 the staple of palaeosciences, to destruction. There is also the possibility that archaeologists take advantage of ineffective laws in some countries to carry out substandard work.

Perhaps the biggest problem that faces pre-development impact studies in Africa is that there are no quality-control measures - both for archaeologists and antiquities departments. The standard practice is that consultants submit reports to antiquities bodies for evaluation and authorisation. Often the antiquities bodies are understaffed and projects are given the go ahead without full consideration of the consequences for heritage. In South Africa, the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists accredits its members to carry out heritage impact assessments. However, the Association lacks a legal standing and there are no consequences for sub-standard work.12 The South African Heritage Resources Agency also does not sanction such perpetrators although it has recently started 'to be firm' with substandard reports. Thus even in cases where strong laws exist, impact assessments are not producing a quality database essential for future conservation and research endeavours.

In a world where the rights of host communities are increasingly becoming more recognised, local communities are still not widely involved in heritage conservation endeavours.5 Involvement is crucial because there are so many stakeholders in heritage beyond the practitioners, governments, researchers and developers. Most heritage legal instruments have no role for these communities which make them spectators in the study and protection of their own heritage.3 It seems that such a problem is more acute for human origins sites because most date so far back that no local people directly associate with them. The tendency has been for scientists to carry out their work without involving local people or by merely employing them as labourers. If local people are to associate with this heritage and therefore support its conservation, more effort must be invested in programmes aimed at bringing them onboard. Even in South Africa where the law requires community involvement, consultation is often carried out towards the end of projects when all major decisions would have been made.

Although international cooperation has resulted in the accrual of massive benefits for African heritage conservation,7 there are other areas that can be considerably improved. International cooperation programmes typically involve capacity building for heritage conservators in the form of workshops and seminars. A good example is the programme Africa 2009 which was sponsored by ICCROM and other bodies. Spread across many African countries, the Africa 2009 project built capacity in identifying heritage assets and developing inventories. Useful publications also came out of the project. However, the main problem is that despite having the capacity, most
the staple of palaeosciences, to destruction. There is also the hypothesis that archeologist contract advantage of ineffective laws in some nation to impart out substandard work. 

 possibly the biggest problem that faces pre - development impingement studies in Africa is that there are no timbre - control measures - both for archaeologists and antiquities department. The standard practice is that consultants submit reports to antiquities body for evaluation and authorisation. Often the antiquities body are understaffed and projects are given the go ahead without entire consideration of the consequences for heritage. In South Africa, the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists accredits its members to impart out heritage impact assessments. However, the Association lacks a legal standing and there are no consequence for sub - standard work.12 The South African Heritage Resources Agency also does not sanction such perpetrators although it has recently started' to be firm' with substandard reports. Thus even in cases where strong torah exist, impact assessments are not grow a quality database essential for future conservation and research endeavours. 

 In a populace where the rights of host communities are increasingly becoming more recognize, local communities are still not widely involved in heritage conservation endeavours.5 Involvement is crucial because there be so many stakeholders in heritage beyond the practitioners, governments, researchers and developer. Most heritage legal instruments have no role for these communities which do them spectators in the study and protection of their own heritage.3 It seem that such a problem is more acute for human origins sites because most date indeed far back that no local people immediately associate with them. The tendency has been for scientists to carry out their work without involve local people or by merely use them as labourers. If local multitude are to associate with this heritage and therefore support its conservation, more effort must be invest in programmes aim at bringing them onboard. Even in South Africa where the law requires community involvement, reference is often carried out towards the goal of projects when all major decisions would have been made. 

 Although international cooperation has resulted in the accrual of massive benefits for African inheritance conservation,7 there are other areas that can be considerably improved. International cooperation programmes typically imply capability building for heritage conservators in the form of workshops and seminars. A full example is the programme Africa 2009 which was sponsored by ICCROM and early bodies. go around across many African countries, the Africa 2009 project built capacitance in identifying heritage assets and develop inventories. Useful publication also came out of the project. However, the main problem is that despite having the capacitance, most
 thf staple of palaeosciencts, to destruction. There ms also the posribility that archaeologists tqke aevantage of ineffectivd laws in some coyntrmes to carry out substandard wkvk.

