management of cultural heritage resources as a step towards achieving sustainability. Table 4 outlines opportuni-

ties for a modifi ed implementation of the process in cultural heritage resource management.

Some archaeologists and natural resource managers have embarked on indigenous knowledge from communi-

ties to locate sites in Mozambique (Sinclair, 2004; Convery, 2006). Implementation of sustainable development

principles provides a potential to improve these elementary initiatives. In addition such approaches require initial

defi nitions of concepts of ‘community’ (Keitumetse, 2006) and initial establishment of potential tourism impacts

(Burns, 1995) as well as considering elements of gender representation (Conkey and Gero, 1991; Kent, 1998;

Sorensen, 2000; Engelstad, 2000) with a general aim of achieving meaningful community participation.

Conclusion

The main aim of this article was to highlight that the principles of sustainable development can be imported into

cultural heritage resource management, and used to secure a better use and understanding of the heritage in the

forms of environment, tangible and intangible heritage (Figure 1). In particular it focuses on the sustainability

principle of involvement of local people (Table 1) in developing countries such as Botswana. Research topics linking

sustainable development programmes and cultural resource management are limited compared with similar

56 S. O. Keitumetse


research relating to natural resource management (cf. Lang, 1995; Maggio, unpublished Ph.D. thesis; Li, 2004).

This loophole emanates from a perception of sustainability as applicable only to the ‘environment’ in a conventional

context that excludes histories of human–environment interactions constituted in archaeological deposits, monu-

ments and sites, as well as broader cultural landscapes. The sustainable development (WCED, 1987) concept is

made up of various principles (Keitumetse, unpublished Ph.D. thesis; Fisher et al., 2006), some of which are of

more benefi t to management of resources of a cultural nature. Of the 27 principles of the Rio Declaration (United

Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992/Conf. 151/26 Vol I [Robinson, 1993]), those principles

that relate to community participation are more applicable to the broader concept of cultural heritage resource

management because communities are carriers, custodians and direct users of cultural heritage resources. As

already observed, in contrast to the North, ‘. . . for government and industry in the South, the focus is very much on

“meeting the needs and aspirations of the present” and it might be expected that “those of the future” would play

a minor part’ (Short, 2008, p. 56), mainly due to poverty related pressures. Community participation enables incor-

poration of histories of human–environment interactions as well as indigenous ecological knowledge, in the process

prompting communities to consider present economic needs as well as needs of the future generation. It is there-

fore pertinent that new fi elds of resource management invest fi rst in community perspectives as a strategy towards

achieving sustainability. The sustainable development framework (Table 1 and Table 5) is already built into resource

management policy of most African governments, where its implementation in cultural heritage resource manage-

ment can encompass archaeological, historic, indigenous ecological knowledge and traditional values as signifi cant

elements of environmental resource management programmes as illustrated in Figure 1 above.

Limits of acceptable change (LAC) process (Stankey et al., 1985)

Strategic implementation in cultural heritage resource management

i. Identifi cation of area concerns and issues identify issues relating to conservation of locations, features, values relating to cultural heritage resources such as archaeological sites, historical monuments, indigenous knowledge, folklore and folk-life, traditional practices and rituals associated with protected areas

ii. Defi ne opportunity classes (sub-units) per identifi ed brand

three general class categories can include authentic, semi-authentic and reconstructed/artifi cial heritage

iii. Select indicators of resource and social conditions

conditions of tangible heritage (monuments, sites, cultural objects, cultural landscapes) and intangible heritage (sacred sites, traditional practices, procedures)

iv. Inventory existing resource and social condition (quantifi able manner)

inventory conditions for selected tangible and intangible heritage identifi ed in step 3

v. Determine costs & benefi ts of each opportunity area

e.g. benefi ts of superimposing and juxtaposing cultural heritage resources on natural resources for tourism product diversifi cation – e.g. quantify costs associated with diversifi ed tourism package.

(vi). Specify standards for resource and social indicators

assign highly specifi c measures to indicators – e.g. only two vehicles per day to visit authentic archaeological site X, a sacred site to be toured only once at a specifi ed time of the year etc

(vii). Identify management actions for each alternative

e.g. in reference to (vi), authentic archaeological site could be viewed from an elevated trail as opposed to ground walking to reduce impacts on ground resources as well as restricting number of visits per day

(viii). Evaluation and selection of a preferred alternative

for Botswana alternatives could include (i) setting up community museums at periphery of parks and game reserves, (ii) set-up of community interpretation centres in vicinity of protected area and (iii) in situ excavations exhibits for use by both communities and tourists; identifi cation of indigenous walking trails within protected areas

(ix). Implement actions and monitor conditions systematic documentation and record of changes in identifi ed variables by resident/local communities and other stakeholders

Table 4. Limits of acceptable change process (Stankey et al., 1985) and potential application in the fi eld of cultural heritage management



Acknowledgement

Ph.D. supervisor, Dr. M. L. S. Sorensen, Department of Archaeology, Cambridge University, for extensive editing of my Ph.D. manuscripts that resulted in the paper. Cambridge Livingstone Trust and Downing College, Cambridge for research funding. University of Botswana’s Offi ce of Research and Development for research funding.

