Page 94 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 13(1) (2025)

the main focus of the environmental impact as- stage at which each one of them should be ap-
sessment. Contract archaeology that was based plied for was specified. Such clear guidelines
on archaeological impact assessments thus fol- were useful in managing the process of conduct-
lowed the guidelines and procedures of environ- ing archaeological impact assessment in South
mental assessment. The implementation of the Africa. The lack of such clear guidelines, in Na-
mitigation measures depended on the goodwill mibia, at the inception of the practice, inhibited
of the developer and the Environmental Com- the proper management of contract archaeology.
missioner. The absence of guidelines and pro- Before 2021, developers did not have guidelines
cedures for heritage or archaeological impact and procedures with which they could make in-
assessments in the National Heritage Coun- formed decisions about archaeological heritage.
cil compounded the challenge of regulating the The absence of clear guidelines can, in some
practice of contract archaeology. The archaeolo- cases, lead to confusion among permit appli-
94 gy component of the environmental impact as- cants regarding the appropriate procedures for
sessment was evaluated by the scientific com- obtaining permits under the National Heritage
mittee of the National Heritage Council, the Act (2004). In one instance, a dispute arose in
studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 13 (2025), številka 1 / volume 13 (2025), number 1
majority of whom did not have experience or 2011 when a mining company applied for an ex-
qualifications in archaeology. Therefore, one emption to conduct predevelopment archaeo-
major argument that this article makes is that logical surveys under Section 47 of the Act. The
the lack of national guidelines and procedures National Heritage Council (NHC) rejected the
regarding the practice of heritage impact as- application, asserting that the company should
sessment or archaeological impact assessments have applied for a research permit under Sec-
resulted in the lack of standardisation and in- tion 52 instead. The mining company, seeking
adequate administration of the practice of con- legal advice, argued that Section 55(8) allowed
tract archaeology at the time when the practice for consent to conduct such surveys without a
emerged in Namibia. permit. Upon consulting their own legal coun-
In South Africa, some guidelines that de- sel, the NHC confirmed the validity of this in-
fined the minimum standards for the archaeo- terpretation. Consequently, the NHC grant-
logical and paleontological components of im- ed consent under Section 55(9), as the company
pact assessment reports were developed and had demonstrated the involvement of a qualified
published by SAHRA. The guidelines stand- professional, meeting the legal requirements.
ardised the work and procedures that were to be This case demonstrated the need for guide-
followed by contract archaeologists. The guide- lines. The mining company had applied for an
lines prescribed how archaeological impact as- exemption from a permit instead of a research
sessment reports were to be written. In particu- permit. Upon realising that they could not ob-
lar, the guidelines clearly specified the kinds of tain an exemption, the mining company opted
information and levels of information expected to change and apply for a consent. Guidelines
in each section of the reports. Such a standard- for archaeological impact assessments would
ised approach allowed the heritage authorities to have contained the types of permits that could
make informed decisions when evaluating the be applied for and the stages of work at which
reports and deciding on mitigation. such permits should be applied for. The NHC
The SAHRA guidelines were unambigu- contested the selection of the consultant archae-
ous in their distinction between test pit permits, ologist preferred by the mining company. They
mitigation permits, destruction permits or per- insisted that the NHC should provide the pro-
missions, and interpretation permits (South Af- fessional archaeologist (‘Letter from the Direc-
rican Heritage Resources Agency n.d.). These tor of the National Heritage Council’ 2011).
types of permits were clearly stipulated, and the However, the legal advisor of the NHC pointed