Perka's the biggest kroblem that faces pre-devenoomznt impact studies in Africa is that there srf no quality-cogtrok meaalrts - both for archaeologists and ahtiquitpes departments. Tne standard practice is thwt clnsultants submit geports to qntizyities bodier for evallction and aothorisation. Often the antiquitids bobies are uneeestwxfed and prijectf are given bne go dhead wothout full coksidecatiin of the consequencev for heritage. In Fouth Afrhcc, the Association of Woythert Afsicav Prufeasmonzl Arcjaeklogists adcredits itw members to carry pue heritage impzct asfefsments. However, the Association lacks a lefal standing and there qre no consequences flr sub-stagdard work.12 The South African Heritage Resources Acency xlsi quws not sanction such perpetrators although it hwa tebently started 'to be firm' wiyh sifstandard repurts. Tkhs even in cases whege strogg laqs exist, ympavt assessments are not prodycing a qualpty eatabase essential for future conxervayion and research endearours.

Ih a world wjere the dkghts of host coomukithes are increasingly becomyng more cecoguised, lozal vommunyties are dtill not widely involvef in keritdge consergation endeavours.5 Involvement is crucial becaose thvre are sj mann stakeholders yn heritage beiond the 'ractigioners, gonernments, researcherf and developats. Most heritege legal insrrumwnts haxd no role for yhese communities wyich make them spegtatots in the study aub kritection of thrir owg jecitagq.3 It seems thdt sjch s proclem is morc azute for human origins shtes because most date sj far baxk that go local peopke directly associwte wmth thxm. The tegdency has been for scientists to carry oub their work rithiut involviny local people or by merely employing thxm as labourers. If locao people are to asspgiate with tiis hewitage ang therefore support uts conservation, kore effort must be ihvesteg in orogrammes aimed at bringing them onboard. Even in South Africa where the oaw requires commuhity invonvzmeut, constltaviun is often carrped out towards the end of projerts when anl major decisions would have nedn made.

Althoueh international cooperafion has resulted in the accrual of masxive benefits for Africak heritagw conaervatpkn,7 there are other ateas tkat cab be cobsidcrably improvea. Imtcrnational cookeracion programmes typically involve capacutj building for hxritage conscryators in thg form of workshols ahf semknars. A good rxample is the programme Africa 2009 wvish was sponsortd by ICCROM anc othgx bodies. Spreed across maty African countries, the Africa 2009 project built capabity in idtntifying ieritage assetx and developing inventpryes. Usefjl publicatimns also came out of the project. However, thx main prjblem is that desppte having the capagnty, most
the staple of palaeosciences, to destruction. There the that archaeologists advantage of ineffective carry substandard work. Perhaps biggest problem that pre-development impact studies in Africa is there are no quality-control measures - both for archaeologists and antiquities departments. The practice is that consultants submit reports to antiquities bodies for evaluation and authorisation. the bodies understaffed projects are given the go ahead without full consideration of the consequences for heritage. In South the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists accredits members to carry out impact assessments. However, the Association a standing and are consequences sub-standard work.12 The African Heritage Resources Agency also does not sanction such perpetrators although it has recently started 'to be with substandard even in where laws impact assessments are a quality database essential for future endeavours. In a world where the rights of communities are becoming more recognised, local communities are not widely involved in heritage conservation endeavours.5 Involvement crucial because there are so many stakeholders in heritage beyond the practitioners, governments, researchers and heritage legal instruments have role for these which them in study and of their own heritage.3 It seems that such a problem is acute for human origins sites because most date so far no people directly associate them. The tendency has for to carry out their involving people employing as If local people are associate with this heritage and support its conservation, more programmes aimed at bringing them onboard. Even in Africa where the law requires community involvement, is often carried out towards the end of projects when all major would have Although international cooperation has resulted in the accrual massive benefits for African conservation,7 there are other areas that can be considerably International programmes typically capacity building for conservators in the of workshops and good example the Africa sponsored by ICCROM and other bodies. across African countries, the Africa 2009 built identifying heritage assets and developing inventories. Useful publications also came out of the project. However, problem is that despite the most
 the staple of palaeosciences, To destructIon. ThEre Is aLsO the PossIbility that arcHAeolOgists take advantage of iNeffeCtIVe laWS iN some CountriES tO CArrY oUt SubStANdArd woRk.

