ABSTRACT
Much of the debate concerning efforts to preserve heritage in Africa and elsewhere has been shaped by the notion that ‘heritage must pay’ (Meskell 2012). Heritage has been relentlessly promoted as a potential socio-economic driver mostly for impoverished communities. Yet, a closer look into ‘community benefit’ through heritage reveals that negative results are far more common than positive ones. While many heritage places in Africa are discursively constructed as important for the economic growth and development of local communities living near these sites, the promoters of participatory approaches to management of heritage have actively marginalized local communities, resulting in their loss of social capital and access to heritage sites. The interpretation of what constitutes ‘participation’ differs from one context to another: the degree of participation, including the rights of the often-poor local communities to use resources, depends on the political will of officials, donors and experts. This paper brings together published evidence of the several problems both with the discourse and practice regarding ‘community benefit’ through heritage management that has come to shape the relationship between heritage practitioners and various segments of the public, especially ‘local communities’.
