Posted on May 12, 2010
In addition to the many communities that are involved in these land claims, there are communities that have mushroomed in vast tracts of vacant municipal land. The gross lack of land for adequate housing for a vast majority of our population has resulted in these squatter settlements as a result of people 'invading' municipal land. This poses a huge challenge and burden to municipalities, as they have to provide infrastructure to areas that are not suitable for proper human settlement.
There has been widespread protest across the country around the lack of service delivery by the government, especially targeted at municipalities who are at the coalface of service delivery to communities. The lack of housing and infrastructure are at the very core of the frustration of communities about the lack of service delivery by the government.
There need for the socio-economic development of communities versus the constitutional obligation to protect areas that have 'World Heritage Status' has resulted in a interesting case at the Cradle of Humankind. The community of Kromdraai, made up of farm workers from neighbouring farms, has 'invaded' municipal land that is 4km from the world-renowned Sterkfontein Caves and hundreds of metres away from another significant palaeoanthropological site, Munaar's Caves. The Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site Conservation Group, a group of 'concerned' residents, has approached the High Court in Pretoria to stop the squatter from further 'invading sensitive' within the Cradle of Humankind. The land was initially bought by the West Rand District Municipality in 2005 and earmarked for a housing development that was to comprise 43 houses. The government's Council for Geosciences later found that the land was in an area of shallow dolomite bedrock and unsuitable for development.
The Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site Conservation Group has told the High Court that when the approached the 'land invaders' to ask them who gave them permission to move onto the land, many have said that it's the municipality that gave them permission. Within three weeks of the first structure being put up on the land, there are now 25 shacks and more than 250 people living there. The municipality has vehemently denied giving the 'squatters' permission to live on the land.
The matter now is before the High Court, which in itself is an interesting development. The court has to now essentially decide between the interest of the community and protecting the World Heritage status of the land. Our courts are increasingly being called upon to arbitrate between community needs and constitutional heritage imperatives. The question that is raised then, is to ask if our courts are adequately empowered to deal sensitively to heritage issues or if indeed they are the appropriate vehicle by which to address these kind of disputes. Our judicial officials are often hampered by the lack of adequate legislation to deal with these often complex land issues where the heritage imperatives are often in direct conflict with the needs of the communities. Which cause is more just? This presents further challenges to heritage practitioners not only across the country but across the world - especially in post-colonial societies. Where our often complex histories further complicate the drive, by these post-independence governments, towards reconstruction and development.
These are the difficult questions that we need to ask ourselves, as we seek to protect and preserve our heritage resources, how do we balance these needs adequately so that it's a win-win for communities and the preservation of heritage alike. There may be no easy answers, but the continued and sustained consultation and engagement with communities as well as the various stakeholders has to be overriding strategy that informs the resolution of these land struggles.
Uthando Baduza is an Archival Platform correspondent.