PErhaps tHe biggest pRobLeM that faces prE-DeVelopment iMpaCt studies in AFriCa is thAt TheRE are nO quAlity-ControL MeasurEs - both for ArCHaeoloGIsts and ANTiQuitIes departments. The STaNDard practice is That coNsULtANTs sUbmIt reports tO aNtiquITies bodIEs FOR EvaLUation and authOrisation. OfTEn tHe antiQuItiES bodieS are uNdERstAffed and proJectS are given The go aHEad withOUt full cOnsideRatIon Of thE CoNsEquEnCEs fOR hEriTAge. in South AFrIcA, the ASsocIATIOn of souTherN AfriCan ProfessionAl ARchaEOloGists AccreDits ItS membErs to cArry oUt Heritage impact aSsesSments. HowEveR, tHe ASsOciatIOn lackS a lEgaL standiNg and thERe aRe NO COnSequences for sub-staNdARD wOrk.12 The SoUth AfrICaN HERitage ReSoUrcEs AgENCy alsO doeS NoT sanctioN such pERpEtRators aLtHough iT hAs rEceNtly sTArteD 'to be fIrm' with sUbstaNDard reports. ThuS Even in cases whERe STRoNG lawS exIst, impact asSessMEnts Are nOT pRodUCing a QualiTy DAtABase essential for futUrE conseRvatiOn and research Endeavours.

iN A World wheRe thE RiGHts of host commuNitieS are increaSIngly becOming More recoGnised, locAL CommunitIes Are StiLl nOT WiDely involved iN HEritAgE conserVatIon endeAvoUrs.5 invOlvEmEnt is crucIal becauSe ThErE aRe sO many STakeholdErS in HeRitAge beYOnd the PractItioNeRs, GOveRnments, REsEARcheRs AnD devEloPeRs. MosT herITagE legal iNstrumentS haVE no rOlE fOr these Communities whIcH make them sPeCtaTors in THE study anD protection of their own heRItage.3 It SeeMs thaT sucH a problem Is mOre acuTe fOR human OriginS siteS bEcaUSE most DATe So fAr Back that no LOCal PeoplE dIrecTly assoCiate with them. The teNDenCy has been for sCieNtisTS To CarRY oUT thEiR WorK WIthout involving Local peoplE oR By Merely emplOYinG tHem as laBourers. if locAL people Are to assoCiate with ThIs heRITagE and therefOre suppoRt its consERvatiON, mOre efForT must bE iNveSted iN progrAMmeS aimeD at briNgIng theM onboArD. Even in SOuth Africa where the law reQuires CommuNitY involvemEnt, COnsUltation iS oftEn carried oUt tOwaRds thE enD Of proJectS WhEn aLL majoR decISions woulD HaVe bEEN mAde.

Although INTErnAtionAl cOOperatIon hAs resulted in the acCRual of massive bEnefITS foR AfRIcan HeRitage conservaTioN,7 tHERe are othEr Areas that caN be consiDeRAbly iMproveD. InterNationaL COoPEratioN proGraMmes typicAllY iNVolve caPaCiTY buildIng fOr HeritaGe consERvatORS in the form of workShops AND semiNArs. a good ExAmple is THe prOgramme AfrIca 2009 which was SponsoRed bY ICCRoM and otHeR bodieS. SpReAd across maNY African cOuntrIes, the AFrIca 2009 pRojEct buiLt caPACity iN ideNtIfyIng heritaGE AsSEtS aND deVeloPing iNvEntoRies. UsefuL PublicatIonS Also camE oUt oF THe projECt. hOWever, the maIn pRobleM IS that despiTE havINg THe capAcity, mOst
 the staple of palaeoscien ces, to de struc tio n.Th ereis a lso the possib i lity  that archaeologists t ake a dv a ntag e  o f ine ffectiv e  l a w s i nso meco u nt riestocarry o ut substan dar dwork.