References

Binns T, Nel E. 2002. Tourism as a local development strategy in South Africa. The Geographical Journal 168(3): 235–245.

Burns P (ed.). 1995. Tourism: in search of paradox and paradigms. In Tourism and Minorities’ Heritage: Impacts and Prospects (Papers in Leisure and Tourism Studies No. 6), Burns P (ed.) University of North London: London; 9–12.

Carman J, Keitumetse S. 2005. Talking about heritage and tourism. In The SAA Archaeological Record. No. 3 vol. 5. Society for American

Archaeologists: Washington; 39–41.

Carver M. 1996. On archaeological value. Antiquity 70: 40–56.

Cleere H. 1989. Introduction: the rationale of archaeological heritage management. In Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World,

Cleere H (ed.). Routledge: London; 5–17.

Conkey M, Gero J. 1991. Tensions, pluralities, and engendering archaeology: an introduction to women and prehistory. In Engendering Archae-ology: Women and Prehistory, Gero J, Conkey M (eds). Blackwell: Oxford; 3–30.

Convery I. 2006. Lifescapes and governance: the regulo system in central Mozambique. Review of African Political Economy 108: 67–85.

Darvill T. 1995. Value and systems in archaeology. In Managing Archaeology, Cooper MA et al. (eds). Routledge: London; 40–50.

Department of the Environment, England. 1990. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG16): Archaeology and Planning. Department of the Environment:

London.

Edroma EL. 2004. Linking universal and local values for the sustainable management of world heritage sites. In World Heritage Papers 13, Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage, conference organized by the Netherlands National

Commission for UNESCO, in Collaboration with the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2003. UNESCO: Paris;

36–41.

Sustainable development strategic imperatives Relevance/lessons for cultural resource management

1. Reviving economic growth enhancing cultural value (Carver, 1996) through social development2. Changing the quality of growth by meeting human

needs by increasing productive potential and ensuring equitable opportunities for all

sustainable cultural tourism incorporating aspects of intangible (community based) and the tangible (physical heritage and landscapes)

3. Ensuring a sustainable level of population monitoring access to monuments; establishing and abiding by carrying capacity levels as well as establishing limits of acceptable change (LAC) for cultural resource utilization

4. Conserving and enhancing the resource base research that covers all values attached to a heritage (Keitumetse, unpublished Ph.D. thesis).

5. Reorienting technology and managing risk virtual heritage interpretation and presentation and high-tech museums

6. Merging environment and economics in decision making

merging other uses of the historic environment with sustainable practices of monument tourism.

7. Participation of all concerned citizens at the national level

active and meaningful local community involvement in natural resource management through implementation of cultural heritage perspectives

8. Strengthening of SD and important linkages between poverty, the environment, and the use of natural resources.

recognize community-based cultural heritage management approaches as of strategic importance to poverty alleviation

9. The emergence of partnerships SD in the broader heritage management perspective that includes human–environment interactions

Table 5. Sustainable development strategic imperatives as contained in WCED, 1987, p. 49, and their fundamental potential relevance to cultural heritage management

58 S. O. Keitumetse


Engelstad E. 2000. Gender, feminism, and sexuality in archaeological studies. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences: 6002–6006.

English Heritage. 1991. Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP 2). English Heritage: London.

English Heritage. 1997. The Monuments Protection Programme: an Introduction. English Heritage: London.

English Heritage. 2000. Power of Place: the Future of the Historic Environment. English Heritage: London.

European Commission. 2003. Using Natural and Cultural Heritage to Develop Sustainable Tourism. European Commission: Brussels.

Faulkner N. 2000. Archaeology from below. Public Archaeology 1: 21–33.

Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (eds). 2006. Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects. Elgar: Cheltenham;

1–11.

Green CH. 1995. Economics: Casting a Light or Darkness Upon Sustainable Development. Middlesex University: Enfi eld.

Hall D. 1992. A Dialogue of Cultures for Sustainable Development. Commonwealth Human Ecology Council: London.

Holtorf C. 2001. Is the past a non-renewable resource? In The Conservation and Destruction of Cultural Property, Layton R, Stone P, Thomas J

(eds). Routledge: London; 286–295.

International Labour Organisation (ILO). 1989. Convention (No. 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Adopted

on 27 June 1989 by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation at its 76th session. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/

menu3/b/62.htm [11 May 2009].

Keitumetse S. 2006. UNESCO 2003 Convention on Intangible Heritage: practical implications for heritage management approaches in Africa.

South African Archaeological Bulletin 61(184): 166–171.

Keitumetse S, Matlapeng G, Monamo L. 2007. Cultural landscapes, communities and world heritage: in pursuit of the local in the Tsodilo

Hills, Botswana. In Series: World Archaeological Congress (WAC) Envisioning Landscape: Situations and Standpoints in Archaeology and Heritage, Hicks D, McAtackney L, Fairclough G (eds). Left Coast: Walnut Creek, CA; 101–117.

Kent S (ed.). 1998. Gender in African Prehistory. Alta Mira: London.