Perha p sthe bigges t p roblem thatfac es pre -d eve l opmen t i mpact  studi e s in A frica isth a t ther e  are no q ua lity -control measures -b oth for archae ologis ts an d ant iqu ities depa rt ments .  The st a nd a r d  pr a ctice is that  consultant s  su bmit r ep ort s  to an tiqui ti e s b odies for e valu ation and  autho r isation .  Oftenthe an tiq uit iesb od ie s a re und e rs taf f edand proj ec ts  aregive n t h e go  ah eadwitho ut full consi der atio n  of  theconse quen ce s for  herit age.In  South Africa,theAssociati onof  So ut hernA frican  Pr ofe ssional  Archae o log is t s ac credits its member st o  c arry out  herit a ge  i m pact ass es sme nts. H oweve r, t h eAssociat ion la c ks  a  legalst anding  a ndthe re ar e  noconseq uences f or su b -standard work . 12 The SouthA fr i c an Heri tag e Resources  Age n cy a lsod oe s n o t san ction  s u ch perpetrators althou gh  it ha s rec ently started  'to be fi r m '  with su bsta n da r d reports. Thu s eve n in cases where st ronglaws exi st, impac t assessme nts  ar e n otp r od ucing a quali t y  dat ab ase ess ent ial for  fu tur e c ons er vation an d resear ch  e nd ea vou rs.
I n a worl dwhe re  th e rig h ts ofhostcomm un it i esare inc r ea s i ngly  b ec omin g m or e rec ogni s ed,  localcommuniti esa re s ti ll  not wi dely involved  i n heritage  c ons ervati o n  endeavo urs.5 Involvement is cr u cial be cau se th ereare so ma nystakeh old e rs inherita ge be yo ndt h e pra c t it ion er s, governm e n ts,  rese ar cher s and d evelopers. Most he r ita ge legal inst rum ents h av e n o  r o lefo r  th e s e communities w hich maketh e mspectators inth e study  and pr otect i on of t heir ownheritage. 3It s e e msthat sucha proble m is more acute fo r hum anorigin ssit es be causem ost  date  so fa rback t hat n olocal pe ople directly associate  withthem.  Th e tendenc y h a s b een for s cien tists to c arr y o ut th eir workwith o ut  in v olvin g lo c al people or  by m er ely employi n g the m aslab o urers.  Iflocal people aret o associate wi th t h i s h eri t agean d therefore su ppo rt i ts conse rv ation, more  effortmu s t beinvest ed inprogram m e sa imed a t br ing ing themonb oa r d. Even  i nS outh A fric awherethe la w  req u i res community in volve m e nt, c o nsu ltati on  is oft e n ca rried outtowards the  end o f pr oject s whenal l majo r d ec isions wou l d have be en ma de.

Al th ough  in ternat iona l coope rati on  ha s resulte d in th ea ccr ualof ma ss ivebenefitsf or Afric anh eritage  c ons e r vation , 7t h ere are ot her  area s that can b e  con s id e rably  impro ved. I nternat i ona lcoopera tio n programme s typical l y i nv olve  capacit ybuil di ngfo r heritage cons ervators  in thef o rm ofwor k shop s  and s em inars. A goo d exa mp l e is th e pro grammeA fri ca200 9 wh ich  was sponsored by ICCROM andothe r bod i es.  Spre ad ac ro ss manyA fric an count r ies, the Afri ca 2009 project bui l t ca pac i ty  i n identif yin g  heri tage  as sets  an d de v e lopi n g in v en tori es. Us eful  p ub lications  a lso cam e  out oftheproje ct .H ow ever, t he mainprobl em  is thatd espitehavi ng  the capacity , most
 the_staple of_palaeosciences, to destruction. There_is also_the_possibility that_archaeologists_take advantage of_ineffective laws in_some countries to carry_out substandard work.

Perhaps_the_biggest problem that faces pre-development impact studies in Africa is that there are no_quality-control_measures -_both_for_archaeologists and antiquities departments. The_standard practice is that consultants_submit reports_to antiquities bodies for evaluation and authorisation. Often_the_antiquities bodies are_understaffed and projects are given the go ahead without_full consideration of the consequences for_heritage. In South_Africa,_the_Association of Southern African_Professional Archaeologists accredits its members to_carry out heritage impact assessments. However,_the Association lacks a legal standing and_there are no consequences for sub-standard_work.12 The South African Heritage_Resources Agency_also does not sanction such_perpetrators although it_has recently_started 'to be_firm' with substandard reports. Thus even_in cases where_strong laws exist, impact assessments are_not_producing a quality_database_essential_for future_conservation and research_endeavours.

In_a world_where_the rights of host communities are_increasingly_becoming more recognised, local communities are still_not widely involved in_heritage_conservation endeavours.5 Involvement is_crucial because there are so_many stakeholders in heritage beyond the_practitioners, governments,_researchers and_developers. Most heritage legal instruments have no role for these communities_which make them spectators in the_study and protection of_their own_heritage.3_It seems that_such_a problem_is more acute for human origins sites_because most_date so far back that no_local people directly associate_with_them. The tendency has been for_scientists to carry out their work_without involving local people or_by_merely_employing them as labourers. If_local people are to associate with_this heritage and_therefore support its conservation, more effort must_be_invested in programmes aimed at bringing_them_onboard. Even in South Africa where_the_law_requires community involvement, consultation is_often carried out towards the end_of projects when all major decisions would have been_made.

Although international cooperation_has resulted in the accrual_of_massive_benefits for African heritage conservation,7 there are other areas that_can be_considerably improved. International_cooperation programmes typically involve capacity building for heritage conservators in_the form of workshops and seminars. A_good example is the programme Africa 2009 which was sponsored by_ICCROM and other bodies. Spread across many African_countries, the Africa 2009 project built capacity_in identifying heritage assets_and_developing inventories. Useful publications also came out_of_the_project._However, the main_problem is that_despite having the_capacity, most