Kopp H. 2005. Sustainability, culture and regional scales: some remarks from human geography. In Global Sustainability: the Impact of Local Cultures, a New Perspective for Science, Engineering, Economics and Politics, Wilderer PA, Schroeder ED, Kopp H (eds). Wiley-VCH:

Weinheim; 143–144.

Kristiansen K. 1989. Perspectives on the Archaeological Heritage: History and Future, in Cleere, H. F. (ed.). Archaeological Heritage Manage-ment in the Modern World. 23–29. Boston: Unwin

Kristiansen K. 1992. The strength of the past and its great might: an essay on the use of the past. Journal of European Archaeology 1: 3–32.

Lehmann D. 1979. Introduction. In Development Theory: Four Critical Studies, Lehmann D et al. (ed.). Cass: London; 1–6.

Li Y. 2004. Exploring community tourism in China: the case of Nanshan Cultural Tourism Zone. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(3): 175–

190.

Lipe W. 1984. Value and meaning in cultural resources. In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, Cleare HF (ed.). Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge; 1–11.

Maggio GF. 1996. The Role of International Law in Promoting the Sustainable Development of Natural Resources: A Focus on Living Resource Regimes. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Law, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

McManamon F. 2005. The public meaning of America’s archaeological heritage. Society for American Archaeologists 5(2): 22–23.

Merriman N. 2003. Public Archaeology. Routledge: London.

Meskell, L (ed.). 1998. Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Routledge:

London.

Midgley J. 1986. Community participation: history, concepts and controversies. In Community Participation, Social Development and the State,

Midgley J (ed.). Methuen: London; 13–44.

Miller S. 2001. Social Action: A Teleological Account. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Milton K. 1996. Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse. Routledge: London.

Mukherjee N. 1993. Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methodology and Applications, Studies in Rural Participation 1. Concept: New Delhi.

Ndoro W. 2001. Your Monument Our Shrine. Uppsala University: Uppsala.

Pearce D et al. 1993. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. Earthscan: London.

Quarrie J (ed.). 1992. Earth Summit ’92: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro.

Rahnema M. 1992. Participation. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, Sachs W (ed.). Witwatersrand University Press:

Johannesburg.

Redclift M. 1987. Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. Methuen: London.

Republic of Botswana, Department of Culture and Youth. National Policy on Culture, October 2001. Government Printer: Gaborone.

Republic of Botswana, Department of Tourism. Tourism Policy: Government Paper No. 2 of 1990. Government Printer: Gaborone.

Republic of Botswana, Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act No. 28 of 1992. Government

Printer: Gaborone.

Republic of Botswana, Ministry of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism (MEWT). 2007. Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Policy. Government Printer: Gaborone.

Republic of Botswana, Ministry of Home Affairs. Monuments and Relics Act 1970, Chapter 59:03. Government Printer: Gaborone.

Republic of Botswana, Ministry of Home Affairs. Monuments and Relics Act No.12 of 2001. Government Printer: Gaborone.

Robinson N (ed.). 1993. Agenda 21 and The UNCED Proceedings. Third Series: International Protection of the Environment, Vol. 6. Oceana: New

York.



Roe DM, Grieg-Gran M, Schalken W. 2001. Getting the Lion’s Share from Tourism: Private Sector–Community Partnerships in Namibia. Poverty, Inequality and Environment Series No.1, Vols 1–3. IIED and NACOBTA: Namibia.

Rowlands MJ. 1994. The politics of identity in archaeology. In Social Construction of the Past: Representations as Power, Bond GC, Gilliam A

(eds). Routledge: London; 129–143.

Schaafsma F. 1989. Signifi cant until proven otherwise: problems versus representative samples. In Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World. One World Archaeology 9, Cleere HF (ed.). Unwin: London; 38–51.

Sengupta R. 2001. Ecology and Economics: an Approach to Sustainable Development. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Short T. 2008. Sustainable development in Rwanda: industry and government. Sustainable Development 16: 56–69.

Sinclair P. 2004. Archaeology and identity: some examples from Southern Africa. In Combining the Past and the Present: Archaeological Perspec-tives on Society, Oestigaard T et al. (eds). Proceedings from the conference Prehistory in Global Perspective, Bergen, 2001, BAR International

Series 1210. Archaeopress: Oxford; 171–179.

Skeates R. 2000. Debating the Archaeological Heritage. Duckworth: London.

Smith GL. 1993. Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management. Longman: Edinburgh.

Smith P. 2001. Cultural Theory: an Introduction. Blackwell: Oxford.

Sorensen MLS. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Polity: Cambridge.

Stankey GH, Cole DN, Lucas RC, Peterson ME, Frissell SS. 1985. Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. General.

Technical. Report INT-176. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Ogden.

UNESCO. 1972. The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) meeting,

Paris, 1972, 17th session. Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted 1972.

UNESCO. 2003. The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) meeting, Paris,

2003, 32nd session. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, adopted 17 October 2003. Paris.

Warburton D. 1998. Community and Sustainable Development: Participation in the Future. Earthscan: London.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Documents

Sustainable development and cultural heritage management in Botswana: towards sustainable communities